New gTLDs or Whois access? What’s more important?

Should ICANN focus its resources on getting the next round of new gTLDs underway, or making some baby steps towards a post-GDPR system of Whois access?

That’s a question the community is going to have to address when ICANN 74 rolls around next month, after the ICANN board presented it with a divisive question on two of the industry’s most pressing issues that split the GNSO Council along predictable lines at its monthly meeting last week.

It turns out that ICANN doesn’t have the resources to both design a new “SSAD Light” system for handling Whois requests and also carry on its new gTLDs Operational Design Phase, “SubPro”, at the same time.

If the community wants ICANN staff to start work on SSAD Light, work will be paused on the ODP for at least six weeks, ICANN has said. If they want the system also built, the delay to new gTLDs could be much, much longer.

Intellectual property lawyers are of course keen to at least start undoing some of the damage caused by privacy legislation such as GDRP, while registries and consultants are champing at the bit for another expansion of the gTLD space.

This split was reflected on the Council’s monthly call last week, where registry employees Maxim Alzoba, Kurt Pritz and Jeff Neuman were opposed by IP lawyers Paul McGrady and John McElwaine.

“Six weeks is a sneeze in a hurricane,” McGrady said. “We are right on the cusp of taking first steps to solve a problem that has plagued the Community since GDPR came out. I don’t think a six-week delay on SubPro, which again we’re years into and it looks like will be years to go, is a material change to SubPro… a very minor delay seems well worth it.”

At this point, ICANN is still planning to have the SubPro ODP wrapped up in October, thought it has warned that there could be other unforeseen delays.

Neuman warned that even a six-week pause could provide more than six weeks delay to SubPro. Staff can’t just down tools on one project and pick up again six weeks later without losing momentum, he said.

Pritz seemed to echo this concern. The Registries Stakeholder Group hasn’t finished discussing the issue yet, he said, but would be concerned about anything that caused “inefficiencies” and “switching costs”.

The discussion was pretty brief, and no votes were taken. It seems the conversation will pick up again in The Hague when ICANN meets for its short mid-year public meeting on June 13.

ALAC’s brutal takedown of that “aggressive” ICANN 74 coronavirus waiver

ICANN’s At-Large Advisory Committee has accused ICANN of being aggressive, intimidating and insensitive by demanding attendees at next month’s public meeting in the Netherlands sign a far-reaching legal waiver.

In a remarkable submission to the ICANN board of directors, ALAC says the waiver, which basically amounts to a get-out-of-jail-free card for the Org, leaves a “lasting unpleasant taste in the mouths” of the volunteers who make up the ICANN community.

ALAC wants the board to clarify whether it had any involvement in the drafting of the waiver or in approving it but asks that it “take control of the situation and ensure that this waiver does not endanger both its relationship with the ICANN Community”.

The waiver requires in-person attendees to absolve ICANN of all blame if they catch Covid-19 — or anything else — “even if arising from the negligence or fault of ICANN”. Virtual attendees don’t have to sign it.

ICANN has suggested in a separate FAQ that it may not be worth the pixels it’s written with, which ALAC points out is inconsistent with the plan language of the waiver.

ALAC also includes a list of 10 reasons the waiver is a terrible idea. Here’s a few:

10. It is insensitive to the global community as it can be interpreted as an exportation of U.S.-based litigious culture.

4. This kind of blanket waiver could be unenforceable and, in that case, serves only as intimidation.

3. The waiver infringes on individual rights.

1. It leaves a lasting unpleasant taste in the mouths of participants contributing to ICANN’s multistakeholder model — which is presented as a source of pride and accomplishment to the internet governance community.

The waiver already the subject of a Request for Reconsideration by the heads of registrar Blacknight and the Namibian ccTLD registry, but ALAC’s comprehensive takedown, which has dozens of signatories, arguably carries more weight.

ALAC’s letter can be downloaded here. It’s not been published on ICANN’s correspondence page. Hat tip to Rubens Kuhl for the link.

Covid surge scuppers ICANN LA meetings

ICANN has lost out on a chance to test a return to in-person meetings ahead of ICANN 74, due to a surge in Covid-19 cases in its home town of Los Angeles.

The US Centers for Disease Control has increased its risk rating for LA to “High”, compelling ICANN to scrap plans for a face-to-face board meeting next week.

Chair Maarten Botterman wrote:

The Board discussed the rising cases, the change in the CDC risk level, the trajectory, and the collective responsibility we have to ensure the health and safety of all of the participants, including ICANN Org staff who would support the events – and we recognized the additional risk of bringing all of ICANN leadership together in one place, under these circumstances – only six weeks before ICANN74.

