Just because you say it, doesn’t mean it’s true.
These days, it seems that you can make something a truth by just repeating it over and over.
I was reminded of this last week when ICANN CEO Göran Marby published a blog post about .com prices. In the post titled “.COM Public Comments and Facts,” Marby repeats a mantra that ICANN has started using over the past year:
“ICANN is not a price regulator.”
ICANN seems to believe that if it just says it’s not a price regulator, then it’s not a price regulator. But this begs the question, when did it stop being a price regulator?
ICANN has been a price regulator for as long as I’ve covered it. It has regulated prices on may legacy top level domains and still governs the price of at least one of them.
The first inkling of not wanting to be a price regulator popped up in the new top level domain name round. ICANN didn’t impose any price caps on new top level domain operators. But it still had price caps in place on legacy domains.
Then, last year, it abandoned price regulation on .org, .biz and .info. Why? Because, apparently, it’s “not a price regulator.”
Which brings us to now. ICANN says it’s not a price regulator and defers to the U.S. government on .com pricing. Yet it still regulates the price for .net domain names.
That will undoubtedly change soon.
So if ICANN isn’t a price regulator, it needs to explain why it was a price regulator. A trickier question might be, “Why do you still regulate the price of .net if you aren’t a price regulator?”
ICANN could have avoided needing to artificially set price caps if it would have periodically put contracts to run legacy top level domains out to bid. Presumably, registry contracts that are in the best interests of the internet community would have factored price and stability/quality into the picture. Rival registries would certainly charge a lot less than ICANN’s current and recent price caps.
For importantly, who decided that ICANN shouldn’t regulate registry prices? The registries? ICANN staff? It certainly wasn’t a bottom-up decision-making process.
The first time somebody quite senior at ICANN told me (quite angrily, I recall) it was “not a regulator” was around 2002. Maybe even 2001. I was using the word to describe ICANN quite often in my coverage at the time, not realizing it had a specific legal meaning.
reg·u·la·tor
/ˈreɡyəˌlādər/
noun
a person or thing that regulates something.
a person or body that supervises a particular industry or business activity.
I think the point he was making was that ICANN isn’t a government agency.
I suspect so. It reminds me of when law firms that lose reverse domain name hijacking cases tell me they aren’t ‘guilty’ of reverse domain name hijacking because guilty has a meaning in court. I explain that I can be guilty of forgetting to take out the trash.
LOL. And Andrew takes the match…
ICANN is a bureaucratic organization that forms multiple committees and subcommittees, all while its members roam the globe at elite destinations – does this sound better?
No, ICANN plays with words here – they are not a DIRECT regulator of pricing in the sense that a utility company is – but they sure are the ones that vote on all these lovely price cap approvals you mentioned, just like a county council would.
But they sure have fancier buffets to offer.
ICANN is not a price regulator. ICANN is not a consumer protection agency. ICANN is not a law enforcement agency. ICANN is not a regulatory agency.
ICANN is a ghost whispering into an ocean breeze. Maybe ICANN is just a figment of your imagination.
“When did ICANN stop being a price regulator?”
Alex, what is – when they realized there was big money to be made at the world’s expense for both the organization and personally for their staff?
PS – and naturally, they are not really “staff” anymore once they resign to scoop up those piles of money. My bad.
https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/fy-2003-form-990.pdf
https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/fy-2005-form-990.pdf
https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/fy-2007-form-990.pdf
Statement of Organizations Primary Exempt Purpose:
To Privatize the management of the domain name system and other internet coordination in a manner which increases competition and facilitates international participation.
https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/fy-2013-form-990-en.pdf
“(III) PERFORMING AND OVERSEEING FUNCTIONS RELATED TO THE COORDINATION OF THE INTERNET DOMAIN NAME SYSTEM (“DNS”)”
IRS FORM 99 PART III: “During the year, has the organization attempted to influence national, state, or local legislation, including any attempt to influence public opinion on a legislative matter or referendum? lf ‘Yes,’ enter the total expenses paid or incurred in connection with the lobbying activities”
https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/fy-2004-form-990.pdf
STATES NO LOBBYING
https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/fy-2005-form-990.pdf
STATES NO LOBBYING
https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/fy-2006-form-990.pdf
STATES NO LOBBYING
https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/fy-2007-form-990.pdf
$240,000 OF LOBBYING EXPENDITURES RELATED TO LOBBYING WITH FEDERAL LEGISLATORS.
