So… how are we doing? Let’s hear what you have to say about ICANN

by Kieren McCarthy on May 8, 2007

As one sage Net observer never said: “There are three certainties in life: death, downtime and dozens of people telling ICANN what a poor job it is doing.”

Today, we put out an RFC on ICANN’s performance. ICANN has changed enormously in the past few years, it is continuing to change, and it will have to continue to change into the future. This is your opportunity to throw out a few pointers but most importantly to give some feedback on what ICANN has done recently and give an indication of whether the organisation is on the right path. Yes, ICANN is seeking community feedback about its performance.

All responses are welcome. You should assume however that comments that draw as their main reference something that happened nearly a decade ago will be less welcome that those that actually look at where ICANN is now, and the path it is currently on. The hope is also to use this blog and the public participation site as a way of getting a real dialogue going. We also have a traditional forum (see below). The structure for this discussion will be drawn from the performance areas specifically outlined in the Strategic Plan. We view these are pretty comprehensive, but no doubt there will be other opinions.

So if you are serious about seeing improvement and change in ICANN this is your chance. Please join in.

Those structural questions:

Is ICANN becoming more transparent, accessible and accountable? What improvements have been observed and what still needs to be done?
Has ICANN improved its operational performance? What improvements have been observed and what still needs to be done?
Has ICANN improved its performance in the development of Policy? What improvements have been observed and what still needs to be done?
Has ICANN increased international participation? What improvements have been observed and what still needs to be done?
Have there been improvements in participation and in efficiency of the ICANN multi-stakeholder model? What more needs to be done?
What plans and actions have been observed that position ICANN for more comprehensive transition of the technical coordination of the Internet’s system of unique identifiers. What more needs to be done?
What improvements have been made in dispute resolution and the application of fairness and equity in the management of complaints and other mechanisms of review that are available? These include the work of the reconsideration committee, the Ombudsman and independent review.

Comments will be posted to http://forum.icann.org/lists/performance-2007 until June 5, 2007 and should be sent to: performance-2007@icann.org.

{ 25 comments }

fredrik hanse 05.08.07 at 6:55 pm: ICANNs treatment (or the lack of treatment ) of Registerfly the last two years has been scandalous and will help leading to ICANNs fall. We will soon see companies throughout the world get ICANNs role as a part of trade treaties between countries and ICANN deserve to lose their current status neglecting thousands of customers from Registerfly. The internet needs a company that take their role serious.
Jeff Kogler 05.08.07 at 8:48 pm: The registerfly debacle casts a nasty pall over the whole of the domain industry, ICANN included. What a mess! Obviously the law, especially consumer protection in the US, needs a severe overhaul.
Debbie 05.09.07 at 2:30 am: What are ICANN’s plans on putting an end to domain tasting and kiting. If this practice continues it will destroy the internet as we know it, since there will be no domains available to register. Why pay for a domain when it can be had for free by domain kiting?

Also, the practices of registrars participating in purchasing dropped domains for their own use is, in my opinion, a conflict of interest and should not be allowed.

Secondly, along the same topic of dropping names, the system needs to go back to the old way of just letter the names drop for the public to register, instead of having dropcatching companies making fortunes by auctioning these names off.
Kieren McCarthy 05.09.07 at 3:12 am: Hi Debbie,

What is ICANN doing about domain tasting? Well, it has held three sessions on the domain name market in Marrakech, Sao Paulo and two in Lisbon – one on the Domain Name Secondary Market and a second on How the Marketplace for Expiring Names Has Changed. (Jothan Frakes deserves much of the credit for that – click the links for a full transcript of each session).

ICANN’s security and stability committee has carried out a report into a suggestion put forward for limiting the impact in the .org registry – put forward by PIR. The report said it saw no problems, it was put out for public comment, there was no problem raised, and the ICANN Board passed the measure and now we’re waiting to see what impact that had.

What needs to be understood is that ICANN doesn’t somehow just decide what has to be done; rather it acts as the co-ordinator between all the different groups that make up the Internet to reach a consenus.

So PIR approached ICANN with a suggestion, ICANN ran it through its systems, there was no problem, and it was approved. If you believe that other registries such as dotcom or dot-info or dot-name should do the same, then you should lobby them. If you think that a change should be made to all the registry contracts that ICANN has, then you should raise that point and if you’re arguments pick up support, they will also be put through the decision-making process.