The meeting will instead be held virtually by Zoom.

It’s not yet clear whether this will have any impact on ICANN’s next public meeting, which is due to take place in The Hague, the Netherlands, this June.

Botterman wrote that the Org is monitoring the situation on the ground and will provide updates as necessary.

ICANN has already announced a stringent set of restrictions, including mask wearing and social distancing, for ICANN 74.

ICANN’s Covid-19 waiver formally appealed

Two reliably regular ICANN meeting attendees have formally asked the Org to change the legal waiver it’s asking everyone to sign if they want to show up in The Hague for ICANN 74 this June.

Michele Neylon of registrar Blacknight Solutions and Eberhard Lisse of .na ccTLD registry Namibian Network Information Center filed an emergency Request for Reconsideration with ICANN last week.

They call the waiver, which absolves ICANN from liability if participants catch Covid-19 even through ICANN’s own gross negligence “unduly broad” and “unreasonable” and “unduly wide and harsh”.

They can’t ask their staff to sign such an all-encompassing waiver, they say.

ICANN’s Board Accountability Mechanisms Committee has already rejected the RfR, saying it doesn’t meet the timing requirements for an emergency request. It will consider it as a regular request in due course, it said.

As expected, ICANN also seems to have fixed the bug I spotted last week that allowed hybrid attendees to register without signing the waiver.

ICANN suggests its Covid waiver may be worthless

The controversial legal waiver ICANN is insisting you agree to before attending its next public meeting may not be worth the pixels it’s written with, judging by the Org’s latest statement on the matter.

In an updated FAQ, posted in response to a complaint from Blacknight, ICANN now states:

Attending an ICANN meeting remains a risk-based analysis for each attendee, recognizing that sometimes things can and do go wrong. A liability waiver helps enshrine that ICANN’s funds should not be used to defend ICANN against items for which ICANN itself should not be held liable. Protecting ICANN in this way helps support ICANN’s continued ability to serve its mission.

But it denies that the waiver is as all-encompassing as some fear:

There will be times, of course, where ICANN might not perform to an expected best practice, and that might be the cause of injury or damage to an attendee. Those claims against ICANN are not waived.

This apparently contradicts the waiver itself, which continues to say:

I knowingly and freely assume all risks related to illness and infectious diseases, including but not limited to COVID-19, even if arising from the negligence or fault of ICANN.

It also continues to require you to sign away your rights to sue, and your kids’ rights to sue, even if you die of Covid-19 due to ICANN’s “gross negligence”.

There may be a way to avoid the waiver.

Based on my experience, it appears that the waiver is presented in the registration path if you click the box indicating that you will be attending in-person, but if you ALSO check the box saying you’ll be attending remotely then the waiver does not appear.

So if you’re planning on attending in a hybrid fashion, perhaps in-person for only a day or two and on Zoom for the balance, ICANN doesn’t need you to waive your rights.

I expect this is a glitch in how the web form is configured that will probably be fixed not too long after I publish this article.

ICANN 74 will take place in The Hague, and Zoom, in June.

Blacknight objects to ICANN 74 Covid waiver

Irish registrar Blacknight has objected to ICANN’s demand that attendees at its forthcoming 74th public meeting sign a legal waiver over the potential for Covid-19 infections.

CEO Michele Neylon has written (pdf) to his ICANN counterpart and chair Maarten Botterman to complain that the waiver is “excessive” and “unreasonable”.

Neylon said he’d consulted his lawyer and concluded: “I cannot sign this waiver and I obviously cannot ask any of my staff to do so either.”

“[The lawyers] agree that you would want to reduce your liability, but you cannot expect people to grant you a blanket exclusion of liability which includes actual fault,” he wrote.

As I reported earlier in the week, registering for ICANN 74 requires attendees to agree to a waiver which states:

I knowingly and freely assume all risks related to illness and infectious diseases, including but not limited to COVID-19, even if arising from the negligence or fault of ICANN.

The four-day June meeting is set to be the first to have an in-person component — in The Hague, the Netherlands — since the pandemic began two years ago. Zoom participation will also be a prominent feature.

Attendees are strictly expected to be double or triple-vaccinated, wear masks, and socially distance while at the venue. There will also be “health checks” whenever you enter the venue.

Blacknight has no complaint about these precautions, but wants ICANN to reconsider the legal waiver.

ICANN lists the reasons I probably won’t be going to ICANN 74

“Don’t blame us if you die!”

