iEstates.com

A new article published today by Wired.com entitled: Domain Name Czar Seeks .OnlineUnity interview Rob Beckstrom CEO of ICANN discusses the proposed gTLD’s and various ICANN and domain issues.

My favorite quote from the article by Beckstrom is in response to the issue about the new gTLD’s and trademark holders complaints that they will have to spend too much to buy domain names in each of the new TLDs.

Beckstrom says its not ICANN’s job to pre-emptively police trademarks.

“Go enforce your trademarks in court,” Beckstrom said.

Beckstrom is also quoted as supporting the new gTLD’s because “new TLDs will lead to innovations that we can’t predict”.

Speaking about the new gTLD’s Mr. Farber says:

“I don’t think that creates innovation,  I think that creates rapid confusion.”

Farber is also quoted as saying that “ICANN needs to counter its reputation for holding meetings in fancy places, where members live the high life on fees paid to ICANN through domain registrations.”

Mr. Farber we have a meeting of the minds on that one.

Its an interesting read and you should check out the full article.

External Articles, ICANN

The Ottawa Citizen tells the story of Frank Fowlie, who is the first ombudsman for (ICANN), who lost a personal grievance of his own against Air Canada after an argument over an in-flight meal.

Mr. Fowlie who job s to hear and investigate complaints about ICANN, was flying from Paris to Montreal last March when he “had an angry confrontation with a flight attendant in executive class”.

Fowlie says he was upset that the attendant forgot to serve him a meal and, after complaining he had waited up to 45 minutes, admits he might have muttered something about “typical Air Canada service.”

The flight attendant claimed Fowlie swore and shouted at him.

The service director on the flight invited Fowlie to the galley to discuss the problem. The confrontation escalated, and she claimed Fowlie was “physically imposing” and pointed his finger in her face, an allegation he denies.

Fowlie admits  that he referred to the flight attendant as “the little man”.

The service director on flight, issued a warning card for unruly behavior and reported the incident to the captain. Fowlie was moved to another seat for the rest of the flight. He tried to see the flight attendant’s name tag and, on a trip to the washroom, tried to snap his picture.

When Fowlie arrived in Montreal, he was told he would not be allowed to board his connecting flight to Vancouver basically getting tossed off the connection.

He wound up taking another flight home the following day.

“They basically treated me like a child and gave me a time out. I was not going to fly home that night because I had the audacity to complain about the fact I didn’t get supper,” he said.

He filed a complaint with the CTA, alleging Air Canada breached the terms and conditions of carrying passengers internationally that it is required to follow.

The CTA last week dismissed his complaint, however, saying it was satisfied Fowlie engaged in abusive and offensive behaviour and said he hadn’t proved otherwise.

Fowlie says he was unaware of the evidentiary burden required to uphold his complaint and says the process is stacked against lay complaints who represent themselves.

He plans to appeal the CTA decision.

Fowlie is SuperElite member of the airline’s frequent-flyer program and logs 149,000 miles a year traveling around the world for ICANN

“If this is how they treat one of their best customers, how do they treat a casual flyer?” he is quoted as saying

Exactly Mr. Fowlie, welcome to the domainers world in trying to get ICANN to listen to matters that concern us even attempt to put us out of business.

I can understand the frustration with a corporation not treating their best customers well.

In the case of domainers, who last time VeriSign counted them decided they were responsible for 7% of all .com/net domain registrations.

Now I know you were responsible for 140,000 miles, all in executive class appearently, on Air Cananda, but I’m sure that represents well under 1/10 of 1% of all miles flown by Air Canada in a year.

Image if you were responsible for 8% of their revenue stream and then at every turn they allowed your fees to be raised, put in rules that made it even easier for them to bump you off flights or even worse, put you to coach, how would you feel about the Airline?

Welcome to the world of domainers Mr.Fowlie, where our 7% funding of ICANN gets us nothing but scorn, ever increasing regulations aimed squarely to put us out of business and cost increases in a time of recession, that ICANN granted to the central registry.

Moreover as a domainer faced with UDRP, WIPO actions, and now the proposed Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS), all procedures put into place to take my property away,  I love this quote in the story:

“”Fowlie says he was unaware of the evidentiary burden required to uphold his complaint and says the process is stacked against lay complaints who represent themselves.”"

“”The process is stacked against lay complaints who represent themselves.”"

Welcome to the world of domainers.

Talk about a stacked deck, try dealing with the incredibly inconsistent decisions of UDRP and WIPO’s panels and check out the current proposal for the URS which ICANN committees are floating around, which would take down a domain without notice to a domain holder.

Now to the final and bigger question.

If the ombudsman for ICANN conduct himself in this manner over a late meal, how can he be trusted to expected to coolly and justly decide important issues regarding ICANN?

What is an ombudsman?

According to ICANN site:

“The purpose of the office is to ensure that the members of the ICANN community have been treated fairly. The Ombudsman will act as impartial officer and will attempt to resolve complaints about unfair treatment by ICANN”

Moreover “The Ombudsman must be a respected, senior person known for his or her judgment, integrity and persuasiveness”

Umm.

Judgment, and persuasiveness?

Now I’ve flown quite a bit in my life, even on Air Canada, although I’m sure not as much as Mr. Fowlie (and not always in Executive class), but I can tell you I have never been denied entry onto a flight, never been cited by the Airline for abusive behavior, and never called a flight attendant “the little man” or any other such derogatory term.

This is not to say that I’ve never  had to ask for a meal or a drink or for better service, but I guess I have been able to get what I needed without getting abusive.

My grandmother told me you get more with honey than vinegar.  I bet your grandmother told you the same thing.

So if you can’t be persuasive enough to get a meal in first class and then decide to play the “little man” card what does that say about your judgment?

Judgment, and persuasiveness?