If you are just an individual Net user, you can approach the ALAC part of ICANN to point your view across. If you are a business, you can approach the relevant part of the GNSO. Or if you feel really strongly about it, you can come to an ICANN meeting and stand up with a microphone in your hand and tell the Board face-to-face what you think they should do and why.

I hope this helps. Any questions, just get back.

Kieren McCarthy
General manager of public participation, ICANN
Kieren McCarthy 05.09.07 at 3:15 am: Thank you for that diatribe Fredrik, we will be sure to include degree of seriousness and impending collapse in our performance review.

Kieren McCarthy
Kieren McCarthy 05.09.07 at 3:23 am: Hi Jeff,

You will find that getting a law through the US political system will take far longer, be far more difficult and end up far less effective than engaging in dialogue with ICANN to change the Registrar Accreditation Agreement.

In the US political system, you can write a letter to your Congressman – one letter among many thousands he/she receives that month. If you are lucky, and with a minimum of three years of perseverance, you might just be the catalyst to get a law through.

If you manage all that but then the law impacts the registrars’ competitiveness, they move outside the US, away from the law’s influence, and it would all have been for nothing.

Or, alternatively, you could contact ICANN’s ALAC, or even turn up in person in Puerto Rico at the end of June and talk directly to the people in the Net community that know most about this, and direct to the ICANN Board, get a change made in the RAA within months, and that will have immediate, global and unavoidable impact across the whole registrar industry.

If you can’t come to Puerto Rico by the way, you can follow events and post questions and comments online at http://public.icann.org.

Cheers

Kieren McCarthy
General manager of public participation, ICANN
Danny Younger 05.09.07 at 8:23 am: Kieren,

Many of us would like to discuss revisions to the Registrar Accreditation Agreement, but we are awaiting the launch of the formal process that would make such discussion possible:

Resolved (07.__), the Board requests that the President provide a report on the status of escrow compliance relating to ICANN’s current agreements, at or before ICANN’s Meeting in San Juan. The report should also propose a process for a public discussion on creation of a policy for appropriate protections for generic TLD registries, registrars and registrants.

Perhaps you can advise as to when CEO Paul Twomey might have the above-cited report ready…

Thanks.
Kieren McCarthy 05.09.07 at 8:45 am: A very good point. I’ve been meaning to chase up about what is going on with this but have been caught up with 101 other things.

Thanks for reminding me…

Kieren
Danny Younger 05.09.07 at 10:08 am: Debbie,

Within the next fifteen days ICANN Staff will prepare an Issues Report on Domain Tasting (this is pursuant to a formal request tendered today by the At-Large Advisory Committee — full details are here: http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03474.html )

Creation of the Issue Report (per the ICANN bylaws):

Within fifteen (15) calendar days after receiving either (i) an instruction from the Board; (ii) a properly supported motion from a Council member; or (iii) a properly supported motion from an Advisory Committee, the Staff Manager will create a report (an “Issue Report”). Each Issue Report shall contain at least the following:

a. The proposed issue raised for consideration;

b. The identity of the party submitting the issue;

c. How that party is affected by the issue;

d. Support for the issue to initiate the PDP;

e. A recommendation from the Staff Manager as to whether the Council should initiate the PDP for this issue (the “Staff Recommendation”). Each Staff Recommendation shall include the opinion of the ICANN General Counsel regarding whether the issue proposed to initiate the PDP is properly within the scope of the ICANN policy process and within the scope of the GNSO. In determining whether the issue is properly within the scope of the ICANN policy process, the General Counsel shall examine whether such issue:

1. is within the scope of ICANN’s mission statement;

2. is broadly applicable to multiple situations or organizations;

3. is likely to have lasting value or applicability, albeit with the need for occasional updates;

4. will establish a guide or framework for future decision-making; or

5. implicates or affects an existing ICANN policy.

f. On or before the fifteen (15) day deadline, the Staff Manager shall distribute the Issue Report to the full Council for a vote on whether to initiate the PDP
Phill K 05.09.07 at 5:15 pm: There’s already laws on the books against fraud. It really is just a question of enforcement, in which I think everybody can agree on that there has been none. Saying that the RAA needs revising is like saying thieves need to use different tools to break in and steal.
Kieren McCarthy 05.10.07 at 1:44 am: I’m sorry Phill K, but this comment is entirely incorrect.