That’s one of the messages coming out of ICANN, which has confirmed that it’s returning to in-person meetings for ICANN 74 this June.

The “hybrid” four-day meeting in The Hague is going ahead, but under strict Covid-19 mitigation rules that seem a bit too annoying for this particular potential attendee.

If you want to get in the venue, you’ll need to show proof of a full course of WHO-approved vaccinations, wear a face mask, stay an appropriate distance away from your peers, and subject yourself to a temperature check and “health screening” every time you walk through the door.

You’ll be issued a wrist-band on first entry that you have to keep visible at all times. If you lose it, you’ll have to re-verify your vaccination status.

As somebody who got irritated by even the metal detectors as pre-Covid ICANN meetings, this all seems a bit too much of a hassle for me, despite The Hague being pretty much right on my doorstep. I probably won’t go, at least not for the full four days.

There will be no on-site registration, and you’ll have to register your attendance online five days in advance of the meeting, which begins June 13.

ICANN’s also asking attendees to sign away their rights, and their children’s rights, to sue if they get sick, even if they catch the virus from general counsel John Jeffrey walking up and sneezing a Covid payload directly into their eyes.

As spotted by Michele Neylon, the registration process for ICANN 74 contains an extensive, obligatory waiver that contains the following text:

Participation in the Event includes possible exposure to and illness from infectious diseases including but not limited to COVID-19. While particular rules and personal discipline may reduce this risk, the risk of serious illness and death exists. I knowingly and freely assume all risks related to illness and infectious diseases, including but not limited to COVID-19, even if arising from the negligence or fault of ICANN. I understand that, unless otherwise confirmed in writing by ICANN, if I am suggested or required to take diagnostic tests, seek medical treatment, extend my stay due to quarantine or illness, or otherwise change travel arrangements, I am responsible for making such arrangements and all costs incurred. I understand that ICANN recommends that I obtain appropriate insurance to cover these risks.

…

I hereby knowingly assume all risks, and covenant not to sue any employees, board members, agents, executives, contractors or volunteers of ICANN or its affiliate for any expense, loss, damage, personal injury, including loss of life, illness, including but not limited to COVID-19, disability, property damage, or property theft or actions of any kind that I may hereafter suffer or sustain before, during, or after the Event, unless said expense, loss, damage, personal injury, including loss of life, illness, disability, property damage or property theft or actions of any kind is caused by the sole, gross negligence of ICANN or its affiliate. This Liability Waiver and Release is specifically binding upon my heirs and assigns and is knowingly given.

I agree to indemnify and hold ICANN and its affiliate harmless from and against any claims, suits, causes of action, loss, liability, damage or costs, including court cost and attorneys’ fees, and fees to enforce this Agreement, that ICANN may incur arising from my involvement in the Event.

This kind of waiver is par for the course with ICANN. Just ask any new gTLD applicant. ICANN really, really doesn’t like being sued.

ICANN has outlined its health-and-safety measures, which may change, here. The waiver can be read during the registration process.

Closed generic gTLDs likely to be allowed, as governments clash with ICANN

So-called “closed generics” seem to be on a path to being permitted in the next new gTLD application round.

The issue reconfirmed itself at ICANN 73 last week as a major point of disagreement between governments and ICANN, and a major barrier to the next round of new gTLDs going ahead.

But a way forward was proposed that seems likely to to permit closed generics in some form in the next round, resolving an argument that has lasted the better part of a decade.

It seems ICANN now expects that closed generics WILL be permitted, but restricted in some yet-to-be-decided way.

A closed generic is a gTLD representing a dictionary word that is not also a brand, operated by a registry that declines to sell domains to anyone other than itself and its close affiliates.

Imagine McDonald’s operating .burgers, but no other fast food chain, cow-masher, or burger afficionado is allowed to register a .burgers domain.

ICANN’s 2012 application round implicitly allowed applications for such gTLDs — at least, it did not disallow them — which prompted outrage from the governments.

The GAC’s Beijing communique (pdf), from April 2013, urged ICANN to retroactively ban these applications unless they “serve a public interest goal”.

The GAC identified 186 applications from the 2012 round that appeared to be for closed generics.

ICANN, taking the GAC’s lead, gave these applicants a choice to either convert their application to an open generic, withdraw for a refund, or maintain their closed generic status and defer their applications to the next round.

Most opted to switch to an open model. Some of those hacked their way around the problem by making registrations prohibitively restrictive or expensive, or simply sitting on their unlaunched gTLDs indefinitely.

The GNSO policy for the next round is inconclusive on whether closed generics should be permitted. The working group contained two or three competing camps, and nobody conceded enough ground for a consensus recommendation to be made.