I don’t think so

External Articles, ICANN

As we wrote about over the weekend the independent panel that reviewed ICANN’s handling of the application of ICM Registry to run the .xxx registry, ruled that since ICANN voted to approve the application it should have allowed it to move forward without the additional review it understook.

So the question now becomes whether ICANN will follow the report of the panel and approve the ICM Registry’s application for the .xxx extension in its next meeting.

The ICM Registry believes it will be allowed to start registering.xxx domain names by the end of this year.

Stuart Lawley, chairman and president of ICM Registry, was quoted today as saying:

“We expect to execute a contract very soon [with ICANN] and .XXX names will be available by year’s end”

But if its blog post today is any indication, I would say ICANN is not about to vote this through.

On its blog ICANN writes today

“”"On Friday (19 February), we received the Declaration of the Panel from the first ICANN Independent Review Process (IRP), which is posted here: http://www.icann.org/en/irp/icm-v-icann.htm.

“”This is a landmark step in ICANN’s use of the accountability mechanisms built into our bylaws. ICM’s initiation of the Independent Review process marks the first time the process has been used since its creation about six years ago.

“”The Declaration will now be reviewed and considered by the ICANN Board of Directors during its next meeting, pursuant to the ICANN Bylaws, Article IV, section 3.  The Board’s next meeting is scheduled to be held in Nairobi on March 12.

“”Here are some key points arising from Declaration:

• The panel’s decision is not binding. It advised the ICANN Board to reconsider the .XXX gTLD at its next meeting.
• This rejection of the .XXX gTLD, which generated the Declaration, is an extremely complex issue.
• ICANN’s board voted down the .XXX gTLD on multiple grounds.
• There was considerable public concern expressed against this particular gTLD, which can be found here: http://forum.icann.org/lists/xxx-comments/.
• After this long history with the .XXX application, it will again land in the hands of the ICANN Board of Directors.

“”"The IRP process was designed to enhance ICANN accountability and was approved by the ICANN board in 2003.  This first use is a testament to the enhanced accountability.  As a result of the IRP, the ICANN board will again consider the proposed .XXX top-level domain, despite the previous considerable stakeholder and public opposition to its approval.”"”

Does this sound like a body that is leaning towards reversing its position and agreeing to issue the extension?

There is going to be an outcry from the registry community to approve the extension.

Actually there already is.

The vast majority of the comments on ICANN’s site are already urging them to follow their own rules and the recommendation of the Panel and grant the application of ICM.

However the tone of the blog post is clearly negative and from the sound of it I think ICANN will acknowledge its mistakes as outlined by the Panel, use the opportunity to clarify the rules and time lines for the new gTLD’s and try to tie this into the new gTLD process.

I do not think ICANN is going to do anything at this point to jeopardize the new extensions especially by approving the most controversial of all, in light of all the objections to it.

Finally I wonder what the current US administrations position on this extension is and whether ICANN will gauge that prior to its meeting next month.

.XXX, Domain Industry, External Articles, ICANN, New Extensions

Yesterday an independent panel, the International Centre For Dispute Resolution (pdf) found in a 80 page decision, in favor of the ICM Registry against ICANN for its decision to eventually reject the .xxx extension and ruled that ICANN had to pick up all the costs of the independent panel to the tune of $475K and reimburse ICM the fees it paid for the application to the tune of another $241K. (ICM is stuck for its own attorney fees).

However the ruling by its nature is advisory only and has no biding effect.

However with ICANN considering an unlimited number of new gTLD’s its really interesting to see how the application, approval and eventually denial of the .xxx application all went down and should give any one considering applying for a new gTLD at least something to consider before heading down that path.

This matter has a long and extensive past, but I will try to summarize the facts here:

ICM originally applied for the .xxx extension back in 2000 but its application was rejected for various reasons including issues dealing with the applicant itself.

ICM reapplied for the .xxx extension in 2004 which is the subject of this review.

On June 1, 2005, ICANN voted 6-3 vote in favor of approving the .xxx extension

Done deal right?

No

Not by a long shot.

After ICANN approval was given, all sorts of objections came in from governments around the world at the meeting of the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) in Luxembourg July 11-12, 2005.

The record is not clear of why all these governments didn’t object, or even seem to have an interest in the .xxx extension until after ICANN voted to approve it, but based on the record that seems to be the case.

To be clear not all governments objection were based on creating an online adult district, but some objections were raised based on the applicant itself, some of which issues, at least in part, caused their 2000 application to be denied.

Included in the governments that seemed uninterested about the extension until after passage was that of the United States.

On August 11, 2005, some 2 months after ICANN approved the application, the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Michael D. Gallagher, wrote this now famous letter to Mr. Twomey, (then the CEO of ICANN):

“I understand that the Board of Directors of (ICANN) is scheduled to  consider approval of an agreement with the ICM Registry to operate  the .xxx top level domain (TLD) on August 16, 2005.  I am writing to  urge the Board to ensure that the concerns of all members of the  Internet community on this issue have been adequately heard and  resolved before the Board takes action on this application. “Since the ICANN Board voted to negotiate a contract with ICM Registry for the .xxx TLD in June 2005, this issue has garnered widespread public attention and concern outside of the ICANN community.  The Department of Commerce has received nearly 6000 letters and emails from individuals expressing concern about the impact of pornography on families and children and opposing the creation of a new top level domain devoted to adult content. We also understand that other countries have significant reservations regarding the creation of a .xxx TLD.  I believe that ICANN has also received many of these concerned comments. The volume of correspondence opposed to the creation of a .xxx TLD is unprecedented. Given the extent of the negative reaction, I request that the Board will provide a proper process and adequate additional time for these concerns to be voiced and addressed before any additional action takes place on this issue. “It is of paramount importance that the Board ensure the best interests of the Internet community as a whole are fully considered as it evaluates the addition to this new top level domain…”

After this letter and the concerns that many countries raised at the GAC meeting, another series of ICANN board meeting took throughout 2006.

