Poblete’s ICANN board seat safe

Patricio Poblete seems set to serve a third and final term on ICANN’s board of directors, after nobody else put themselves forward as an alternative.

Poblete, of Chilean ccTLD registry NIC Chile, was nominated to continue in the role as one of the two ccNSO representatives on the board after his current term expires October 2026.

Nobody else stepped up as an alternative, so Poblete now appears to be a shoo-in, assuming he passes due diligence. The ccNSO said “if only one candidate is nominated, no election is required”.

His third term would end in late 2029.

ICANN settles $77 million sexual harassment suit

ICANN has settled another sexual harassment lawsuit filed against it by a former employee.

An ICANN spokesperson said the case, filed last August by 22-year meetings-team veteran Tanzanica King, “has been resolved”. King did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

King had asked for $77 million in damages, approximately half of ICANN’s annual budget, alleging she was the victim of a widespread “frat boy culture” that contributed to her being sexually harassed by her boss, passed over for promotions, and paid less than male colleagues.

The settlement, any financial component of which will no doubt be for a tiny fraction of what was demanded, seems to have come just a few weeks after ICANN lost its attempt to get the case thrown out and referred instead to arbitration.

A Los Angeles judge in June ruled that King was protected by a post-#MeToo law, the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act (EFAA), even though her employment contract dated back to 2002.

ICANN said last year that the allegations were “untrue” and that it “strives to create a positive, safe, and inclusive work and community environment, and is committed to the highest possible standards of ethical, moral, and legal business conduct.”

It’s at least the third time ICANN has had to settle sexual harassment suits in recent years.

Registrars agree to higher ICANN fees

Domain registrars have agreed to pay more in ICANN fees, after a supermajority vote.

ICANN said today that registrars representing over two thirds of fees voted in favor of the increases, part of a package which Org reckons will add $4.6 million to its annual budget at first.

The package of increases also comes with an increase of the per-transaction fee, typically added by registrars at the checkout and sometimes called the “ICANN tax”, from $0.18 per domain to $0.20.

But the vote related to the variable fees, which will now go up from $3.42 million to $3.8 million per year. That sum is split equally between registrar accreditations, with a deep two-thirds discount for registrars with under 350,000 domains.

The fixed annual $4,000 per-accreditation fee is not changing.

The increases were proposed last October, along with registry fee increases, to plug budget shortfalls caused by macroeconomic factors such as inflation, lumpy registration patterns, and the post-Covid slump in registered names.

These are the first price increases ICANN has implemented in well over a decade.

ICANN to review reviews after review review request fails

An effort by ICANN’s At-Large community to force the Org to stick to its bylaws commitments to periodically review its accountability and transparency has failed after nobody else supported it.

As I reported last month, ALAC petitioned its Empowered Community co-members to get ICANN to overturn its decision to delay Accountability and Transparency Review Team 4, which is already more than a year late.

The other EC members — Government Advisory Committee, the Address Supporting Organization, the Country Code Names Supporting Organization and the Generic Names Supporting Organization — had until July 10 to file their letters of support or objection.

But it received no support and the ccNSO actively objected. The threshold for the petition to go ahead was three votes in favor and no more than one vote against.

The ccNSO pointed out that the current cycle of constantly reviewing itself is broken and getting worse over time. It instead called for a fundamental change in how ICANN reviews itself:

We strongly believe that breaking this vicious cycle can only be achieved if the community pauses and critically assesses the current review system. Specifically, the community should evaluate the breadth and number of reviews by looking at purpose, scope, frequency and associated workload of all ICANN Bylaw mandated reviews (a review of reviews), before embarking again on an Accountability and Transparency Review, or any other Bylaw mandated review.

The GNSO Council had a motion on its table last week that would have expressed non-support for the ALAC’s petition, but a vote was deferred until August, by which point it will be moot anyway.

The ASO and GAC do not appear to have publicly expressed an opinion.

It was the first time any community group has attempted to get the Empowered Community to flex its powers over ICANN. Since Org’s split from the US government nine years ago, the EC has been essentially ICANN’s sovereign body.

