Namecheap scores win in .org price-cap lawsuit

Namecheap’s lawsuit over ICANN’s decision to lift price caps in .org and .info will be allowed to proceed, a California judge has ruled.

The Superior Court in Los Angeles recently threw out ICANN’s attempt to get the case dismissed, according to court documents released by ICANN. There will now be a hearing in January.

Namecheap’s lawsuit concerns ICANN’s decision in 2019 to lift price caps in Public Interest Registry’s .org contract and the .info contract then with Afilias (now Identity Digital).

Both registries had previously been limited to a 10% price increase every year.

The registrar filed an Independent Review Process case against ICANN, which is mostly won. In 2022, the IRP panel slammed ICANN for its secrecy and lack of adherence to its bylaws and issued seven recommended actions the Org could take to rectify its transgressions.

In the current lawsuit, filed this January, Namecheap claims that ICANN “largely ignored” most of these recommendations. It wants the court to force the Org to abide by the IRP ruling, which among other things calls for ICANN to look into reinstituting price caps.

But ICANN objected, saying Namecheap “is asking this Court to convert recommendations into requirements”, adding that it “does not have an obligation to act in accordance with the ‘recommendations’ of an IRP Panel”.

It demurred, asking the court to throw out Namecheap’s complaint, but the court declined to do so on legal grounds, meaning the claims will be heard on the merits.

In the five years since the .org and .info price caps were lifted, non-profit PIR has not raised .org prices once.

For-profit Identity Digital has raised .info prices every year, by between 9.38% and 11.03%, raising the cost from $10.84 in 2019 to $17.50 today. The price will go up again by 8.57% to $19.00 in January.

.io sells $40 million of domains after massive uptick

.io is now a $40-million-a-year domain, after a few years of impressive growth, judging by the registry’s latest financial reports.

UK-based Internet Computer Bureau, a subsidiary of Identity Digital, recently reported turnover of £29.6 million ($39.6 million) for 2023, up 13.9% on the £26.1 million it reported in 2022.

While that’s respectable growth, it pales compared to 2022 (which I don’t think was reported at the time), when turnover was up a whopping 59%.

Identity Digital does not reveal .io’s registration numbers, but with turnover of over $39 million and retail renewal prices bottoming out at around $39 a year, it seems quite possible that the TLD’s domains under management has reached seven digits.

When Afilias paid $70 million for ICB in 2017, it had turnover of $7 million and domains were reported at 270,000.

ICB’s gross margins are terrible — one can only assume its registry services deal with Identity Digital is rather generous to its parent — at 4.4%, with £28 million being paid out as cost of sales.

With another £3 million of unelaborated “administrative expenses”, ICB reported a 2023 net loss of £404,000 compared to a 2022 profit of £1.7 million. It paid £17,660 in UK tax, down from £277,703. It had just $69,000 cash on hand at the end of the year.

While ICB also runs .ac (Ascension Island) and .sh (Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha), it’s only .io that has seen broad uptake among the global domain-registering public. Tech firms like it because I/O means “input/output”.

.io is the ccTLD for the contested British Indian Ocean Territory, also known as the Chagos Archipelago, which is administered from the UK and used almost exclusively to house a strategically important US military base.

Former .co registry defeated in $350 million contract fix case

The Neustar spin-off that once operated the .co TLD reportedly has lost a case against the Colombian government in which it had sought $350 million in damages over the acrimonious renewal of its registry contract.

According to local reports, the International Center for the Settlement of Investment Disputes, part of the World Bank, last week ruled in favor of Colombia on both the merits and on jurisdictional grounds.

The case had been brought in late 2019 by Neustar, which at the time managed some 2.3 million .co domains, under government contract, via a Colombian subsidiary it acquired in 2014.

Neustar has since been acquired by GoDaddy, which continues to run .co, but the ICSID case was inherited by Vercara, the DNS security services arm of the company that GoDaddy didn’t buy.