Then at a special meeting of the ICANN Board on February 12, 2007, the following resolution was unanimously adopted:

“Whereas a majority of the Board has serious concerns about whether the proposed .XXX domain has the support of a clearly-defined sponsored community as per the criteria for sponsored TLDs;

“Whereas a minority of the Board believed that the self-described community of sponsorship made known by the proponent of the .XXX domain, ICM Registry, was sufficient to meet the criteria for an sTLD.

“Resolved that:

I. The revised version [now the fifth version of the draft agreement] be exposed to a public comment period of no less than 21 days, and

II. ICANN staff consult with ICM and provide further information to the Board prior to its next meeting, so as to inform a decision by the Board about whether sponsorship criteria is met for the creation of a new .XXX sTLD.

So 1 1/2 years after approving the application ICANN reopened the consideration of the application and opened up a public comment period.

Finally on on March 30, 2007, ICANN voted to reject ICM’s application for .xxx extension, by a vote of 9 – 5, with one abstention (that of Dr. Twomey) and adopted a resolution which stated in part:

“ICM’s application and the revised agreement failed to meet,  among other things, the sponsored community criteria of the RFP specification.

“Based on the extensive public comments and from comments from the GAC and  that this agreement raises public policy issues, the .xxx sTLD is rejected and the application request  for delegation of the .XXX sTLD is hereby denied.”

The ICM Registry then filed for a review of that determination.

So we now fast forward three years later and the ruling is in,  and its bad news for ICANN.

As you would expect with an 80 page decision that arguments are long and complicated but here is what I took away from the decision:

Once ICANN voted on June 1, 2005 to approve the application ICANN, could not reverse itself.

All of the discussion, arguments of governments, including that of the US Department of Commerce needed to happen before the vote, not after.

Duh.

For whatever reason the objections to .xxx extension and the applicant all came after the application was already voted on and approved by ICANN.

The panel said all of those issues could have been taking into account by ICANN and ICANN would have been fine rejecting the application for any of or all of the reasons and concerns raised by governments around the world and the US Department of Commerce, before the Vote. of June 1, 2005

“Once the ICANN Board determined that the application of ICM Registry met the sponsorship criteria, that determination was definitive and irrevocable.”

“”"In the view of the Panel, the Board did decide by adopting its resolutions of June 1, 2005, that the application of ICM Registry for a TLD met the selection criteria, in particular the sponsorship criteria.”

“”In the Panel’s view, the TLD process was “successfully completed”…in the case of ICM Registry with the adoption of the June 1, 2005, resolutions.”"

“”"ICANN should have then have proceeded to conclude an agreement with ICM on commercial and technical terms, without reopening whether ICM’s application met sponsorship criteria.”"

“”The majority of the ICANN Board appears to have believed that was acting appropriately in reconsidering the question of sponsorship. The Board was pressed to do so by the Government of the United States and by quite a number of other influential governments, and ICANN was bound to “duly take into account” the views of those governments. It is not at fault because it did so.”"

“”The Panel does not conclude that the Board, absent the expression of those governmental positions, would necessarily have arrived at a conclusion favorable to ICM. It accepts the affirmation of members of the Board that they did not vote against acceptance of ICM’s application because of governmental pressure. Certainly there are those, including Board members, who understandably react negatively to pornography, and, in some cases, their reactions may be more visceral than rational. But they may also have had doubts, as did the Board, that ICM would be able successfully to achieve what it claimed .XXX would achieve. “”"

“”"The Panel concludes, for the reasons stated above, that the holdings of the Independent Review Panel are advisory in nature; they do not constitute a binding arbitral award. “”

“The actions and decisions of the ICANN Board are not entitled to deference whether by application of the “business judgment” rule or otherwise; they are to be appraised not deferentially but objectively.”

“”Third, the provision of Article 4 of ICANN’s Articles of Incorporation prescribing that ICANN “shall operate for the benefit of the Internet community as a whole, carrying out its activities in conformity with relevant principles of international law and applicable international conventions and local law,” requires ICANN to operate in conformity with relevant general principles of law (such as good faith) as well as relevant principles of international law, applicable international conventions, and the law of the State of California. “”"

“”Fourth, the Board of ICANN in adopting its resolutions of June 1, 2005, found that the application of ICM Registry for the .XXX sTLD met the required sponsorship criteria. “”"

“”"Fifth, the Board’s reconsideration of that finding was not consistent with the application of neutral, objective and fair documented policy. “”"

“”"ICANN shall be responsible for bearing all costs of the IRP Provider. Each party shall bear its own attorneys’ fees.”

“Therefore, the administrative fees and expenses of the International Centre for Dispute Resolution, totaling $4,500.00, shall be borne entirely by ICANN, and the compensation and expenses of the Independent Review Panel, totaling $473,744.91, shall be borne entirely by ICANN. ICANN shall accordingly reimburse ICM Registry with the sum of $241,372.46, representing that portion of said fees and expenses in excess of the apportioned costs previously incurred by ICM Registry.”"

In my view ICANN in a rush to judgment approved the .xxx extension without undertaking the ramifications such an extension would have.  It did not reach out and seek opinions of governmental bodies and other groups that had an interest in the creation of a internet red light district.  Even the adult internet community was by in large against the proposal, but ICANN rushed the application through.

The application process did not get enough press or publicity so people simply did not know about it until it was approved and then all hell broke lose.

Only once the application was approved, did ICANN start listening to the adult community, governments and consumer groups and the rest.

Back asswords.

Now out of fairness we have to point out that this whole mess took place well before Mr. Beckstrom took the helm of ICANN.

However anyone considering laying out hundreds of thousands of dollars going to a new gTLD, might want to check out the full opinion of the independent panel before stroking out the check.

