.radio’s new owners might have a fight on their hands

Should gTLD registries that avoid costly auctions by promising to serve special limited communities be allowed to later change their business models to improve sales?

That’s the question being asked of .radio, which recently was taken over by a new owner and might be on track to liberalize its registration policies in the near future.

.radio is what is called a “Community” or “Spec 12” gTLD, meaning it has Specification 12 — which imposes eligibility and content rules on registered domains — in its ICANN registry contract.

Four organizations applied for .radio in 2012, but the European Broadcasting Union prevailed, avoiding a potentially expensive auction, by filing a Community application and winning a Community Priority Evaluation.

Afilias, Donuts and BRS Media — all commercial, non-Community applicants — lost out on their chances to run .radio, or make money losing a private auction, because of this successful CPE.

While .radio launched in 2017, it’s never had more than about 3,000 domains under management and earlier this year the EBU sold its contract to Digity, an emerging registry operator with ties to Sav.com.

The suspicion is that Digity is planning to abandon .radio’s community roots and make it more of a mass-market proposition.

That concern was recently expressed by Craig Schwartz, president of fTLD Registry Services, which runs the Spec 12 gTLDs .bank and .insurance, in a letter (pdf) to ICANN’s chair.

Schwartz noted that Digity, unlike the EBU, “appears to have no existing relationship with the originally stated radio community” and said that registries should not be allowed “to game ICANN by preferentially acquiring these assets under one premise and then blindsiding Registrants at a later date.”

ICANN should audit Spec 12 registries for community compliance and open to public comment any attempt to transfer ownership of the contracts, he wrote.

Schwartz reiterated these concerns during a call of the ICANN At-Large community yesterday, adding that ICANN should come up with a way to “wind down” failing Spec 12 gTLDs, rather than transferring them to a liberalizing successor.

He — saying he is supported by other community registries — appears concerned that if ICANN allows registries to play fast and loose with their original commitments, it could not only enable gaming but also tarnish the reputation of other Spec 12s such as .bank.

Consultant Michael Palage, on the same At-Large call, said the the “cheat code” for registries is to get their Spec 12 removed during bilateral negotiations with ICANN Org at the time of contract renewal. He pointed to the liberalization of GoDaddy’s .xxx as an example.

Probably not coincidentally, the current 10-year .radio Registry Agreement is due to expire this July and is currently up for renewal.

ICANN has yet to publicly respond to Schwartz’s letter.

Cryptocurrency firms to be banned from .bank

The registry for the already heavily restricted .bank and .insurance gTLDs wants to change its policies to make it clear that cryptocurrency firms are not welcome.
fTLD Registry Services has opened up a public comment period on proposed changes to its eligibility policies for the two TLDs which would drop the “service provider” category of registrant.
It would also clarify that eligible entities have to be “retail” banks regulated by a proper government authority.
The elimination of “service providers” is an effort to clarify that .bank is for banks and not peer-to-peer or cryptocurrency payment providers.
Heather Diaz, senior director of compliance and policy at fTLD, told us that the service provider category was created to allow “banking core processors” and the like to register domains. She said in an email:

More recently, as the financial services arena has evolved, particularly as it relates to fintechs offering financial products/services (e.g., P2P payment providers, cryptocurrency companies), we have found that some prospective Registrants were seeking domains to enhance their legitimacy to market to regulated entities and/or consumers.

By eliminating the category, fTLD hopes to clarify that .bank is just for regulated banks.
Registrants that already own service provider domains (it sounds like there are only one or two) would be grandfathered under the proposed policy, so nobody’s going to lose their existing domains.
The proposed changes were boiled up by fTLD’s bank-led Advisory Committee and its board of directors.
Comments are being accepted until August 24, after which the company’s board will decide whether to implement the new policies.

Registrars object to “unreasonable” .bank demands

Registrars are upset with fTLD Registry Services for trying to impose new rules on selling .bank domains that they say are “unreasonable”.
The Registrar Stakeholder Group formally relayed its concerns about a proposed revision of the .bank Registry-Registrar Agreement to ICANN at the weekend.
A key sticking point is fTLD’s demand that each registrar selling .bank domains have a dedicated .bank-branded web page.
Some registrars are not happy about this, saying it will “require extensive changes to the normal operation of the registrar.”
“Registrars should not be required to establish or maintain a “branded webpage” for any extension in order to offer said extension to its clients,” they told ICANN.
i gather that registrars without a full retail presence, such as corporate registrars that sell mainly offline, have a problem with this.
There’s also a slippery slope argument — if every gTLD required a branded web page, registrars would have hundreds of new storefronts to develop and maintain.
fTLD also wants registrars to more closely align their sales practices with its own, by submitting all registration requests from a single client in a single day via a bulk registration form, rather than live, or pay an extra $125 per-name fee.
This is to cut down on duplicate verification work at the registry, but registrars say it would put a “severe operational strain” on them.
There’s also a worry about a proposed change that would make registrars police the .bank namespace.
The new RRA says: “Registrar shall not enable, contribute to or willing aid any third party in violating Registry Operator’s standards, policies, procedures, or practices, and shall notify Registry Operator immediately upon becoming aware of any such violation.”
But registrars say this “will create a high liability risk for registrars” due to the possibility of accidentally overlooking abuse reports they receive.
The registrars’ complaints have been submitted to ICANN, which will have to decide whether fTLD is allowed to impose its new RRA or not.
The RrSG’s submission is not unanimously backed, however. One niche-specializing registrar, EnCirca, expressed strong support for the changes.
In a letter also sent to ICANN, it said that none of the proposed changes are “burdensome”, writing:

EnCirca fully supports the .BANK Registry’s efforts to ensure potential registrants are fully informed by Registrars of their obligations and limitations for .BANK.  This helps avoid confusion and mis‐use by registrants, which can cause a loss of trust in the Registry’s stated mission and commitments to the banking community.

fTLD says the proposed changes would bring the .bank RRA in line with the RRA for .insurance, which it also operates.
The .insurance contract has already been signed by several registrars, it told ICANN.