The petition being thrown out enables either, depending on your point of view: a) a horrifying, bylaws-defying power grab by Org that threatens transparency and accountability or b) a common-sense step away from an interminable, soul-crushing, resource-sapping cycle of endless navel-gazing.

What it means is that ICANN is going to conduct a meta-review, reviewing how it conducts reviews, and then will fiddle with its bylaws to implement a new renew regime.

ICANN ditches Oman due to Middle-East conflicts

ICANN is relocating its next meeting, scheduled for this October in Muscat, Oman, due to travel difficulties and uncertainties caused by the ongoing conflicts in the region.

The meeting, ICANN’s 2025 Annual General Meeting, will now take place in Dublin, Ireland from October 25 to 30, the same dates as the Oman meeting was meant to take place, Org said.

“Recent developments, including associated flight disruptions and impending timelines related to planning the meeting, made it prudent and necessary to select an alternative and available location,” ICANN said.

While Oman is not involved in any current hostilities, other than as a mediator, Israel’s recent strikes on Iran have caused some busy air corridors in the region to be shut down.

Oman is over 2,000 kilometres distant from Israel, and just across the Gulf of Iran from Iran.

The switch will be frustrating not only for Omanis but also to community members from further afield who have booked their travel early or paid for visas and might have limited refund options. Dublin’s a way more expensive city to visit for travelers on a budget, too.

It also sucks for the organizers of Domain Days Dubai, the upcoming domainer conference. It is scheduled to take place in nearby Dubai immediately before ICANN 84.

ICANN has visited Dublin once before, exactly 10 years before the upcoming ICANN 84.

The Org hinted that Muscat could be selected for a future meeting, when and if things settle down.

ICANN’s mighty overlord flexes on transparency

ICANN is heading into uncharted waters after a key community group flexed its powers to hold the Org accountable for a recent board decision.

The At-Large Advisory Committee has become the first of ICANN’s overseers to push for a formal objection to ICANN’s decision to delay its next large-scale accountability review.

In layman’s terms, the ALAC wants the other DPs of the EC — the ASO, the ccNSO, the GNSO, and the GAC — to support its ECRP for a CRR challenging ICANN’s decision to delay ATRT4.

All clear? Great. Thanks for clicking.

Or… perhaps that all deserves some unpicking.

ALAC, the group that represents end-users at ICANN, is one of the five members of the Empowered Community — the group from which, under its bylaws, ICANN derives its powers and authority over domain names and such.

The other Decisional Participants are the Government Advisory Committee, the Address Supporting Organization, the Country Code Names Supporting Organization and the Generic Names Supporting Organization.

One of the EC’s powers is the ability to file a Community Reconsideration Request challenging an ICANN board or staff decision, if three of the DPs support the request and no more than one objects.

ALAC has become the first EC member since ICANN split from the US government in 2016 to formally kick off the process of scrounging up support for such a reconsideration request.

It’s filed an Empowered Community Reconsideration Petition, giving the other four DPs 21 days to vote yay or nay on whether the request should be formally filed.

Its beef is with the ICANN board’s decision in May to delay indefinitely the fourth Accountability and Transparency Review Team, ATRT4, and replace it with a CEO-led meta-review.

ATRTs are community-led reviews that ICANN, according to its bylaws, have to carry out every five years. ATRT3 kicked off at the end of 2018 and concluded in 2020 but its recommendations have not yet been fully implemented by ICANN.

ATRT4 has already been delayed for a year once by the board, last April, but the board wants the delay to continue so the community can take a step back and review, as one group put it, “why we review, what we should review and how best to review”.

I’m not making this up. One review is being replaced with a broader, CEO-led, meta-review that reviews the reviews. I haven’t even mentioned the Pilot Holistic Review or the various Continuous Improvement Programs.

The root rationale here relates to intellectual bandwidth. Arguably the biggest issue facing ICANN in recent years is its perceived (or actual) inability to get anything done in a timely fashion, and part of the reason for that is that community members, most of whom have day jobs or are volunteers, are forced to spend so much time navel-gazing or entangled in Tolkienesque cobwebs of red tape.

