Warren, Wyden formally ask ICANN to reject sale.
Six U.S. lawmakers have asked (pdf) ICANN to reject the sale of .Org to Ethos Capital, a private equity company.
The lawmakers include presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren, Rony Wyden, Richard Blumenthal, Edward Markey, Anna Eshoo, and Mark Pocan.
In a letter to ICANN, they provide a litany of reasons that ICANN should reject the deal. One is that they believe the new owners will raise prices and cut costs as a way to pay down debt and return funds to investors.
They point out that, even if Ethos raises prices 10% a year on average, this is three times how much PIR has traditionally raised prices.
The letter concludes:
The proposed sale of .ORG is against the public interest and would violate ICANN’s commitment to “preserve and enhance .. . the operational stability, reliability, security … and
openness of the DNS and the Internet.
ICANN has previously said that it doesn’t have authority over the deal. While it can technically not consent to the transfer, its approval can’t be “unreasonably withheld”. What that means is open to interpretation.
Surprisingly, Republican Ted Cruz has not chimed in on the matter. Given his stance about the U.S. controlling ICANN, you’d think he’d be all over this issue.
Zak Muscovitch says
Regarding the contractual provision that ICANN can’t “unreasonably withhold” its approval to the transaction, one can’t help but wonder why ICANN didn’t include a far more helpful provision that is typical in commercial leases.
In every major commercial lease that I have seen, the landlord includes a provision allowing it to simply terminate a lease upon a request for a transfer of the lease (outright or via a change of control).
From ‘Leases 101’:
“It is also very common in a commercial lease to give the landlord a right to terminate the lease in lieu of granting a consent. This right is often triggered simply by the application for consent. Landlords put this provision in their standard forms in order to have the ability to retain control of the space where necessary.” See; https://www.mcmillan.ca/101712
The absence of such a provision, particularly when ICANN has substantial bargaining power, raises serious questions regarding how ICANN got itself into this situation. Had they included such a typical provision in favor of the “landlord” it would have effectively prevented the registry operator from trying to sell the space right from under the landlord.
John says
Indeed.
Maybe even “calculated stupidity”…
John says
I can’t help but to wonder why ICANN continues to ignore the United States Department of Justice Antitrust Division!
The United States Department of Justice Antitrust division said “ICANN should require competitive bidding for renewal of a gTLD registry agreement, rather than granting the incumbent operator a perpetual right to renew without competition.”
The Antitrust division went on to say the following:
—– “In particular, competitive bidding prompts bidders to propose and accept registry improvements, higher operating standards, and lower registration fees to win the contract.”
—— “Indeed, competitive bidding has resulted in lower domain prices and higher operating specifications than what ICANN has achieved through non-competitive negotiations.”
—— “Experience with the .net TLD and other gTLDs have showed that competitive bidding in the award of gTLD registry agreements, and periodic rebidding, has served as an effective tool for managing the interest of registrants in gTLDs.”
—— “ICANN’s request for bids should expressly call for bids to specify an internal maximum price that would be charged by the operator for domain registrations, as well as limitations on price increases over time.”
—– “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.”
—— “To date, we believe that ICANN has not come close to fulfilling its obligations to employ competitive principles in its management of TLD registry operations.”
https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/baker-to-dengate-thrush-18dec08-en.pdf
Mike says
This was years in the making, the plan was put in place long before anyone saw it coming, well played Fadi
168 says
Put these audacious claims in front of a honest judge.
Zero evidence.
They comment the debt ” could” be on the parent Co. OR PIR
yet base their arguments soley on PIR financials Assuming zero growth.
Intentionally suggest Reduced service as the assumed and only solution to financial peril.
On what planet ?
They use a publically traded company as a legitimate equal financial example for a private company.
Worst case senario “Opins” -hasn’t happened, may not happen but good enough to convict.
Claims of the “power” to overide existing law… Arbitrary censorship”
Their words- “based on accusations”,”specious claims”,
Last I checked, not in this country.
Yet, It’s exactly what this letter contains accusations , specious claims.
Where is, in the very least, a preliminary injunction
if these claims have merit ?
with all these experts on board there is no excuse for that to not have happed by now.
According to footnotes- Jan.19th
is the 30 day mark for ICANN 7.5.
Happy to hear Cruz not involved
Some have more intelligence than others and nothing to gain.
Rubens Kuhl says
And why people are complaining about a company cutting costs ? This is actually good governance, except when it jeopardizes quality. All companies do that all the time.
John says
One caveat:
Please do NOT let this fool you into supporting Warren’s run for president. She is horrific in reality. It takes very little **honest** “truth seeking” to find this out.
https://www.youtube.com/user/TYTComedy/search?query=Warren
Etc.
Rubens Kuhl says
But you know which president blocked .com price raises and which president allowed them, right ?
Vijay says
Why rejecting. Can’t they improve privacy security.
joesaba2014 says
Today start this issue of this post about 6 lawmakers and ICANN with something different that was the beginning of where we are now.
Many of you and including many other people from all over the world have known the history and biography of Mr. Jonathan Bruce Postel (RIP) known as Jon Postel (RIP) and was an American computer scientist.
In the opinion of many academics, this man became the most powerful person on the network, and even the White House came to fully trust his person for the management and planning of the Domain Name System or DNS, so far We all know what it is, Internet.
ICANN is part of an organization that crosses the boundaries of the unknown by ourselves and if I write it that way it is because as a person of any subject interested in matters like this one that is written and continues to be written with what I personally belong to the people and domainer that I would leave this over.
Why it all started around the 70s so I read the books I buy about science. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICANN you conclude that we are in the middle of something that is much bigger than we can all think and that as written on other occasions everything is a cover of capital money and a world market economy, rising prices, oil in the clouds for an issue with another country Persico Gulf and everything is the same is always the same.
Finally: IANA was administered principally by Jon Postel at the Information Sciences Institute (ISI) of the University of Southern California (USC) situated at Marina Del Rey (Los Angeles), under a contract USC / ISI had with the United States Department of Defense, until ICANN was created to assume the responsibility under a United States Department of Commerce contract. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Assigned_Numbers_Authority
John says
Something tells me it may be a surprise, so let me have it because I don’t.
Karthik Reddy says
Don’t Know Why They rejecting. Time to improve security.
Manideep says
Rejection of Sale is not only the Solution. Just improve Security