As .CO Internet, Vercara was hired by Colombia to turn .co into a global alternative to .com with a much-hyped 2010 relaunch. It was very successful, but when it came time to renew the initial 10-year contract, Colombia instead put it out for rebid and started behaving very strangely.

You may recall from coverage here on DI and on The Register that the Colombian tender process seemed to have been specially constructed so that only Afilias, then Neustar’s fiercest rival and now part of Identity Digital, could win.

The government’s RFP had set technical thresholds, such as daily registry transactions, that Afilias could show it met but Neustar could not. It looked naive and arbitrary at best and dodgy at worst.

So Neustar took Colombia to arbitration with ICSID, saying (pdf) the government was in breach of the Trade Promotion Agreement between the US and Colombia.

Neustar ended up winning the contract anyway, albeit on terms that were massively more favorable to the government, and it sold its entire registry services business to GoDaddy days later.

Now, almost five years later, it seems Vercara has lost the case it inherited. While ICSID has not yet published its arbitration panel’s decision, local newspapers have got hold of a copy.

Colombia’s oldest newspaper, El Spectador, reports: “The court, in addition to stating that it does not have jurisdiction to hear Vercara’s claims, rejected all the claims on the merits.”

In unrelated news, Vercara’s recently announced acquisition by DigiCert closed yesterday.

.web hit by second ICANN complaint

Altanovo Domains, the Afilias spin-off that is fighting Verisign for control of the .web gTLD, has filed a second Independent Review Process complaint with ICANN.

The filing could add years to Verisign’s launch runway for .web, which it won via secret proxy Nu Dot Co at auction in 2016.

ICANN has not yet published the IRP complaint — presumably it’s being redacted to remove commercially confidential information — but documentation shows Altanovo has “filed” an IRP.

Altanovo and ICANN has been in a Cooperative Engagement Process — a form of negotiation designed to avoid an IRP — since May 3, but a document published July 19 shows that the CEP is now over.

It was quite a brisk process. Other CEPs have been known to last many months.

When the CEP first emerged in May, Verisign was pretty brutal in its reaction, accusing Altanovo of “delay for delay’s sake”.

As the second-place bidder, Altanovo could stand to take control of .web if Verisign’s bid was found to be outside the rules. That was the focus of the first IRP case, which lasted almost four years.

The first IRP panel ruled that ICANN broke its bylaws by failing to consider whether Verisign secretly bidding via NDC broke the new gTLD program rules. But ICANN a couple months ago finally bit the bullet and ruled that Verisign did no wrong.

ICANN decided not to rule on whether Altanovo, then Afilias, broke the auction rules by communicating with NDC during a comms blackout period.

The specific allegations in the new IRP are not yet known. The IRP is only for complaints about ICANN’s actions or inaction breaking its own bylaws and other foundational documents.

Verisign WILL get .web, ICANN rules

Verisign did nothing wrong when it won the $135 million .web gTLD auction via a secret intermediary, ICANN’s board of directors has decided.

The board voted at the weekend to declare that Nu Dot Co, the shell company that applied for .web “did not violate the Guidebook or the Auction Rules” when it signed a secret side-deal that would see Verisign fund its bid in exchange for handing over the registry contract after it is signed.

The board has told ICANN management to continue to process NDC’s application, which has been tied up in legal red tape since the auction in 2016.

ICANN did not rule on Verisign’s claims that second-place bidder Afilias broke the rules when executives sent text messages trying to resolve the contention set during a “black out” period immediately prior to the auction.

The ruling means that, absent any further legal action, NDC can soon sign its Registry Agreement and attempt to transfer it to Verisign, a procedure that is not often controversial when M&A takes place.

It could mean .web, which has been fiercely contested for over 20 years, launches this year.

.web gTLD was first applied for in 2000. Afilias, Neustar (then Neulevel) and others viewed it as the best probable competitor for .com and wanted that sweet, sweet action.