ALAC’s petition (pdf) accused the board of “usurping” the community by delaying ATRT4, in violation of its bylaws:

The EC, and by extension the ICANN community, believes that this continuing contravention of the Bylaws and disregard for ICANN’s Core Values poses a serious threat to ICANN’s mandate… It also significantly undermines trust in, and protection of, ICANN’s multistakeholder model of governance. This brings about a real risk of negative actions against ICANN, which could result in the loss of its mandate or could substantially risk the credibility and effectiveness of ICANN’s multistakeholder model.

It wants the decision to delay ATRT4 reversed. The question is, will it be able to muster up support from two other Decisional Participants, as required by the bylaws? I’d say that ALAC’s most-natural ally is the GAC, with the GNSO, seemingly baffled by the ALAC’s filing, the most likely to object.

The other four DPs have until a minute before midnight July 10 to submit expressions of support or objection.

ICANN faces first pushback over DEI U-turn

ICANN’s decision to remove the words “diversity” and “inclusion” from its web site has prompted the first public, angry response from a community organization.

The Asia-Pacific Regional At-Large Organization, APRALO, one of the five regional groups making up the At-Large Community, wrote to ICANN’s top brass to say that “diversity, equity and inclusion” should be part of ICANN’s DNA.

As DI reported last month, ICANN buried a previously prominently linked “Diversity at ICANN” web page and changed all references to diversity and inclusion to “representation” or similar.

ICANN later said that the changes, which have not to date been reverted to the old language, were in response to “evolving external dynamics”. That’s broadly believed to be code for the Trump administration’s profound aversion to all things DEI.

Many US companies have been distancing themselves from DEI terminology since Trump took office in January, out of fear of reprisals. That includes Verisign, which deleted a section on DEI from its annual regulatory report.

But APRALO, which represents end-user groups across Asia, Australasia and the Pacific, reckons diversity is a core value of the ICANN multistakeholder model that should stay. Writing to ICANN, the group said:

ICANN is not a representative (or representational) model, but a multistakeholder participatory model that invites and welcomes broad spectrums of participation (i.e. diverse, inclusive, and not “representational”)… Therefore, the title change from “Diversity at ICANN” to “Representation at ICANN” is a misrepresentation.

…

ICANN cannot claim to be a multistakeholder-based organisation if diversity, equity and inclusion is not part of its DNA.

APRALO said that ICANN should restore the old DEI language or replace it with “alternative words that truthfully retain the meaning and intent”. Org should also be more transparent when it makes these kinds of changes, the group said.

Loads of firms flunk out of next-round gTLD back-end program

A surprising number of would-be back-end registry service providers have already been eliminated from ICANN’s Registry Service Provider Evaluation Program for not submitting their applications in time.

Program statistics for May recently published reveal that 19 potential RSPs were in the system but failed to submit their required information before the application window closed May 20.

That leaves a total of 46 RSPs still in the system (pretty much in line with expectations) with 26 of those still waiting to clear their background checks. Another 15 have fully submitted their bids, though none have yet been approved.

The stats, which are broken down by geographic region, means that a maximum of one RSP from the Latin America and Caribbean region and one from Africa will be pre-approved to provide back-end services when the next new gTLD application window opens next year.

But wannabe RSPs will be able to apply again, simultaneously with their clients gTLD applications.

Asia-Pacific has 15 live applications, Europe 17 and North America 12.

The RSP program gives new gTLD applicants the chance to tick the technical services questions box by simply signing up with an already-approved provider. Being preapproved gives a pretty strong competitive advantage to RSPs in the 2026 round.

Governments erect bulk-reg barrier to new gTLD next round

No new gTLDs should be added to the internet until ICANN develops policies addressing the abuse of bulk domain name registrations, according to the Governmental Advisory Committee.

The GAC this afternoon drafted formal Advice for the ICANN board stating that policy work on bulk regs should get underway before ICANN 84, which takes place in Muscat, Oman in late October.