There is a reason that domain names remain largely undefined in law – US law or otherwise. I recently finished a book covering the Sex.com case which dealt with the nature of domains and came out with one of the most important decisions over what they were (in that case it was decided that domains were convertible property and could be dealt with within existing law).

The judge in that case said back in 2000 that he thought the issue of what domains were should be run through the legislature of the United States rather than through case law.

That has never happened. The Appeals Court tried to send the question of where a domain stood in law to the Supreme Court in 2002, and the Supreme Court refused to hear it.

Who owns a domain? Does the registrant, the registrar, or the registry?

At the moment, under the generic top-level domains (i.e. dotcoms, but not .de or .uk – the country code domains) the registry does. (I believe I’m right in saying this, but the issue is still very much an issue of debate.)

The registry relationship works through a contract with ICANN. The registrar relationship works through two contracts – one with the registry and one with ICANN. The registrant relationship works through a contract with the registrar.

Those contracts are what bind the domain name system. If you want to change the way the DNS functions, it is these contracts that are the most effective route.

Your expectation that US fraud laws – even if rigorously pursued – would prevent the RegisterFly situation from re-occurring is hopelessly optimistic.

You will note that RegisterFly *is* being sued by class action in Florida. You should note that ICANN is also suing RegisterFly. Both these cases are running through the US legal system, and yet people still don’t have access to their domains.

Is your suggestion that law enforcement is entitled to raid a registrar and take away their entire business (registrant data) as soon as there is one complaint of fraud? Or is there a trigger number? 10, say. I can’t really see corporate America embracing that precedent.

What about a registrar based outside the US – how exactly do you expect US fraud laws to reach them?

There is a whole body of people trying to formulate international laws to deal with the Internet age, but those laws remain some way away. In the meantime – and hopefully for a very long time after that since the courts are extremely expensive and comparatively slow – contract law is the way to deal with the DNS.

I’m sure there must be legal papers on this very issue. If any lawyers reading this are aware of any – please do add a reference or link below.

Kieren
Mike Brown 05.10.07 at 3:59 am: I’m going to try and put this very complex issue into the simplest of terms.

Following the RegisterFly debacle, ICANN needs to do 3 things…

1. Review the accreditation process – to ensure that any old cowboy can’t become accredited by acquiring the business and assets of an existing Registrar. Accreditation agreements should be non-transerable unless the organisation acquiring the accreditation is subject to the normal accreditation process in their own right.

2. Make the registrant God – obtain agreement from the Registries that they will make provision to allow Registrant’s to transfer / renew / manage domain names directly should they have a dispute with their Registrar. Much can be learnt from the UK’s system run by Nominet. In this system, the Registrant can transfer the name to a chosen TAG holder (equivelant of a Registrar) on demand, by submitting a request directly to Nominet.

3. Implement spot checks on Registrars to ensure they are complying with all aspects of their accreditation agreement. If they’re not in compliance, they should either receive financial penalties or be forced to bulk transfer domains to a 3rd party Registrar.

It’s incredible to think that when formulating the structure, management and policing of the domain name system, nobody had the foresight to put Registrants interests at the very heart of it.

Whilst ICANN claims it can’t be responsible for the actions of a rogue Registrant, the very fact they don’t have procedures to protect the stability of the domain name system in these circumstances is in itself negligent. The claim of negligence is not about what ICANN is doing to remedy the situation (I think it’s doing what it can). It’s really about not ensuring it couldn’t happen in the first place.

It’s a bit like someone punching you in the face and then defending themselves by taking you to hospital.

$Billions of business depend on this highly unstable system that is open to abuse and fraud on a massive scale. ICANN need to take a reality check and realise that several Registrars (not just RF) are abusing the system that ICANN (and others) introduced to protect Registrants.

The solutions are easy. So, come on ICANN, go to court and the US government and get granted some serious muscle!
Kieren McCarthy 05.10.07 at 6:07 am: All three points are good, are understood and in process:

> 1. Review the accreditation process

Already underway. The CEO personally listed the “rogue registrar” issue as one he wanted dealt with. There will be a few meetings in Puerto Rico at the end of June that will deal with exactly this.

> 2. Make the registrant God

This is a very bad idea. Too much power provided to any part of the domain name system distorts it and causes problems. Ninety-nine percent of registrants do not understand how the domain name system works – to put decision-making abilities in the hands of a very large number of very widely dispersed people with only partial understanding of the system is a disaster waiting to happen.