But ICANN instead awarded them .info and .biz respectively, in part because another applicant, Image Online Design, was already running .web in an alternate root.

There were seven applicants in the 2012 round, but attempts at privately resolving the contention set were resisted by NDC, leading to suspicions that it was being secretly bankrolled by a much larger non-applicant company.

That turned out to be true when Verisign fessed up after the auction that it was funding NDC’s $135 million winning bid.

Because Verisign has market power, ICANN referred the deal to US competition regulators, the Department of Justice, which gave the all-clear in 2018.

Runner-up Afilias immediately set the ball rolling to file an Independent Review Process complaint with ICANN, which it did in 2018, claiming ICANN broke its bylaws by failing to establish that Verisign was NDC’s sugar daddy before the auction.

The Afilias .web application is currently owned by Altanovo, the company formed of all the bits of Afilias that Identity Digital (then Donuts) didn’t want when it acquired Afilias.

The IRP panel ruled for Afilias, saying ICANN should have at the very least made a decision on whether the deal was kosher before starting to contract with NDC. That ruling became final at the end of 2021.

It’s taken ICANN 16 months to actually make its decision.

And its rationale? Hard to say with any degree of certainty.

Both sides’ arguments rely heavily on the text of the Domain Acquisition Agreement between Verisign and NDC, and ICANN has redacted all references to that document’s contents (presumably at Verisign’s demand) in its resolution and accompanying rationale.

The board said:

NDC remains the applicant and, if NDC enters into a Registry Agreement with ICANN, NDC will become the Registry Operator for .WEB. Whether or not NDC then attempts to assign the Registry Agreement to Verisign is, at this point, an event that has not occurred and conceivably may not occur depending on the circumstances at the time. And if NDC subsequently decides to request such an assignment, there are processes in place to review such a request, including the need for ICANN’s approval of that request. Such an assignment does not equate to a “circumvention” of the application process but, rather, is a necessary component for servicing Registry Operators and allowing the continued operation of gTLDs.

The board additionally notes that the process of sorting all this out took years and millions of dollars of legal fees.

Identity Digital to launch .watches this month

Identity Digital has announced the launch timetable for its .watches gTLD.

Sunrise will kick off on March 28, running for two months until May 27. This is the period where only registered trademark owners can apply for a name.

The Early Access Program, in which names carry a premium price that decreases every day for a week, will run from May 31 to June 7, immediately after which the gTLD will enter general availability.

Despite the fact that .watches has been live in the DNS since December 2015, there are no registered domains so far.

The original registry was luxury goods maker Richemont, an early proponent of new gTLDs that ultimately lost interest and offloaded its portfolio, including the Chinese version of .watches, over the years.

.watches was sold to Afilias in late 2020, shortly before that company is turn was acquired by Donuts, since rebranded Identity Digital.

Donuts goes with bland, forgettable, for new company name [rant]

What is it with domain name companies and their terrible brands?

Donuts is now Identity Digital Inc, the company said today, with the Donuts and Afilias brands being retired.

The new name was chosen “to reflect better the commitment to helping customers find, grow and protect their authentic digital identities” the company said in a press release. I also get the vibe that the company may be expanding further outside of domains in future. Blockchain stuff, maybe?

It appears that the company has adopted a practice-what-you-preach approach to branding — it’s advocating that businesses register domains with strong keywords to the left and right of the dot, so that’s what Identity Digital will also do.

That’s fair enough, I guess.

It’s using identity.digital as its new domain, which is just as well, because the company seems to have just made itself search-proof.

If you couldn’t tell already, I don’t like the name. It strikes me as the kind of name a company might pick if it wanted to keep a low profile.

It sounds like a two-man SEO startup operating in a room above a vape shop in a northern English market town.

The name “Donuts” had been picked when the company formed in 2010 to reflect the fact that the founders were nuts about domains. Afilias was named as such because it was a joint venture of over a dozen registrars.

These were great, memorable brands!

