Ad in The Economist likely the first of many.
As I finished the Christmas Double Issue of The Economist, I flipped through the final pages of ads and was surprised to see this:
Internet Corporation For Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) promised to do mainstream marketing for the launch of new top level domains, and this is the first ad I’ve seen.
The tag line on the ad reads “New Generic Top Level Domains – Openness, Change, Innovation”
I hope ICANN takes into serious consideration the 317 comments it received from people who reviewed the new TLD application guidebook. If ICANN ignores key points — such as trademark concerns and registry agreements — it could darn well have a mutiny on its hands.
Judging from the comments, few people have faith that ICANN can pull off such a massive expansion of top level domains at once. And few people believe these will actually add competition to the top level domain space. As the U.S. Department of Justice and Commerce Department pointed out, none of the previously launched TLDs has challenged .com. The proposed process for new TLDs does not create registry-level competition to offer a good deal to consumers, either. Another big concern is how ICANN seems to be jumping into policy making and morale issues with the new TLDs.
I’m curious what role bonuses and job security at ICANN play into the organization’s decisions, especially if it pushes forward so aggressively with its new TLD plan. We know that new TLDs will add job security as the organization will grow exponentially. As for bonuses, there’s also a clear link to a number of ICANN employees. They get bonuses based on meeting their goals and objectives. If you’re involved with new TLDs and they don’t launch, your bonus will likely be affected. Executives get bigger bonuses. VP of Corporate Affairs Paul Levins, General Counsel and Secretary John Jeffrey, and SVP of Services Kurt Pritz can each earn up to 30% of their base salary as a bonus. I wouldn’t be surprised if revenue growth is part of the bonus structure.
If ICANN pushes forward aggressively, the internet community should consider if ICANN is ready to disengage from the U.S. later this year.
David J Castello says
It’s obvious that ICANN considers the launch of these vanity TLDs a done deal.
They should not feel the same about the US ending oversight.
Johnny says
It simply sounds like a system based on cash rewards for “change”.
Most technology systems work best with less change and less complexity. They should know this. Rewards for “change” is the wrong approach.
God bless the Department of Commerce for jumping on ICANN for getting out of line. It was about time. They will destroy the Internet if something is not done to control them.
Also, why should anyone be getting bonuses for anything at ICANN? That is a salesman’s payout structure….not a policy maker’s payout structure.
It’s more of the same fat cat mentality that the U.S. still suffers from. I assume they created their own salaries and now vote for their own raises as well, right?
Please DOC…step in!!!
Andrew says
@ David – That’s a key concern (US ending oversight) right now. Is ICA working on that? My guess is Obama will end oversight, but someone needs to make his administration aware of the concerns.
Wire says
There is nothing about ICANN that acts to protect much of anything. It has always been self-serving and continues to reward executives for pursuits not related to the best interests of the internet-at-large.
With the US economy in shambles, holding onto destitute orgs of an internet-for-profit model are sure to be ripped asunder. A democratic congress outraged over executive pay should get a hold of this one and make it headlines in no time.
Philip Corwin says
The ICA filed an extensive comment letter on the new gTLD proposal, which is available at http://forum.icann.org/lists/gtld-guide/msg00164.html . We questioned their ability to take on a tsunami of new applications and raised strong concerns about a number of issues, most prominently differential pricing and giving governments control of geo names at both the first and second level. It is hard for me to imagine, given the broad and voluminous opposition and calls for an economic study, that they can open the application period before the U.S makes a decision on continued oversight. The ICA also filed extensive comments in early 2008 and attended and spoke at the Department of Commerce’s mid-point review of the JPA, and we raised many issues that needed to be resolved before oversight ends. We succeeded in getting a session on ICANN added to the agenda of next week’s Congressional Internet Caucus State of the Net conference next week, and we will continue to speak with members of Congress and the Commerce Department about ICANN’s activities and future. The one big unknown is who the Obama Administration will put in to head NTIA and what its position will be on gTLDs and continues U.S. oversight. Meanwhile, we welcome input from ICA members on this critical matter for domain investors and developers.
Andrew says
Thanks Philip, it’s good to hear you’re on top of this. Please let us know what we can do to help with the U.S. oversight issue.
Philip Corwin says
You’re very welcome, Andrew. The ICA is on top of quite a lot — we haven’t done the best job communicating our activities, but we’ve made a New Year’s resolution to improve on that. But 2008 did mark the first year in which the organized domain community, via ICA, started to have a real impact on events in DC and on ICANN policy, and we’re going to build on that.
The best thing domainers can do on this and other matters is:
-support the ICA and communicate your views and concerns to us so we can best represent the consensus in the domain name community
-if you’re in the US, contact your Senators and Representative about ICANN and other matters – that is, out this on their radar screen – and share any feedback with us.
Paul Levins says
ItIt’s a little hard to see how ICANN can be described as “pushing forward aggressively…”. In fact if you look
here:http://cai.icann.org/files/meetings/cairo2008/public-forum-open-discussion-06nov08.txt
you’ll see that many at our recent Cairo meeting were complaining about how slow ICANN has been to implement the expansion.
The impetus to expand competition in the name space is very much part of ICANN’s mission (so over ten years old). The planning and discussion of this particular expansion commenced more than three years ago. Expansion of the gTLD space is also an objective of the Joint Project Agreement signed by the Department of Commerce. ICANN’s not ignoring concerns. There is another comment period this year and there will be conferences internationally to discuss brand issues.