.XXX, External Articles, ICANN, Legal, New Extensions

According to a report issued by ICANN yesterday, the upcoming ICANN meeting in Nairobi in March has received a message regarding a direct threat against the conference venue, the Kenyan International Conference Center (KICC). ICANN had canceled a planned meeting in Nairobi last year due to security concerns, but had recently confirmed their commitment to holding holding the 37th ICANN meeting in Kenya.

The ICANN board decided in their meeting on February 4th to move the decision on whether to go ahead with the Expressions of Interest (EOI) concept for new TLDs to the Nairobi meeting.

According to insider sources some companies, such as the Australian registry, LogicBoxes, GoDaddy and Neuleve/Neustar have announced that they will not be sending staff to the event.

Kieren McCarthy thinks these challenges may be a blessing in disguise helping to increase the ability for remote participation. In a letter addressed to the Chairman and the President & CEO of ICANN, GoDaddy proposed holding a connected parallel event should ICANN decide to go ahead with the meeting in Nairobi.

External Articles, ICANN, Kenya, Nairobi, Up to the Minute, meeting, threat

ICANN released its “compensation practices” today (pdf file) and for an organization that is “non-profit” there is some serious money being made by the insiders.

According to the document, CEO Rod Beckstrom entered in to a three year employment agreement effective 1 July 2009 with a base salary of US$750,000 per year.

Right.

3 years @ $750K per Guaranteed.

In the height of the recession when over 10% of the population is unemployed, the leader of the non-profit monopoly got a guarantee of  over $2.2 Million dollars over the next three years to head up the non-profit corporation known as ICANN.

But wait there’s more.

Mr. Beckstrom is also given an “additional at risk compensation” of up to US$195,000 per year.

So lets add $600K to the equation.

Now we are up to $2.8 Million dollars for 3 years, which over $2.2 of which is guaranteed.

But wait, there’s more.

Mr. Beckstrom also gets coverage “under vacation, health and welfare plans including medical, dental, vision, life insurance and a 401(k) retirement.”

Nice.

Very Nice.

However Mr. Beckstrom is not alone.

Other higher up in ICANN are banking as well.

The Chief Operating Officer Mr. Doug Brent has a base salary of US$270,000 per year, PLUS a housing allowance of $24,000 per year AND an additional “at risk compensation” of up to 48%  of base, so lets call it $540K per year PLUS housing, PLUS standard coverage under vacation, health and welfare plans including medical, dental, vision, life insurance and a 401(k) retirement plan.

The General Counsel and Secretary Mr. John Jeffrey compensation consists of a base salary of US$230,000 per year, PLUS an additional “at risk compensation” of up to 30 % of base pay per year, and standard coverage under vacation, health and welfare plans including medical, dental, vision, life insurance and a 401(k) retirement plan.

Senior Vice President, Services Mr. Kurt Pritz compensation consists of a base salary of US$245,000 per year, additional “at risk compensation” of up to 30% of base pay per year, and standard coverage under vacation, health and welfare plans including medical, dental, vision, life insurance and a 401(k) retirement.

The Chief Financial Officer Mr. Kevin Wilson’s compensation consists of a base salary of $170,000 per year, additional “at risk compensation” of up to 20% of base pay per year, and standard coverage under vacation, health and welfare plans including medical, dental, vision, life insurance and a 401(k) retirement plan.

Ok so you might be asking what is this “at risk bonus compensation program” everyone seems to be in on.

The program is described by ICANN as one designed “to provide incentives to staff for the accomplishment of specific goals and objectives throughout the year that have been identified as being of significant importance or adding value to the overall ICANN effort.”

“”Most staff members participate in the at risk compensation program. Participation, and level of participation, are determined by senior management or the Board of Directors as appropriate.”

So as ICANN goals of additional gTLD’s for example are reached, executives receive additional compensation, as detailed above of up to 50% more than their base salary.

Nice.

Very Nice.

Recession?

Not at ICANN.

By comparison

The President of the United States makes $400K.

The Secretarial General of the UN which is the highest paid person at the UN makes $227K.

External Articles, ICANN

CEO Rod Beckstrom earns $750,000 annual base salary plus bonus

As a not-for profit Organization, ICANN always had to file and publish some information of how they spent their money. However those filings are hard to read and some cases some of the information has been removed. It appears ICANN president & CEO Rod Beckstrom is trying hard to bring a new openness to ICANN. Today he published a document on twitter showing the compensation for ICANN’s top employees. The non-profit models its compensation based on For-Profit companies and “has had major blunders, yet to my knowledge no staff were ever held accountable through termination or pay reductions” according to an article by George Kirikos published on CircleID. Kirikos also points out that the highest paid UN employee earns an annual salary of US$201,000 (“Under Secretary General”) even when taking into account the ITU employees.

But not only salaries at ICANN are costing the domain industry and registrants a fortune. Many of the recently de-accredited registrars owed ICANN large amounts of money. And yet ICANN decided to wait and not require an earlier payment of the fees. Most likely this money will never be seen by ICANN now, and thus the rest of the community will have to pay for it.

The board has recently decided to release $1.5 million from the existing budget contingency in order to cover operating expenses for the 2010 budget. In addition the board “requests the CEO and his designated staff to closely monitor expenditures and forecasts for FY10“.

See the details for ICANN top staff compensation after the jump.

President and Chief Executive Officer

Rod Beckstrom was appointed ICANN’s President and Chief Executive Officer, as well as a member of the Board of Directors, effective 1 July 2009. ICANN and Beckstrom entered in to a three year employment agreement effective 1 July 2009. Under the terms of the agreement Beckstrom is paid a base salary of US$750,000 per year, additional at risk compensation of up to US$195,000 per year, and coverage under vacation, health and welfare plans including medical, dental, vision, life insurance and a 401(k) retirement plan as ICANN makes available to its staff.