GoDaddy, Tucows, Porkbun… all examples of strong, colorful, novel brands in the domain space. When I read about these companies, I know immediately who I’m reading about, and they don’t have any keywords in their names.

Even after 12 years writing this blog, I still have to remind myself which registrar is Name.com and which is Domain.com. Now, I’m going to be constantly reminding myself which company used to be Endurance and which used to be Donuts. Meh.

Perhaps I’m just irritated that I’m going to have to spend the next year writing “Identity Digital, formerly Donuts”.

Still, at least it’s better than “TrueName”.

ICANN kicks the can on .web yet again

Did Verisign cheat when it bought .web for $135 million in 2016? ICANN will make its mind up one day, but not today.

The ICANN board of directors has asked the three parties in the contested new gTLD auction for an info dump, so it can decide, presumably before the end of the year, whether to bar the top two bids for breaking the rules.

The Board Accountability Mechanisms Committee has written to Verisign, Nu Dot Co (the proxy Verisign used to hide its bid) and Afilias (aka Altanovo, the second-place bidder) to ask them to condense their last six years of claims and counter-claims into two 75-page documents.

Afilias reckons Verisign and NDC broke the rules by not disclosing that the former was secretly bankrolling the latter’s winning bid. It wants the bid invalidated, allowing Afilias to take over .web for a cheaper price.

Verisign has counter-claimed that Afilias should be disqualified for allegedly privately communicating with NDC during a pre-auction comms blackout period. It’s published screenshots of text messages it says prove this took place.

The Independent Review Process complaint against ICANN technically resulted in a win for Afilias, with the IRP panel ruling that ICANN broke its bylaws by not making a decision on Verisign’s alleged rule-breaking back in 2016.

That decision was reached in December, and ICANN has been faffing around pointedly not making a decision ever since.

Now, BAMC wants the parties to present their final pleadings in this ongoing drama.

It wants both side to “provide a comprehensive written summary of their claims and the materials supporting their claims” in order “to ensure that the BAMC is reviewing a complete picture of the parties’ positions”.

I don’t think there’s anything untoward about this — BAMC is basically just doing what the IRP panel told it to, albeit it in a roundabout way — but it is a little surprising that it thinks there isn’t enough information about their complaints in the public domain already.

As well as three years of legal filings, there are extensive transcripts of seven days of hearings that took place in 2020. ICANN will have access to the unredacted versions, too, which include details of the Verisign-NDC deal that the rest of us aren’t allowed to look at.

Maybe there’s just too much information to wade through.

Under the BAMC’s new process, the parties have until July 15 to present their cases, then another month to rebut their opponents with a further 30-page document.

Assuming the subsequent decision proceeds at ICANN Speed (which is to say, glacial) I don’t think we can reasonably expect a decision before the fourth quarter.

After 10 months, ICANN board “promptly” publishes its own minutes

ICANN’s board of directors has approved a huge batch of its own meeting minutes, covering the period from July 15 last year to March 10 this year, raising questions about its commitment to timely transparency.

The board approved the minutes of its last 14 full-board meetings in one huge batch of 14 separate resolutions at its May 12 meeting, and they’ve all now been published on the ICANN web site, along with redacted briefing papers for said meetings.

The period includes decisions on planning for the next new gTLD round and Whois reform, the legal fight with Afilias over the contested .web gTLD, and apparently divisive discussions about the timing of a post-pandemic return to face-to-face meetings.

No explanation has been given for why it’s taken so long for these documents to appear, the timing of which appears to go against ICANN’s bylaws, which state that minutes are supposed to be approved and published “promptly”:

All minutes of meetings of the Board, the Advisory Committees and Supporting Organizations (and any councils thereof) shall be approved promptly by the originating body and provided to the ICANN Secretary (“Secretary”) for posting on the Website.

ICANN almost always published its board’s resolutions within a few days of approval, and a preliminary report — which also includes the number of votes yay or nay, without naming the directors — within a couple of weeks.