There is demand: the individuals behind .Berlin, .Paris .Hamburg, .Gal, .Barcelona, .cyn and .fam will tell you that they are tired of ICANN delaying the introduction of more gTLDs. Although competition has increased markedly in the last ten years at the registrar level, the registry space is still arguably small (16) and .com, org and .net are still operated by only two companies, Verisign and PIR. This situation limits the effectiveness of overall competition and, even aside from strictly competitive issues, gives rise to concerns over the Internet community’s lack of vendor diversity.
As to the bonus structure, revenue growth is not part of the bonuses. ICANN is a not for profit organization. We are not doing this ‘for the money’. We’re doing it because the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO), which has in its membership the Intellectual Propoerty constituency, Commercial and business users as well as non-commercial users, put forward recommendations to the Board that this expansion proceed. Fees and charges relating to this introduction are only to recover costs. To the extent that there is more money received than required it will be held aside and the community will be consulted on how the money should be used. It will NOT go towards salaries, bonuses, planes, furs or any other wild imagining I have read about.
The bottom line is that this expansion has been part of a community effort as represented through the ICANN multi-stakeholder model. Of course ICANN will listen to concerns about the expansion. It will weigh those concerns with the benefit of literally years of thought that has taken place so far on this issue and with those voices asking for the expansion to proceed.
Paul Levins
ICANN
Andrew says
Paul,
Has the U.S. Commerce Department been involved at all in the process over the past three years? It seems to have serious concerns about how the process is currently set.
I’ll take it at your word that all comments received will be considered. There certainly seemed to be a lot more generally opposed comments than generally in favor comments.
Paul Levins says
Andrew
Yes the USG is represented on the Governmental Advisory Committee and the JPA signed in 2006 and which expires in September 2009 encourages ICANN to expand the gTLD space. Remember that ICANN is the some of its many parts, not simply staff or Board and so this process represents the result of discussions by many different stakeholders. We of course will take their counsel into consideration along with the other comments.
Yes there are a lot of comments that express concern about the process. But it is unlikely that those who want to see the process proceed apace after years of discussion are going to request many more changes as they may consider this will slow the implementation.
Paul Levins
Andrew Allemann says
Paul,
Your comment makes me think that ICANN will discount the value of “against” comments that you have received, assuming that people who like the way it is have kept quite.
I understand the JPA encourages ICANN to promote competition both in the TLD and registry space. Is going from 20 or so TLDs to potentially hundreds all at once the way to do that? That concerns me. Additionally, ICANN is doing little to promote competition at the registry level with its implied renewal stance for registrars and not bidding out renewals. The Department of Justice mentioned this in its letter, and also questioned the idea that registries will invest less if they might lose the registry contract in competitive bidding. In fact, the DOJ suggested that registries will invest as much with the hope of retaining the registry in competitive bidding.
gpmgroup says
Paul,
In the letter from the DOJ, December 2008, they seem to indicate from their studies that GNSO’s current thinking on competition from new gTLDs is flawed.
From the DOJ letter,
“In light of these findings, we believe that the introduction of new gTLDs under the RFP could impose substantial additional domain registration costs on many consumers and that many new gTLD registry operators may have market power over registrants. Further, the introduction of new gTLDs is not likely to constrain the exercise of market power by existing gTLDs or ameliorate the continuing need for restraints to prevent VeriSign from exercising market power in the sale of .com domains.”
They actually suggest “ICANN should require competitive bidding for renewals of a gTLD registry agreement, rather than granting the incumbent operator a perpetual right to renew without competition.”
And they believe “ICANN’s approach to TLD management demonstrates that it has adopted an ineffective approach with respect to its obligation to promote competition at the registry level.”
The DOC letter is more measured but it questions why ICANN has failed to substantiate its belief that opening up the DNS to new gTLDs will actually help ICANN meet the obligations of the MOU/JPA agreements.
From the MOU Agreement
“This Agreement promotes the management of the DNS in a manner that will permit market mechanisms to support competition and consumer choice in the technical management of the DNS. This competition will lower costs, promote innovation, and enhance user choice and satisfaction.”
To that end the DOC letter also questions the lack of the economic study and report requested by the ICANN Board 18th October, 2006 and they suggest –
”ICANN needs to complete this economic study and the results be considered by the community before new gTLDs are introduced”
Do you have a timetable for when you expect ICANN to implement this study and the associated community discussion?
Hal David says
*** A WINK AND A NOD ***
How can ICANN even hint that it considers’s community input in it decisions?
Twice before it turned down the outrageous “XXX tld” application,
Update Now, like a victim of an aggressive persistent dating suitor,on reproach(a third time) it rolls over and declares, “well okay,but promise to be nice”
I ask, is that in the communities interest to now have new addition Porno Vendors (with legitimate business loans?)stalking a new
parade innocents with corruption and decadence..
I suggest, that ICANN implement a new…
” .Con TLD ” for all the scammers,pirates,and anti- social physopaths, it would be no different that would they are allowing now,
with the “hidden Message” if you don’t like our decision the first couple of tries, just come back in a couple of years, with perhaps
some fat wallet and help us make our quota so we get our bonus…
Yes,WE KNOW YOU CARE ABOUT THE COMMUNITY…
(A Wink and a Nod)
Has anyone been secretly thinking that ICANN is just another corrupt bureaucratic entity?