Chief Operating Officer

Mr. Doug Brent was appointed as Chief Operating Officer on 13 December 2006. Brent’s compensation consists of a base salary of US$270,000 per year, a housing allowance of $24,000 per year which is tax neutralized, additional at risk compensation of up to 48 percent of base pay each year, and standard coverage under vacation, health and welfare plans including medical, dental, vision, life insurance and a 401(k) retirement plan as ICANN makes available to its staff.

General Counsel and Secretary

Mr. John Jeffrey was appointed as General Counsel and Secretary on 2 September 2003. Jeffrey’s compensation consists of a base salary of US$230,000 per year, additional at risk compensation of up to 30 percent of base pay per year, and standard coverage under vacation, health and welfare plans including medical, dental, vision, life insurance and a 401(k) retirement plan as ICANN makes available to its staff.

Senior Vice President, Services

Mr. Kurt Pritz was appointed as Vice President, Business Operations on 2 September 2003. Pritz was appointed Senior Vice President, Services on 13 December 2006. Pritz’ compensation consists of a base salary of US$245,000 per year, additional at risk compensation of up to 30 percent of base pay per year, and standard coverage under vacation, health and welfare plans including medical, dental, vision, life insurance and a 401(k) retirement plan as ICANN makes available to its staff.

Chief Financial Officer

Mr. Kevin Wilson was appointed as Chief Financial Officer on 26 June 2007. Wilson’s compensation consists of a base salary of $170,000 per year, additional at risk compensation of up to 20 percent of base pay per year, and standard coverage under vacation, health and welfare plans including medical, dental, vision, life insurance and a 401(k) retirement plan as ICANN makes available to its staff.

ICANN Compensation Practices (PDF)

[Thanks to Rod Beckstrom, George Kirikos]

(c) 2009 DomainNameNews.com

Advertisement
WE BUY DOMAINS. We are interested in acquiring your premium domains – find out more.

Doug Brent, External Articles, ICANN, ICANN / Policy, John Jeffrey, Kevin Wilson, Kurt Pritz, Rod Beckstrom, Salaries, george kirikos

Verisign (NASDAQ: VRSN) will celebrate the 25th anniversary of the .COM gTLD with a Policy Forum and Gala and has also set up a website with a timeline of the development of .COM. The first domain name, symbolics.com, was registered on March 15th, 1985 and is today owned by domain investor Aron Meystedt.

In order to celebrate the anniversary the main sponsor and registry operator Verisign, will be hosting  a Policy Forum in Washington DC on March 16th and will end with gala in San Francisco on May 26th. The company will also announce the creation of four $75,000 research grants that will be awarded to those who show the most promise to shape the next 25 years of .com.

“In the past 25 years, the Internet has altered history and transformed lives around the globe. It has forever changed our relationships with the world around us by providing unprecedented access to people, places and information. The .com celebration is about honoring the innovators who have gotten us to where we are today and recognizing those who will help shape the next 25 years,” said Mark McLaughlin, CEO, VeriSign. “Billions of times each day, VeriSign connects web sites and users, while helping to ensure the Internet revolution continues to unfold at its characteristically fast pace. We’re proud of the role that VeriSign plays in enabling the .com infrastructure and in the role that our registrars play in providing the crucial platform and access to .com every day.”

Read the full press release after the jump.

.com Approaches 25th Anniversary

VeriSign to Lead Year-Long Initiative to Recognize Innovators and Leaders That Have Shaped First 25 Years of .com

MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA — (Marketwire) — February 3, 2010 — In March 1985, the first .com domain was registered, igniting the birth of the consumer Internet that, 25 years later, continues to transform communications, commerce and our society as a whole.

Beginning in March 2010, VeriSign, the long-time operator of the .com domain, will lead an industry-wide initiative to recognize the innovators and leaders that have shaped the first 25 years of .com and in doing so transformed our economy and society. The celebration of “25 Years of .com” will kick off with a policy-focused event in Washington, DC on March 16.

In conjunction with that event, VeriSign will also announce the creation of four $75,000 research grants that will be awarded to those who show the most promise to shape the next 25 years of .com.

“In the past 25 years, the Internet has altered history and transformed lives around the globe. It has forever changed our relationships with the world around us by providing unprecedented access to people, places and information. The .com celebration is about honoring the innovators who have gotten us to where we are today and recognizing those who will help shape the next 25 years,” said Mark McLaughlin, CEO, VeriSign. “Billions of times each day, VeriSign connects web sites and users, while helping to ensure the Internet revolution continues to unfold at its characteristically fast pace. We’re proud of the role that VeriSign plays in enabling the .com infrastructure and in the role that our registrars play in providing the crucial platform and access to .com every day.”

Details on major events and initiatives:

March 16: Policy Impact Forum, Washington, DC

The Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center Amphitheater

The Internet has been the source of — and increasingly, the forum for — some of the most interesting and controversial policy debates in recent times. Public policy has been challenged to keep up with the ever-evolving, fast-paced advances of the Internet and the often-perplexing economic and social questions that it raises.

This day-long event will feature thought-provoking keynote speakers and two engaging panel discussions that will bring together innovators, entrepreneurs, visionaries and Internet users to reflect on how we got here; to discuss the significant impact of the Internet on our economy, society and environment; and to focus on what the future of .com will hold.

.com 25 Awards

.com would not be what it is today without the early innovators who paved the way. As part of this celebration, VeriSign will soon announce the top 75 people and companies who have made the most notable impact in shaping the Internet and ultimately, our world. From this list, a distinguished panel comprised of some of the Internet’s most important influencers, will select the “.com 25.” Winners of the .com 25 will be announced at a gala event later this spring in San Francisco.