https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/fy-2008-form-990.pdf
$240,000 OF LOBBYING EXPENDITURES RELATED TO LOBBYING WITH FEDERAL LEGISLATORS.
https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/fy-2009-form-990-en.pdf
$300,018 OF LOBBYING EXPENDITURES RELATED TO LOBBYING WITH FEDERAL LEGISLATORS.
https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/fy-2010-form-990-en.pdf
$420,070 OF LOBBYING EXPENDITURES RELATED TO LOBBYING WITH FEDERAL LEGISLATORS.
https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/fy-2011-form-990-en.pdf
$300,154 OF LOBBYING EXPENDITURES RELATED TO LOBBYING WITH FEDERAL LEGISLATORS.
https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/fy-2012-form-990-en.pdf
$536,318 OF LOBBYING EXPENDITURES
https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/fy-2013-form-990-en.pdf
$520,252 OF LOBBYING EXPENDITURES
https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/fy-2014-form-990-31mar15-en.pdf
$576,138 OF LOBBYING EXPENDITURES
https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/fy-2015-form-990-10may16-en.pdf
$620,997 OF LOBBYING EXPENDITURES
https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/fy-2016-form-990-15mar17-en.pdf
$757,383 OF LOBBYING EXPENDITURES
https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/icann-fy-2017-form-990-15may18-en.pdf
$816,067 OF LOBBYING EXPENDITURES
That is $816,067 for year 2016
From: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/lobbying-disclosures-contributions-2015-11-18-en
https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/measuring-lobbying-activity-expenditure-test
https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f990sc.pdf
ICANN has a hard limit of $1,000,000 for lobbying. Notice ICANN provides virtually no details on Schedual C of Form 990.
They just change the rules/story to fit their narrative.
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20161026-how-liars-create-the-illusion-of-truth
Good one! Icann just collects money. It cleans its hands of everything else.
Of course, the more ‘corruption’ Icann allows registries to engage in, the more lucrative it is for said registry. The more ‘freedom’ registries have, the more money icann gets.
Icann doesn’t protect domains. They are useless..let registries walk all over us. What’s to stop them raise prices 1000% to $1,000 each once there are 10,000’s of websites developed?
No one, they let everyone walk over / extort the enduser at most opportune times.
They are allowed to do practically exactly what Martin Shkreli did in pharma. NO oversight!
What a business model! Collect money, do nothing for the industry, blame others when there are issues, and go on luxury vacations.
>do nothing for the industry
I’ll “switch sides” for a moment:
The reason I became a registrar was the predatory nature that was evolving at the registrar level. I’ve had REGISTRARS try to steal my domain names … RegFly was just one of them.
I think ICANN did a pretty good job of cleaning up a lot of issues, and putting teeth into the system of enforcement. I think registrants have more protections than they did.
That said, I’d rather see the barrier lowered to becoming a registrar. This would have the effect of moving most domain investors to the level of registrar, and that by itself would clean up a lot of our industry. However ICANN has made clear (at least privately) that they will do all they can to fight such access to registrar credentials, they want to LIMIT registrars. The best service I ever received was way back in 1999 and 2000, when the people who answered the registrars phone was the owner, either husband or wife. THEY were accountable to their customers.
The fact that ICANN enforced price caps benefited the world as well.
I think WE are in large part the cause of what ICANN is doing today. We wanted ICANN to be “free” of government pressure, and we got exactly what we asked for = No Accountability. We created a powerful organization free to do what it wants, history shows that never works out well for those being governed.
As I pointed out in another post, we have no say, but now ICANN’s lobbies to have its say. So not only are they unaccountable, but they use our taxes we pay to it to influence our government … The same government that now has no influence over ICANN.
Still think the California AG is going to stop this sale? I’d love to see ICANN lobbying details and check those events against the Ethos timeline ….. Will not change a thing, except make clear the mistake that was made when ICANN was “set free” of the US gov.
We got what we asked for, and now we have ourselves to blame.
Time to go back to root splitting, that is the only option left and it is much harder now than it was.