It’s one of those wedge issues that highlights the limitations of the multistakeholder model.

The working group couldn’t even fall back on the status quo since they couldn’t agree, in light of ICANN’s specific request for a clear policy, what the status quo even was.

Policy-makers are often also those who stand to financially benefit from selling shovels to new gTLD applicants in the next round. The fewer restrictions, the wider the pool of potential clients and the more attractive the sales pitch.

The working group ended up recommending (big pdf) further policy work by disinterested economics and competition law experts, which hasn’t happened, and the GNSO Council asked the ICANN board for guidance, which it refused to provide.

The GAC has continued to press ICANN on the issue, reinforcing its Beijing advice, for the last year or so. It seems to see the disagreement on closed generics as a problem that highlights the ambiguity of its role within the multistakeholder process.

So ICANN, refusing to create policy in a top-down fashion, is forcing the GAC and the GNSO to the table in bilateral talks in an attempt to create community consensus, but the way the Org is framing the issue may prove instructive.

A framework for these discussions (pdf) prepared by ICANN last week suggests that, when it comes to closed generics, an outright-ban policy and an open-door policy would both be ruled out from the outset.

The paper says:

It is evident from the PDP deliberations and the community’s discussions and feedback that either of the two “edge outcomes” are unlikely to achieve consensus; i.e.:

• 1. allowing closed generics without restrictions or limitations OR
• 2. prohibiting closed generics under any circumstance.

As such, the goal could be to focus the dialogue on how to achieve a balanced outcome that does not represent either of these two scenarios. The space to be explored in this dialogue is identifying circumstances where closed generics could be allowed (e.g., when they serve the public interest, as noted by the GAC Advice). This will likely require discussions as to the types of possible safeguards that could apply to closed generics, identifiable public interest goals for that gTLD and how that goal is to be served, with potential consequences if this turns out not to be the case.

It sounds quite prescriptive, but does it amount to top-down policy making? Insert shrugging emoji here. It seems there’s still scope for the GAC and GNSO to set their own ground rules, even if that does mean relitigating entrenched positions.

The GAC, in its ICANN 73 communique (pdf) said yesterday that it welcomes these talks, and the GNSO Council has already started to put together a small team of councillors (so far also former PDP WG members) to review ICANN’s proposal.

ICANN expects the GNSO-GAC group to begin its work, under an ICANN-supplied facilitator, on one or more Zoom calls before ICANN 74 in June.

ICANN abandons face-to-face plan for Puerto Rico

ICANN has canceled its plans for a “hybrid” ICANN 73, saying this morning that the meeting will go ahead as an online-only virtual meeting.

Its board of directors yesterday voted to abandon efforts to have a face-to-face component in Puerto Rico as originally planned, as I predicted a few days ago.

"Impact of COVID-19 on ICANN73". That's the same language ICANN board uses in its agenda items when it's planning for no face-to-face component. Just saying. https://t.co/TZc7lExu7N

— Kevin Murphy (@DomainIncite) November 3, 2021

ICANN of course said it’s because of the coronavirus pandemic, and more particularly the associated travel restrictions and the lack of access to vaccines in some parts of the world from which its community members hail.

The US Centers for Disease Control currently rates Puerto Rico as its second-highest risk level, meaning ICANN’s meetings staff have been unable to travel there to do on-site planning. ICANN said:

While there has been progress that might make it feasible to plan for and convene a meeting in San Juan, Puerto Rico in March 2022, the current risks and uncertainties remain too high to proceed with an in-person meeting or with an in-person component.

Its board resolution stated:

Between the global inequity in vaccine availability across the world, continuing restrictions on persons from many countries or territories being allowed to enter the U.S., and backlogs in visa processing for those who are able to enter the U.S., ICANN org cannot estimate with any confidence the ability for attendees outside of the U.S. to attend ICANN73.

So 73 will be Zoom again. The time zone will remain UTC-4, Puerto Rico local time, which should make it less problematic for Europeans to attend.

The dates are still slated for March 5 to March 10 next year, but it seems likely that we’ll be looking at a March 7 kick-off, as March 5 is a Saturday and people don’t like working weekends if not somewhere they can also work on their tans.

ICANN said it “affirmed its intent” to attempt the hybrid model again for the mid-year ICANN 74 meeting, which is due to take place in The Hague, Netherlands, next June.

It’s bad news for ICANN participation, which has been declining in the new era of virtual meetings, but good news for its bank account. Virtual meetings cost a few million dollars less than in-person ones.