A web site — www.25yearsof.com — will host a variety of multimedia content throughout the coming months, showcasing the innovators and entrepreneurs who have shaped the Internet. 25yearsof.com is a year-long celebration of Internet innovation, all of which can be followed at:

Twitter: Keep up with our latest news at @25yearsofdotcom

Facebook: Friend us at facebook.com/25yearsofdotcom

Video: Watch people from leading Internet companies answer the question “How Do You .com?” at 25yearsof.com

About VeriSign

VeriSign, Inc. (NASDAQ: VRSN) is the trusted provider of Internet infrastructure services for the networked world. Billions of times each day, VeriSign helps companies and consumers all over the world engage in communications and commerce with confidence. Additional news and information about the company is available at www.verisign.com

.com, 25th, External Articles, ICANN, Registries, Symbolics.com, anniversary, gtld, registry, verisign

ICANN has named David Olive Vice President of Policy Development Support. Olive ends his 20 year tenure at Fujitsu where he most recently was General Manager and Chief Corporate Representative in the Washington office and will join ICANN on February 15th, 2010. He has also served as a member of the Commercial Board of Directors of TechAmerica and as the Public Policy Chairman for the World Information Technology and Services Alliance (WITSA), a consortium of over 70 information technology industry associations from economies around the world.

“ICANN is undoubtedly one of the most important entities on the globe in terms of Internet governance,” said Olive. “So it’s exciting to land in a position, where I can exercise my passion for foreign affairs while exploiting my experience in technology policy formation.”

“David’s skill sets are a perfect match for this position,” said Rod Beckstrom, ICANN’s CEO and President. “Our unique bottom-up policy formation model gives our international community an instrumental role in the development of ICANN’s policies. And while that translates into some amazing opportunities, it also creates some unique challenges, and there’s no doubt that with his demonstrated excellence in diplomacy and collaboration David is up to managing those challenges.”

[via TradingMarkets]

(c) 2009 DomainNameNews.com

Advertisement

European Domain Registration

David Olive, External Articles, Fujitsu, ICANN, People, policy

As we discussed the other day,  ICANN is considering the recommendation of one of its groups to “create a Trademark Clearinghouse and Uniform Rapid Suspension procedure to protect trademarks”

The public comment period ends today , 26 January 2010.

You can read the proposal here. (pdf)

To see all the comments submitted so far, click here.

To make a comment you have to send an e-mail to ICANN at the following address:

sti-report-2009@icann.org

Once your comment is received, ICANN will e-mail you acknowledging receipt of the comment.  You must confirm your comment by clicking on the link contained in the e-mail or your comment will not be submitted.

Your comment must be received AND confirmed by midnight of the 26th based on your time zone for it to be considered.

Now for the substance of the comment I have to turn to George Kirikos who knows more about ICANN matters from a domainers point of view than anyone on earth except for Phil Corwin who is, as we discussed the other day, without a contract and not filing a response.

Here is Mr. Kirikos response.  As always he has graciously offered that anyone can take part, or all of his comments and make them part of your own.

At the very least you need to file a comment saying you just agree and support Mr. Kirikos comments.

Here is the comment filed by George.  Again you HAVE to get your comment filed today:

While the latest report of the STI is a step in the right direction, it
continues to go beyond the common-denominator international law and overreaches
in favour of those making complaints. While my company has no intention to ever
register domain names in new gTLDs, it seems that the intent amongst the
TM-mafia/cabal is to at some later date apply these same rules to existing
gTLDs. Thus, while we don't care about new gTLDs whatsoever, we must comment in
order that bad rules aren't implemented that later put at risk legitimate
registrants in existing gTLDs. 

Most TM attorneys share our grave concerns that new gTLDs are a bad idea, and
ICANN should not be trying to "divide and conquer" by playing interests off
against one another in order to further their own ambitions which the public is
against. We stand united with most in the TM community opposing new gTLDs.

First off, I'd like to applaud some of the TM lobby for being balanced in their
proposals. There are some "good guys" in that group that looked at our past
critiques, listened to our concerns, and made appropriate adjustments. They are
to be commended. Just as there are "good guys" in the domain registrant
community, there are also "good guys" representing the IP interests of
brandholders who do not overreach and don't engage in reverse domain name
hijacking.

However, just as there are cybersquatters, there are also a group in the IP
community who would not hesitate to bring forth frivolous claims in order to
harass existing registrants and reverse hijack their rightfully owned domain
names in order to gain an economic advantage. Both of these "extremists" in the
registrant and IP groups need to be reigned in by the rules.

In addition to our previously-submitted comments (linked to from above), here
are some points we'd like to reiterate:

1. There is no need for a Trademark Clearinghouse that is sanctioned by ICANN.
It can clearly be funded and created entirely by the private sector, and does
not need to be "sanctioned" or funded in any way by ICANN. In our opinion this
will be a great waste of money, and should only be funded by those who are
foolish enough to waste their own money (namely TM holders and registry
operators) on it. Public money should in no way subsidize it or give it a
monopoly position (i.e. there could be multiple competing TM databases).
Frankly, it becomes a protection racket that justifies new gTLD operators in
having sunrise periods that tax TM holders with registering (and even competing
for via auctions) unwanted defensive registrations. The TM Clearinghouse cannot
override the courts, wherein TMs are routinely challenged and overturned.
"Validation" at the clearinghouse would be gamed by those holding the weakest
marks (e.g. trademark trolls), often for the sole
  purpose of asserting claims on generic descriptive domain names that they
would otherwise not be entitled to. The TM Clearinghouse also simply adds a new
layer of bureaucracy to the ICANN ecosystem, another set of contractors and
consultants who will ultimately tax the public through higher fees, and
self-interested lobbying.

2. We find it humourous that no accreditation agreement/contract exists for
UDRP providers at present, yet 3.1 recommends exactly that for the TM
clearinghouse. First things first --- get the UDRP providers like WIPO and NAF
under contract in order to ensure accountability.

3. Of course figurative marks should be excluded from the database. Some
commenters want them included, which is ridiculous. The STI got that right, at
least.