While the wording still may change before it is sent to ICANN, the current draft advice reads:

The GAC advises the board: To urge the GNSO Council to undertake all necessary preparation prior to ICANN84 towards enabling targeted and narrowly scoped Policy Development Processes (PDPs) on DNS Abuse issues, prioritizing the following: to address bulk registration of malicious domain names; and the responsibility of registrars to investigate domains associated with registrar accounts that are the subject of actionable reports of DNS Abuse.

The advice on bulk regs is fairly self-explanatory: the GAC has become aware that spammers typically shop around for the cheapest TLDs then register huge amounts of domains on the assumption that some will start getting blocked quite quickly.

The second part of the advice probably needs some explanation: under the current ICANN contracts, registrars have to deal with abuse reports concerning domains they sponsor, but they’re under no obligation to investigate other domains belonging to the registrants of those domains.

So, if a scumbag registers 100 domains for a spam campaign and only one of them is reported as abusive, the registrar can comply with its contract by simply suspending that one domain. The GAC thinks it should be obliged to proactively investigate the other 99 names too.

The advice seems to have been inspired by two sources: NetBeacon’s recent Proposal for PDPs on DNS Abuse (pdf) and data from Interisle Consulting.

Both pieces of advice obviously could have an impact on registrars’ top and bottom lines. They could lose revenue if they currently make a lot of money from bulk regs, and their costs could be increased with new obligations to investigate abuse.

An added wrinkle comes in the GAC’s rationale for its advice, which suggests that dealing with bulk regs and abuse probes should be a gating factor for the next round of new gTLDs going ahead. It reads:

Before new strings are added to the DNS as a result of the next round, further work on DNS Abuse is needed to stem the increasing cost to the public of phishing, malware, botnets, and other forms of DNS Abuse.

The core text of the advice was compiled in furtive huddles on the edges of sessions at ICANN 83, and I believe Switzerland held the pen, but it seems the US government was the driving force behind the push to make abuse a barrier to the next round.

As I reported on Monday, the US GAC rep said that “in light of the global phishing problem… and similar concerns the United States is of the view that we should not expand the DNS too broadly”.

Little interest in cheapo gTLD program

ICANN’s program to offer heavily discounted new gTLD application fees to certain organizations has so far seen little uptake, and some governments are not happy about it.

The Applicant Support Program offers up to 45 qualified applicants a discount of up to 85% on their application fees. That’s worth almost $200,000 each. ICANN will also hook applicants up with pro-bono application consultants and help out with auctions if necessary.

While 40 applications are in the process of being drafted, according to ICANN’s latest monthly stats, only four finalized applications have been submitted and there’s no way of telling whether the other 40 will convert to full applications.

The low number has members of ICANN’s Governmental Advisory Committee concerned, partly because of a deal it struck with ICANN last year that would encourage a change of strategy if it turned out some regions were more represented than others.

The arrangement saw ICANN promise to refocus its outreach efforts on under-served regions after tallying up the home nations of the first 20 submitted applications. With the 12-month program application window now well past the half-way mark, the GAC is worried that by the time the 20th bid is logged, it will be too late to course-correct.

It now seems likely that the GAC’s formal Advice from the ongoing ICANN 83 meeting in Prague will see language included saying ICANN should conduct its review of the applications now, while there’s still time to adjust the strategy.

Currently, the stats show a strange and surprising mix of geographies.

North America has the most applications in draft at 15. This is weird because entities based in the US and Canada don’t qualify for the discount, ICANN doesn’t count Mexico as North American, and the only other economies in the region are US island territories like Puerto Rico and Guam.

Meanwhile, the whole of Latin America and the Caribbean region, with all its half a billion citizens, has just two applications in draft. That’s the just one more than Europe, which has just a handful of qualifying nations.

Africa and Asia-Pacific both have seven applications in draft, and Asia-Pac also has three fully submitted bids.

Based on the current stats, you’d have to assume ICANN would need beef up its outreach in Latin America if it wanted to rebalance the numbers. Europe probably doesn’t need as much love because so few countries there qualify.

As well as encouraging ICANN to analyse its number immediately, the GAC is also considering text that would connect applicants in drafting with their local governments, to see if they need any assistance getting over the final hurdle.