If ICANN still wants to maintain its central role in governing [“coordinating”] the global DNS, including gTLDs, but does NOT want to be a “price regulator” anymore (.NET anyone?) BUT also does NOT want to be civilly liable (treble damages per registrant X millions) nor criminally indicted (up to 3 years in prison, $10 million fine https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/penalties-for-violating-antitrust-laws.html ) for violations of antitrust laws and other anti-price-gouging laws (federal, state, or foreign), it better re-read and follow the advice it received from the US Department of Justice Antitrust Division in December, 2008 (via NTIA pp. 4-11 https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/baker-to-dengate-thrush-18dec08-en.pdf ) which recommended competitive bidding with maximum fee schedules and price caps for ALL gTLDs, original terms and each renewal period. ICANN oversaw the new gTLDs competitive auctions (without these terms included unfortunately) but there is no reason why ICANN should not be following the advice it was given in 2008, other than the fact that ICANN is “incompetent, corrupt, and captured.” Thank you Andrew for your continuing coverage of these issues which affect all domain name registrants.
ICANN is a price regulator when they see fit to do so or not.
ICANN = I CAN
making and spending tens of millions of dollars by stabng domain registrants in the back. The very registrants it is supposed to protect from the likes of Verisign, Ethos/PIR etc.
ICANN = I CANN’T
when it comes to doing it’s job, safegurading registrants, not being corrupt, show some backbone, send it’s current and former officers to jail if corrupt, don’t ask the likes of Verisign for handouts like it did with $20 million Verisign gift to ICANN.
ICANN is a huge failure infested with corruption and it should change it’s name to “I CANN’T”.
So who can tell me how much the management that I Cann much do they take in yearly
Refering to the above Form 990 links:
https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/fy-2015-form-990-10may16-en.pdf
Fadi Chehade, ICANN CEO, had a reportable income in 2014 of $737,146 working an average of 60 hours per week, and also had $58,230 additional unspecified compensation.
A more truthful version would be “ICANN doesn’t want to be a price regulator”.
A good point. So it decided to just say it’s not. If it repeats it enough, it starts to sound like fact.
Are you aware of any way this started as a bottom-up policy?
ICANN is a “legal fiction”, a non living “person” created by the legal system. It can’t think for itself, the people managing its affairs think for it taking car of ICANN affairs. Here is a great discussion about PIR on this point:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEDeQt-gJNQ
For ICANN to enjoy tax free “not for profit” status, it had to declare its purpose and maintain that purpose. So the issue of pricing regulation is not some issue that it can take a position on one day, and then just “change it’s mind on” the next day.
Which is why Andrew’s question is so important. There needs to be an “audit trail” for such a foundational change. All we seem to have is staff decided to make this change on their own. That is a problem.
Its not about the wants of ICANN, its about the actions of those staff members.
Is ICANN a regulator? A better question is: with no price controls, presumptive renewal of gTLD contracts, and no meaningful community input (public comment) when do we start calling ICANN a Cartel?
James – your question – When do we start calling ICANN a cartel?
ICANN is already a cartel….
ICANN has been a cartel since 2006.
It awards no-bid, monopoly contracts that last in perpetuity, which will never face any competition – and it extracts out monopoly rents from those contracts over time.
Not putting the contacts out for periodic tender – so consumers can realize the benefits of competition – and allowing one company to operate a contract forever – defines a cartel. When you exclude all forms of competition – and allow monopoly contracts to exist forever – and allow those operators to do whatever then want on pricing – facilitates harm on consumers.
Furthermore, because ICANN largely accountable to no one – it is an unaccountable cartel.
On January 3, 2020 – in exchange for giving Verisign billions in supracompetitive profits on a silver platter (Verisign does not need to do anything else to increase its prices), ICANN will receive a $20 million payment from Verisign. This is Quid Pro Quo. This is exactly how cartels function.
How is ICANN not a cartel?
ICANN cemented itself as a regulator when it ignored U. S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division recommendations.
ICANN purposefully chose to ignore the Antitrust division advice and went in the opposite direction. Ironically, we would not be in this mess today had ICANN listened to Antitrust guidance.
This is what DOJ Antitrust told ICANN in 2008:
– 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.
– 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.
Now ICANN is telling everyone it is not a pricing regulator??????????????
After they ignored these recommendations from U. S. Department of Justice antitrust?
At the end of the letter – US Department of Justice Antitrust Division made the following two conclusions on ICANN:
—- 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.
—- 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.
+1
It is also interesting that ICANN’s lobbying efforts started around 2006-2008 and have been growing since.