The minutes, which are published only after the board rubber-stamps them, typically include a further vote breakdown and a little bit of color on how the discussion went down.

In the newly published batch, some of the documents are somewhat illuminating, while others barely nudge the dimmer switch.

For example, the preliminary report for the July 15, 2021 meeting, published 11 days later, notes that three of the 16 voting directors rebelled on a resolution about making the October annual general meeting in Seattle a virtual-only event, but the just-published minutes name those directors and flesh out some of their reasons for dissenting.

It turns out the directors had a “robust discussion”, with some arguing that it would be safe to go ahead with a “hybrid” meeting comprising both face-to-face and remote participation options.

The dissenting directors were Ron da Silva, Avri Doria, and Ihab Osman, it turns out. Osman and da Silva had voted a similar way a year earlier.

Directors could not reasonably have been expected to know about the impact the Delta variant of Covid-19 would have on world health in the latter half of the year. It had been identified and named by scientists but had yet to spread to the extent it was making headlines.

But they were aware of concerns from the Asia-Pacific members of the community, worried that a hybrid meeting in Seattle would disadvantage those unable to attend due to pandemic travel restrictions. This appears to have been raised during the discussion:

Some Board members expressed desire to see more work done to have ICANN72 as a hybrid meeting. They noted that Seattle has protocols in place to ensure the health and safety of ICANN staff and the community, and ICANN should use this opportunity to begin to return to its normal meeting standards as much as possible. Others noted that the concerns about travel inequities or restrictions for certain parts of the world should not prevent moving forward with an in-person component for ICANN72 because such inequities and restrictions exist with or without the pandemic.

The return to in-person meetings was discussed again in November, when the board decided to junk plans, secured by the dissenting directors in July, for a hybrid meeting in San Juan, Puerto Rico.

Ron da Silva had left the board by this point, but the new minutes show that Doria and Osman were joined by León Sánchez in advocating for a hybrid meeting with an in-person component.

While the July minutes contains a few paragraphs summarizing discussions, the November minutes simply notes that the board “reviewed the proposed resolution and rationale to confirm that it reflects the Board’s discussion and edits”.

And that’s pretty typical for most of the documents published this week — time and again the substantive discussion appears to have either happened off-camera, during non-minuted sessions of the board at unspecified times, or was simply not minuted.

Interested in the talks leading to the approval of the new gTLDs Operational Design Phase? The minutes shed no light.

Interested in how the board reacted to ICANN losing its Independent Review Process case with Afilias about .web? The minutes merely note that the resolution was approved “after discussion”.

There’s also a glaring hole in one set of minutes, raising questions about whether these documents are a reliable record of what happened at all.

We know for a fact that on September 12 the ICANN board approved a resolution naming the new chair and vice chair of its influential Nominating Committee, only to reconvene two weeks later to scrap that decision and name a different chair instead.

But if you read the September 12 minutes, you’ll find no record of NomCom even being discussed, let alone a resolution being passed appointing a chair.

The newly published batch of documents cover several resolutions related to executive pay, but none of the minutes contain the same level of transparency as ICANN displayed in February 2021, when it revealed that three directors voted against CEO Göran Marby’s pay rise.

In terms of transparency, that now appears to fully confirmed as an isolated incident.

Gee, thanks. auDA cuts price of .au names by five cents

Australian ccTLD registry auDA has cut the wholesale price of .au domains by a measly five cents, according to local reports.

Aussie domainer blog Domainer reports that registry back-end provider Afilias, owned by Donuts, has notified registrars that the price is coming down to AUD 7.83 ($5.56), from AUD 7.88, not including sales tax.

The cut kicks in June 1 and effects all new registrations, renewals and transfers.

With about 3.6 million .au domains under management, that amounts to $180,000 a year out of the registry’s pocket, but the price reduction obviously won’t be noticeable for any but the most prolific domain collector.