ICANN has a big problem if it can’t placate the California Attorney General.
ICANN’s Board of Directors was ready to decide on whether or not to approve the sale of Public Interest Registry (PIR), the non-profit registry overseeing the .org registry, to private equity company Ethos Capital. The decision was one of two the group planned to make at a special meeting last Friday.
But that changed last Thursday. California Attorney General Xavier Becerra sent a letter to ICANN saying, “ICANN must exercise its authority to withhold approval.”
ICANN abruptly canceled the agenda item scheduled for discussion the next day and agreed with Ethos and Public Interest Registry to extend the decision deadline to May 4.
Unlike other people opposed to the deal, the attorney general has teeth. His office oversees non-profits in California and started poking around ICANN in January. He sent a letter to ICANN that month raising questions and effectively delaying the deal several months.
Since then, ICANN, PIR and Ethos have been working to assuage Becerra’s concerns.
Becerra isn’t convinced yet.
The concern for ICANN is that, if it allows the transfer to happen without pleasing Becerra, then he will take action against ICANN that might extend beyond just this deal.
In his April 15 letter (pdf), Becerra pointed to ICANN’s articles of incorporation filed in California. Those articles state:
[ICANN] is not organized for the private gain of any person…recogni[zing] the fact that the Internet is an international network of networks, owned by no single nation, individual or organization” and as such, ICANN will “pursue the charitable and public purposes of lessening the burdens of government and promoting the global public interest in the operational stability of the Internet.
[ICANN] shall operate in a manner consistent with these Articles and its Bylaws for the benefit of the Internet community as a whole.
Becerra argues that ICANN followed these principles when it chose Public Interest Registry to operate the .org registry in 2002 but is not following them if it approves the sale to a private equity investor.
This could open a can of worms. ICANN has made many decisions over the past two decades that are not to the benefit of the internet community as a whole. If ICANN goes forward without pleasing Becerra, will he begin looking at other actions it has taken? Will he put future decisions under a microscope?
For example, he stated a concern with the presumptive renewal clause in the .org contract:
This automatic renewal provision leaves the nonprofit community that uses the .ORG registry with no protection. While the automatic renewal provision made some sense when the .ORG registry was operated by PIR and ISOC that had solid track records, it makes no sense to extend this provision to operators that have no experience operating a Registry.
For its part, ICANN states:
The Attorney General’s letter does not take into account the recent work that PIR has done to make the entity more responsible to the community. ICANN requested that PIR strengthen the Public Interest Commitments to ensure meaningful enforceability; a draft of the revised PICs has been provided to the ICANN Board.
ICANN is following its oft-used playbook of getting a few concessions and then using these as justification for making a decision.
That playbook might not work this time.
Will says
Worse than that: ICANN insultingly hopes Attorney General Becerra falls for its Banana-in-the-tailpipe trick.
http://www.circleid.com/posts/20200311-the-sad-story-of-private-public-interest-commitments-pics/
Mark Thorpe says
ICANN deserves everything they get from the California Attorney General.
What goes around, comes around.
The music has stopped ICANN and there are no chairs left for you to sit in. Game over!
John says
It is time to call ICANN what it is. ICANN is nothing more than a Registry Trade Association – working entirely for the benefit of itself and its largest contracted registries (Verisign and PIR.)
ICANN does not care about anything else. ICANN does not consider other stakeholders. Most importantly – ICANN is not acting for the benefit of the Internet community as a whole.
It is absolutely clear that ICANN has been captured by the registries. Go back and review any of ICANN’s prior summary of public comments on any registry agreement or renewal. ICANN only considers information that benefit its registries and discounts everything else.
Michel Payette says
Finalement, someone has the balls to do it!
kdm says
ICANN is a disgusting disgrace. It is a (many expletatives removed) joke. It is corrupt and needs to be dismantled ASAP. It is ruining what was working well. For what?
Like someone else said, ICANN’s CEO (past – Fadi) and present, are the equivalent to Tedros Adhanom. Corrupt, doing the world a huge disservice and for what? For personal gain and behind closed doors favors. Finally, we finally have someone who can stand up to this corrupt organization!
Will says
Correct.
https://bongino.com/who-director-was-formally-foreign-minister-for-tier-iii-terrorist-organization
nilrac says
I find all this information very interesting, especially these nasty comments about ICANN.
I’m actually doing some research on domains and the power structure so it would be very helpful if somebody could provide me with some links or context to explain the corruption talk.
Somebody told me that the evidence on the world.terror.agency page were enough, but that does not make any sense to me.
Who are the most powerful organization in this ownership/control of domains world?
Smith says
The 11 specific criteria used by ICANN to determine the 2002 award of .org to ISOC.
Anyone see any problems with ISOC being awarded .org specifically to fulfill the below criteria and then selling .org to a for profit company that is not required to fulfill the same criteria?
The RFP stated eleven criteria that would be used in assessing the 2002 proposals:
1.Need to preserve a stable, well-functioning .org registry.
2.Ability to comply with ICANN-developed policies.
3.Enhancement of competition for registration services.
4.Differentiation of the .org TLD from TLDs intended for commercial purposes.
5.Inclusion of mechanisms for promoting the registry’s operation in a manner that is responsive to the needs, concerns, and views of the noncommercial Internet user community.
6.Level of support for the proposal from .org registrants.
7.The type, quality, and cost of the registry services proposed.
8.Ability and commitment to support, function in, and adapt protocol changes in the shared registry system.
9.Transition considerations.
10.Ability to meet and commitment to comply with the qualification and use requirements of the VeriSign endowment and proposed use of the endowment.
11.The completeness of the proposals submitted and the extent to which they demonstrate realistic plans and sound analysis.