However, yes, your point to provide much greater authority in the hands of registrants than currently exists is well made. There is a gradual and inevitable shift of power in the DNS. But you are wrong to assert that this should have been the system from day one.

People forget what the Internet was like in 1998-2000. Despite this RegisterFly issue, the system for assigning domain names has been the most extraordinary success. You can go buy a domain name in under 30 seconds from anywhere on the network and have a website up in an hour – people forget how incredible that is. It could so easily have been different: a written application, required proof of who you are, a two-week processing time, a $50 per year fee…

Anyway, yes, the registrant is inevitably getting more authority because of the way the Internet has changed. But – and this is the most important part – it is still going to take registrants – individuals like you – to get involved in ICANN’s processes for that change to happen. If you’re not involved, your voice won’t be heard.

So talk to the ALAC, or come to an ICANN meeting, or keep reviewing and commenting on policies when they are put out for public discussion – because they all are but the amount of feedback is, frankly, negligible.

> 3. Implement spot checks on Registrars to ensure they are complying with all aspects of their accreditation agreement.

This point has already been agreed within ICANN and the new compliance officer is devising a new system as we speak.

As with anything though, it takes time to make significant changes. Or, put another way, if ICANN were to make such changes extremely quickly it would (rightly) worry the hell out of everyone as it would mean the organisation was not able to listen to all the different constituencies and their concerns and suggestions.

That would mean fast, arbitrary decisions – and no one wants to see that when you are talking about the technical underpinnings of the Internet.

As for not having the foresight – that’s a very easy issue to explain. Please tell us what changes will be needed now in the DNS for 2015.

The Internet is still zooming ahead. How old is Skype? When did open-source software start being used by large corporates? What the hell is this blog we are typing on? When did that appear?

I guarantee you that in five years’ time, the system in place even after these new discussions will, unless continually changed, be out-of-date. But just you try to figure out in which parts.

The whole change is the reason why this week ICANN put out an Requests for Comments on ICANN’s performance.

We’re serious – we want people to provide useful reflections on how ICANN is doing and the path it is on. The hope is to learn from what has been done recently and with luck be in a better place to deal with the inevitable problems that will arrive in future.

Please do get involved with this Mike. We need people like you that research the situation, give it careful though and then provide intelligent and helpful ideas and suggestions.

Kieren

——————————————————-
Kieren McCarthy
General manager of public participation, ICANN
Scott Alliy 05.10.07 at 7:15 am: Asking for comments from a constituency for whom you’ve been able to do nothing from stopping them from losing intellectual property which unless I am sadly mistaken would fall under your scope of duties in protecting the integrity of the internet can only be a corporate mandate.

No other type of organization is so bold and ignorant of reality to asks such a stupid question as How are we doing?

The truth shall set you free and history and future actions for or against your organization will be the real test.

I’m hoping all Icann employees especially those who have been unable to stop hundreds and thousands of peoples property from being stolen or lost have a backup employment plan just in case the truth once revealed does not shine quite as favorably on your performance as you may feel it will.

Just my .02
Albeit a little jaded coming from someone that owns over 700 domain names over 400 which were caught up in a mess that was allowed to develop over years as others turned an empty glance the other way
Mike Brown 05.10.07 at 9:46 am: Thanks for your lengthy and well considered reponse Kieren.

I’d love to get involved in future. Perhaps I could charge ICANN a consultants fee and recover some of the $000’s I’ve lost over this whole mess?

I have to agree with Scott Alliy’s comment above. It is rather an inappropriate time for ICANN to be asking the general public how they’re doing. Ask the question again when you’ve got people’s domains back and you might get a different answer.
John 05.11.07 at 10:24 am: This is like Bush asking US citizens how he is doing in his war on terror. Like him you should all be fired.
Kieren McCarthy 05.11.07 at 10:33 am: I think we can hear the quiet rumblings of Godwin’s Law inevitably and risibly heading in the direction of this post.

