Peter Dengate Thrush and Antony Van Couvering discuss future of TLDH.
Yesterday former ICANN Chairman Peter Dengate Thrush announced he was joining Top Level Domain Holdings (parent company of Minds + Machines) as Executive Chairman.
I just got off the phone with Dengate Thrush, who explained why he chose Top Level Domain Holdings.
“It was a no brainer for me,” said Dengate Thrush about choosing to work with TLDH. He thinks TLDH is most equipped to face the next phase of the new top level domain name process.
TLDH has multiple business models which make it an attractive business, he said. They plan to apply for new TLDs themselves as well as be a service provider for applicants. This generates multiple revenue sources. He also likes that TLDH is a public company, which means people who can’t otherwise invest in new TLDs can invest in the upside through its stock.
Dengate Thrush said he’s not sure why there’s criticism of him joining a new TLD company shortly after leaving the board and voting to approve the new TLD program.
“There are no provisions that stop it, so I’m not sure why people would be raising it [as an issue],” he said. He points out that ICANN’s board doesn’t receive compensation and there are existing board members already working for companies that may profit from new TLDs.
He said the process for new TLDs has been completely transparent. “It’s not like I left ICANN with any sort of insider knowledge of the guidebook,” he said.
His predecessor, Vinton Cerf, took a paid position on VeriSign’s advisory board after stepping down.
Minds + Machines CEO Antony Van Couvering is no doubt excited to have Dengate Thrush on board.
“He’s modest about his achievements but they’re very stellar,” said Van Couvering. “It’s been great here in London talking to investors and analysts having him here.”
When I asked Van Couvering how long he’s been trying to snag Dengate Thrush, he said “about ten years”.
But of course he didn’t start discussions until after Dengate Thrush stepped down from his role as Chairman at ICANN.
He’s been trying to get him for 10 years, but he didn’t start discussions until after his term ?
“There are no provisions that stop it, so I’m not sure why people would be raising it [as an issue],” he said. He points out that ICANN’s board doesn’t receive compensation and there are existing board members already working for companies that may profit from new TLDs.
Just because there’s “nothing stopping it” doesn’t mean it’s right and it doesn’t mean it won’t sit well with people you were supposedly serving and it doesn’t mean that the potential abuse of ones power should not be questioned. This stance is unreal
It seems he’s saying something akin to “there’s no rules saying I can’t so why not” and then points the finger at his colleagues as a way to dodge the bullets aimed at him. I find his stance to be very telling of his character and alarming. . . If his colleagues think the same way, we’re truly screwed.
“He’s modest about his achievements but they’re very stellar”
Yes, like setting up a new set of guidelines that will line your pockets and his. . stellar indeed.
There is a difference. When a Stakeholder Group elects an individual for the Board if that individual has known ties to contracted parties or other parties that may or may not benefit from Board decisions, the Board and community are aware of that and are aware that a particular SG selected them. It is transparent, and when votes arise those ties can be fully considered in regards to potential conflicts of interest. And, not commenting on Peter’s specific situation because I do not know the full story, if a Board member is in discussions regarding employment or other financial benefits that could be affected by upcoming Board votes, that information should be fully disclosed so appropiate decsions can be made regarding potential conflicts of interest. And in my opinion, for the sake of institutional confidence, the potential conflict should be publicly disclosed if that Board member votes. This is my personal opinion.
Tim Ruiz @ Totally Agree.
ICANN was set up by lawyers/lobbyists to be a taxing body with no accountability and that is exactky what it has always been. Most of the people involved are there to make money and enhance their “careers.” The people involved are involved in things like pumping up stocks, creating legal expenses sothir law firms can profit, and otherwise trying to profit from ICANN. If you are not corrupt they won’t let you in the door. The comments of Thrush are almost exactky word for word from a NJ politician after he was caught voting for something for his business associate.
As for some of the comments, I don’t trust anyone that starts using terms like “community” and “Stakeholder.” These are nonsense ICANN-speak terms with no real definition or meaning. People use these terms to try to make other think they know what they are talking about or that there is some type of legitimate ICANN process. This type of meaningless jargon is used to try to make outsiders think they don’t understand. … and don’t get me started about all those endless phony “transparency” initiatives.
In complete agreement with comments 1 and 2.
PDT’s reference to lack of compensation for other Board members is puzzling. Didn’t he get a check for $75K? If so, he’s either forgotten about it or, by implication, the fact that he received it means that his actions are not excused under his own rationale.
If I were a potential gTLD applicant, I’d be furious. This development could really throw a wrench in things if it prompts a government, the CA AG, or a court to act against the gTLD program.
Hmm. . . I wonder how much stock one has to buy to be able to attend a stockholders meeting? That could be interesting. . .
@tim ruiz – really? vint cerf –> google? twomey –> magaziner? crocker –> dnssec millions? mohan –> afilias? roberts –> educause? puhleez.
@anon, puhleez what? The other examples you cite (legitimate or not) just confirm my concerns, that some sound policy or set of rules needs to be put in plance and made public. Of course, I understand that is all irrelevant if you’ve already lost all confidence in ICANN.