4. The TM Clearinghouse data should be in the public domain (i.e. there should
be bulk access for the public to download it for free, just as they can for the
.com zone file), and be available for free to successor TM clearinghouse
operators (i.e. no perpetual monopolies). Fees are for things like validation,
not for access to a new for-profit monopoly "service" who will try to tax users
and the public over time. The most efficient operator(s) would earn "normal"
profits via a regular tender process or procurement process, not excess profits
through perpetual monopolies and a stranglehold over data they deem
"proprietary." An open XML schema and open bulk access process should be
created to ensure the public is not held hostage in the future. 

5. We do not support mandatory pre-launch use of the TM clearinghouse. Almost
every dictionary word, acronym, etc. has some registered TM in some obscure
class of goods and services. That does *not* give it exclusivity or a
right-of-first refusal over *all* uses worldwide. A registered TM for "example"
in Albania should have no weight in blocking "example.newtld" for a good faith
registrant in the USA or Canada, or even for a registrant in Albania in a
different class of goods and services. We've already seen frivolous registered
TMs in the .eu launch, and they were not all from Benelux (i.e. there are a lot
of frivolous marks in the US, Canada and elsewhere).

6. In a real sense, ICANN needs to make up its mind whether they want an
expansion of the namespace (in which case new registrants are presumed innocent
until proven guilty), or simply wants defensive registrations that duplicate
existing gTLDs. It's clear registry operators do not care, as long as someone
pays the bill for a domain name (i.e. the cybersquatter, the defensive TM
registrant, and the good faith registrant are all equal before their eyes).
There's a hypocrisy to the sunrise periods that undermines everything ICANN and
other new gTLD advocates say, and that hypocrisy is evident to the broader
public who does not seek new gTLDs.

7. As per our comments above, 6.1 needs to be modified from "on commercially
reasonable terms" to free. The TC operator should have no monopoly whatsoever
on the data -- they are simply a contractor for a fixed period, and the data
belongs to the public domain.

8. We do not support linkage between the TC and the URS (in 6.2), unless the
domain registrant is in the same country/jurisdiction as that of the TM.

9. We oppose the URS in principle, as it will be abused and used to harass
legitimate registrants. The better policy would be, as we have suggested
multiple times, to have WHOIS verification. This thwarts cybersquatters, who
want to hide in the shadows, from registering abusive domain names and thus
reduces overall cybersquatting. Many external TM lawyers make money from filing
complaints, and do you notice they do not push strongly for WHOIS accuracy
(which would reduce complaints significantly). But, TM lawyers within
corporations should be in favour of this, as it would reduce their policing
costs if there are fewer domains being abused. Verified WHOIS acts as a
deterrent to abuse.

The URS, on the other hand, tackles the problem after it's too late. Of course
ICANN, registries and registrars benefit financially from these abusive
registrations through the associated fees, and have no interest in discouraging
and preventing abusive registrations through WHOIS verification (which would be
very low cost, as we have discussed in previous submissions). They'd prefer to
collect the money up front, and impose the costs of the abuse on the wider
public, laughing all the way to the bank. 

I believe the DOC or GAC should step in and mandate Verified WHOIS via a PIN
system (i.e. physical letter with a PIN code mailed to registrants to ensure
address accuracy before a domain name gets activated). This would please TM
holders, consumers, and legitimate domain registrants who always maintain
accurate WHOIS.

10. The "Safe Harbors" in the URS should include the words "without
limitation", to ensure that they can grow over time. The policy is flawed
because URS providers have a financial incentive to expand the definition of
"abuse" over time, but registrants should have that same power to check that
growth through their own examples of good faith usage.

11. In order to ensure that there is no forum shopping, the URS provider should
be selected by the *registrant* (or alternatively the registrar), not by the
complainant. If one studies the history of the UDRP, this was a very early
proposal that in hindsight made a lot of sense, given the problems we've seen
with WIPO, NAF and CAC engaged in a "race to the bottom" to appeal to TM
holders. By shifting the balance so that it is the *registrant* who selects
which URS provider handles a case, the playing field is made more level. If the
registrant does not select a provider, a case would be randomized between
multiple providers and panels.

12. There should be notice made to attorneys of the domain registrants, whose
legal contact data would appear in the public WHOIS on an opt-in basis. This
would increase the odds of *actual notice* of complaints, as the attorney might
receive notice when a registrant is on holiday, and act accordingly. 

13. Domain locking/freezing should be done by the *registrar*, NOT the registry
operator. This would allow the registrar to also contact their client, to
improve the odds of actual notice.

14. 20 days is insufficient notice, especially for domains that have been
registered for long periods. The notice period should be a formula based on the
age (from creation date) of the domain name. For a 10-year old domain name, for
example, where there is no "emergency" requiring the URS and the TM holder has
slept on their rights, the notice period might be 6 months, for example. For a
freshly registered 2 month old domain name, 20 days might be considered
adequate. Alternatively, the URS should not apply at all to domains older than
a certain age, for example a cut-off of 2 years past the creation date. In the
real world, if I had a "McDonald's" sign over my door for 10 years, and
McDonald's tried to get an emergency injunction (which is kind of what the URS
is like) to have it torn down, the judge would deny it, and instead set the
matter for normal trial. McDonald's would have faced the issue of laches,
having slept on their rights. By using a
 formula like that suggested above, it encourages complaints to be brought
promptly, and that they are not used as a tool to harass long-term good faith
registrants. In the real world there are statutes of limitations on bringing
actions, and this change would be in line with the real world precedent.
Indeed, not having a limitation period would create the absurdity that a
URS/UDRP provider could find in favour of a complaint that would be
*statute-barred* from the court system!

15. URS providers and panelists, as in the UDRP, should not be excluded from
liability in real courts if there is deliberate wrongdoing.