Kieren
Sean Gallagher 05.12.07 at 10:10 am: I believe ICANN is doing a good job, although things can always be improve. What needs to change is there needs to be more organization on what is going on and a lot more communication on what you are doing. Get the word out more on what you have done for the Internet community and what you are continuing to do and what your working on.
By letting us know those things the public will have a much higher affinity for your organization. In fact, it’s rather simple and it will make a great impact.
Let me know if I can be of any help to you.
Thanks for all your work,
Sean
John 05.12.07 at 10:26 am: Only a person associated with ICANN could see any similarities between themselves and Hitler.

I don;t think I will get anything but a beat around the bush answer on the questions I’m going to ask but here they go anyway.

If you really think you have improved over the past few years then why did you award Verisign a limitless contract on .com and .net tld’s with price increases when other stable organizations said they could and would do it cheaper. It’s been broken down and the estimated costs to run the registry on .com is figured at $.03 per domain. The price increase expected of 7% is 6x the cost of doing business. The 7% increase alone is only 1/5 of what other companies said they would do it for. So tell me how it’s beneficial to me as a consumer that the organization who is suppose to be working in my favor grants a corporation more of my money and doesn’t give me any better service for said money. I’m suppose to think you’re doing a good job? Give me a break..

As far as the Registerfly debacle. You have shown that your jobs are pretty much useless. You had to get a court order to do your job. So please explain to me what exactly it is that you do there? That is outside of flying around the world having quarterly meeting at exotic locations.
Jagdip 05.12.07 at 11:20 am: ICANN lays down the rules, they are for better but the registrars openly put the rules in a box with their own terms and conditions!

I very well understand that the grace period is the choice and decision of the registrar and they may or may not give to the registrant.

Redemption period is given (by the registry) just to make sure that the existing registrar gets enough time and chance to get back his domain if he fails to renew it in time. Registrars are intelligent enough to put in their terms that they may not give this option to the customer.

The domains are simply sold of (with the existing registration date) after the expiry of the domain in the name of ‘backorders’. The customer is helpless! Yes it is his responsibility to renew the domain in time but it is his right to get the redemption period if not the free grace period.

I would request ICANN to read the terms of various registrars and see if they really follow the terms laid down for them?

Some interesting lines from a well known “back order” company.

SnapNames continues to add members of this elite registrar group to its Priority Partner program, which now includes Network Solutions, Dotster, Register.com, DotRegistrar, DomainPeople, Moniker, DirectNIC and others. These partners offer their expired domains through SnapNames before they are available anywhere else in the public market, giving SnapNames customers exclusive access to some of the highest value–and best priced–domain names on the market.
Anonymous 05.12.07 at 12:26 pm: I think it’s about time for an official way to do private registrations. It shouldn’t cost extra to shield yourself from electronic and paper junk mail.
Veni Markovski 05.15.07 at 2:43 pm: John,
you can find the answers to some of your these questions at ttp://www.icann.org/topics/vrsn-settlement/board-statements-section2.html
John 05.18.07 at 9:41 am: I’ve read all of the B.S. reasonings behind awarding Verisign the contract and again pardon me for bringing G.W.B into the thread but like in his ideal world, your way of stability is nothing but B.S. While I have my facts my math was a little off and what I meant to say was that your “value added tax” of .22 (and thanks for the .03 refund) is 7x the cost of doing business for Verisign.
Domain Holder 05.25.07 at 8:13 pm: Posted this comment earlier and it was deleted.

Why does ICANN ask for comments and then delete???

[post edited - see comment below for explanation]
Kieren McCarthy 05.26.07 at 12:17 am: The reason why your comment was deleted – and the repost of it will also be edited is because it infringed our comment policy, namely:

“Relevance

We would also like to stress that comments covering an entirely different topic to the actual blog post they are attached to are also frowned upon. If it is a mistake, we have no problem, but the ICANN blog is there to be a reasonable and helpful communication and interaction tool – not to lobby by the backdoor, or harangue staff over the same issue out of context.”

This blog post asks people a number of clear questions, none of which you have attempted to answer but instead choose to claim that the RegisterFly issue meant that the best option was “political reform” of ICANN – whatever that means.

You also claimed that ICANN staff are repeatedly putting the phone down on you. There is one persistent poster on this blog that makes this claim frequently in the full knowledge that it isn’t true.

So: your post is in the wrong place, is unclear and makes an unsubstantiated allegation. For that reason we have edited it. Feel free to write whatever you like on other messageboards on the Internet, or to write a more normal response which we then happily retain on this blog.

Kieren McCarthy
General manager of public participation, ICANN