Board opts for separation of registrars and registries for new top level domain names.

[Update: Minutes from board meeting emphasize pending plan from GNSO.] ICANN’s board resolved today that there will be “strict separation of entities offering registry services and those acting as registrars. No co-ownership will be allowed.”

However, the board left the possibility open for compromise, stating that if the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) comes up with a compromise, it will consider it.

This is bad news for companies such as Demand Media, which owns registrar eNom and hoped to apply for new top level domain names. It’s good news for incumbent registries VeriSign, Neustar, and Afilias.

The issue of registry/registrar separation has been a hot topic since the start of discussions on new top level domain names. The separation of the .com registry from the registrar business opened the door to massive registrar competition. Without it, it’s fair to wonder if behemoths such as Go Daddy, eNom, and Tucows would be around today.

But proponents of allowing integration — including some of these very same registrars that benefited to separation the first time around — argue that was a different time with a different set of circumstances.

Practically speaking, I don’t think prohibiting registrars from being registries will make that much of a difference in new TLDs. It will just create a headache for registrars as they create separate legal and financial structures to side step the prohibition.

Internet Commerce Association wants ICANN to act quickly on move by UDRP provider.

Internet Commerce Association counsel Philip Corwin has sent a letter (pdf) to ICANN CEO Rod Beckstrom and Chairman of the Board Peter Dengate-Thrush asking it to act on Czech Arbitration Court’s new UDRP policy.

Czech Arbitration Court (CAC), one of the newest UDRP providers, proposed a new scheme in which it would charge only 500 EUR to file a domain name complaint and arbitrators would not spend as much time on cases.

ICANN held a public comment period on the proposal, in which all 15 comments were opposed to CAC’s scheme. That includes comments from an existing arbitrator who questioned the basis for the proposal.

Counsel for CAC posted a comment on Domain Name Wire’s earlier story on the proposal, stating that it would not move forward without ICANN’s blessing. Instead, before getting final word from ICANN, CAC made a few changes to the proposal and announced it was going forward with our without ICANN’s approval.

So far, ICANN has not made any public comment on CAC’s move that I’m aware of. It was briefly discussed in another context on the first day of ICANN’s meeting in Nariobi.

Whether ICANN acts on CAC’s move or not, it needs to say something.

ICANN session on trademark protection suggests URS is close to being finalized.

Of all of the trademark protections being discussed for the launch of new top level domain names, it looks like Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) may be the closest to being approved. Uniform Rapid Suspension is a sort of “light UDRP” for domain names deemed to be clear cut cases of cybersquatting.

During the first day of sessions at ICANN’s Nairobi meeting, ICANN Chairman of the Board Peter Tengate-Thrush commented that the URS proposal may be close to approval:

I just wanted to warn the community that there’s a real danger of this mechanism actually having been agreed and the board voting on it and us moving on.

The silence that was the response to Mary’s outline and the fact that Robin can only find one quibble, which she then provided the answer to, suggests that we really are getting close on this one. And I think the evidence of compromise that’s all over there is another great sign.

So just a warning. We may actually be ready to move on this one.

In other words, speak now or forever hold your peace.

Although there wasn’t much debate at the ICANN meeting on URS, there’s still an open comment period on the topic.

As it stands, URS has been greatly watered down from the original proposal. A complainant doesn’t get rights to a domain name won through URS, it merely gets suspended. Which means that, once it expires, someone else will register it. (There was some discussion during the session of giving priority rights to the complainant upon expiration of the domain name. If this is added, it would basically make URS into a cheap UDRP with delayed gratification.)

Also during the discussion on URS, the issue of UDRP providers offering their own similar forms of URS came up. Czech Arbitration Court is offering a watered down version of UDRP starting March 15 (something ICANN still hasn’t commented on). WIPO also has plans, but they seem to still be in the exploration phase.

A person identified as “Brian from WIPO” in the ICANN session transcript stated:

It’s true we have been exploring ways to further expedite and make more cost-efficient the UDRP within the existing framework based on the ability to address issues such as word limits and fees in the supplemental rules. And we very much think it’s an open question, and I agree you with there that there are questions regarding the scope of interoperability between any URS and any efficiency gains that can be made within the UDRP process.

Bonuses mostly based on short term milestones.

When ICANN released its compensation ideology and information about the top five salaries last month, I wasn’t all that taken aback by the salaries. What got me curious was the bonus structure. Bonuses drive behavior, and bonuses tied to poor goals drive poor behavior. I have a patent related to goal alignment, so it’s something I’m familiar with.

During an exchange at ICANN’s Cairo meeting between Michael Palage and ICANN VP Kurt Pritz last year, it became clear that some ICANN employee bonuses were tied to new TLDs. That would result in pushing forward with something even if the community didn’t approve.

So here’s the good news: the bonuses are tied to results in a good way; not one that will encourage employees to move forward down the wrong path when perhaps it’s time to switch directions.

Last week I talked with Doug Brent, ICANN’s COO, who explained how goals are created and tied to the bonuses.

First, ICANN takes the three year strategic plan and the annual operating plan based on that.

“We then take that plan and break it into specific deliverables within a fiscal year,” explained Brent. The year is further divided into three units, often tied to ICANN meetings.

“We break it down into goals for each individual group,” said Brent. “What is that group as a whole suppose to deliver in the next time period? Then we break that down into 5-6 individual goals.”

These short term goals may include creating a draft report on a particular subject or analyzing community feedback. But they aren’t based on long term goals such as introducing new TLDs, and they take into consideration the fluid nature of the ICANN process. To get an idea of what the goals are based on, go to ICANN’s dashboard and click on “PM Summary”.

Brent has heard the rumor that someone at ICANN will get a big bonus when new gTLDs are launched. He says that’s unequivocally false.

Brent has not read ICANN CEO Rod Beckstrom’s contract, but he said for at least every other employee, there are no long term bonuses tied to growing revenue, number of employees, etc. Of course, there are goals for creating efficiency and reducing costs.

ICM Registry notifies ICANN of its hopes and intentions.

Fresh off an independent review victory over ICANN, .XXX top level domain name applicant ICM Registry is asking ICANN to get the show on the road.

In a letter (pdf) to ICANN chairman of the board Peter Dengate-Thrush, ICM chairman Stuart Lawley writes:

“I am hopeful, as are others in the community, that ICANN will embrace the communications of the panel and use them to improve its processes and to restore confidence in ICANN as an institution.”

Lawley said time is of the essence for ICANN to regain institutional confidence:

“Assuming, as I do, that the Board takes its obligations under the accountability provisions of the Bylaws seriously and will respect the conclusions of this Panel of preeminent international jurists, we believe that it is now incumbent on ICANN to move expeditiously to execute a registry agreement with ICM for operation of the .xxx top level domain.”

And if ICANN doesn’t act expeditiously to get a contract in place with ICM registry? It probably faces a lawsuit:

“ICM is mindful that our patience has not always been rewarded in the past and can see no purpose (other than the expenditure of yet more time, money and effort by both parties) that would be served by delay. Accordingly, and with respect, I hope you will understand that we must protect our rights if it appears that our efforts to work in partnership with ICANN are failing, once again, to bear fruit.”

My guess is ICANN either approves the agreement or pays off ICM registry to go away until the new gTLD round gets going.