16. The domain name should not be transferred to the complainant after a
successful complaint unless the registrant has ample time (say 6 months) to
launch an appeal in court.

17. Any complainant losing a URS should be precluded from getting a second
"kick at the can" via UDRP for a period of 2 years for the same domain name.
They can instead use the court system if they lose.

18. Point 8.2 is very wrong, namely an appeal by the registrant in real court
to overturn the URS should immediately restore the nameservers to those
specified by the complainant. Real court trumps URS. That appeal should be
permitted at any time, including during the time before a URS response is
required. The registry and registrar need to obey the court in restoring the
nameservers, otherwise innocent registrants would have income-generating
websites disrupted by bad decisions from URS providers.

19. The penalties for abuse by TM holders are trivial. They need to be made
substantially stronger. In Canada, there are financial penalties under the CDRP
(.ca version of UDRP) which provides for a bad faith complainant paying up to
$5000 (as ordered by a panel):

http://www.cira.ca/assets/Documents/CDRPpolicy.pdfÂ; (section 4.6)

to respondent to cover the costs of the registrant. That represents a fair and
balanced policy, and reduces frivolous complaints. Alternatively, complainants
should post a security bond.

20. All URS decisions need to be made public, just as in the UDRP, in order to
ensure that the public can scrutinize whether panelists and URS providers are
following the rules. They should be available via a XML interface, in addition
to plain text/HTML as they are now, so that researchers can have bulk access to
the XML for scholarly and academic studies (as we've also suggested for the
UDRP).

21. Registrants should be able to white-list themselves to opt-out of the URS
(and UDRP) through mechanisms such as WHOIS verification, or posting of
security bonds with their registrars. The "good guys" want to stand out from
the bad guys, however ICANN and the TM mafia wants to treat all registrants as
though they are all cybersquatters.

22. The Business Constituency has been captured by the TM lobby, and no longer
represents true businesses (that's one of the reasons we've left it, as well as
their new totalitarian charter). Their "minority report" should be disregarded,
and not interpreted as representing the views of legitimate business
registrants.

23. In Appendix 6, the points in 1.2 (page 44) are described as
"non-exhaustive". This is flawed, just as in the UDRP, and encourages URS
providers and panelists to have an ever-expanding definition of "bad faith" in
order to promote themselves and or their provider amongst complainants. It's
the reason we see some ridiculous decisions coming from UDRP providers who seek
to stretch and change and literally break the rules in order to encourage more
complaints, thereby bringing them more money. This needs to stop. The way to do
this is to define clear what the *actual* clear-cut circumstances are, and make
them exhaustive and unchanging (unless changed via PDP). Panel members have
made themselves into rule-makers, instead of being those who *apply* the rules,
and this is simply wrong. As we mentioned above, the "Safe Harbors" must
balance 1.2, and should be non-exhaustive. Only the clearest-cut obvious cases
should win a URS or UDRP, not a 51% to 49%
 "probability" based model. Most of us in good faith can view the list of
upcoming UDRP cases and *know* which ones are slam dunks, and are indefensible.
It's these ones that should be "assembly line" cases. But, there are many
others, generic dictionary words, acronymns, abbreviations, etc. where
panelists have taken it upon themselves to make up new law as they go along, to
please Complainants and encourage additional complaints.

24. There are huge conflicts of interests in allowing panelists to also
represent complainants/respondents. Panelists should be precluded to ever
represent others (i.e. in other domain disputes). You can see more on this in
the comments to the article at:

http://domainnamewire.com/2009/12/28/2009-domain-dunce-award-panelist-andrew-f-christie/

In particular, there was a US Supreme Court decision this year, Caperton v.
Massey, where the court created a new standard requiring requiring judges to
recuse themselves if there is a âprobability of biasâ. See:

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/08-22.pdf

I believe this principle might be useful to disqualify some UDRP panelists.

25. Panelists need to be reminded that "evidence" is not the same as "proof"
--- some don't seem to get it, and simply "check the boxes" on evidence without
weighing it! (see the comments in the DomainNameWire article for more on that)

In conclusion, the bad policy decision of going forward with new gTLDs against
the wishes of the public cannot be fixed by implementing bad policies such as
the IRT or its step-child the STI. ICANN needs to recognize that the proper
course is to maintain the stability that we have today, and only add additional
new gTLDs if their benefits exceed their costs. It's laughable to watch the
posturing of those trying to "sell" new gTLDs as desirable, and those who
change their principles on a dime because they see potential short-term gain.
ICANN should be in the business of refining *long-term* principles that are
broadly supported by the public, not playing constituencies and groups against
each other in order to further their own self-interest in becoming a $200
million/year organization that taxes internet users to fund world travel,
African safaris, and extravagant parties.

Furthermore, the STI would be considered "policy". Under the Affirmation of
Commitments:

http://www.icann.org/en/documents/affirmation-of-commitments-30sep09-en.htm

"To ensure that its decisions are in the public interest, and not just the
interests of a particular set of stakeholders, ICANN commits to perform and
publish analyses of the positive and negative effects of its decisions on the
public, including any financial impact on the public, and the positive or
negative impact (if any) on the systemic security, stability and resiliency of
the DNS."

Where is the list of "negative effects" published by ICANN or the GSNO, and an
economic valuation of the financial size of the positive vs. the negative
effects to determine whether the benefits exceed the costs of the STI/IRT?
We've basically had a process where a bunch of lawyers got together, without
any economists at the table to perform financial analysis or provide a reality
check on what they are talking about. This is a pure violation of the AOC, the
lack of attention paid to the requirements to serve the public interest *AND*
to analyze the positive and negative financial impacts. On that basis alone,
the STI should be rejected as "not finished" and should be sent back for
consideration using the expertise of those who are not lawyers. 

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
http://www.leap.com/

External Articles, ICA, ICANN