Paul Twomey: "[Registrars] are generally happy with the [ICANN-Verisign] agreement overall." via byte.org.

Paul, listen to this mp3.

How ironic that these are the same folks who, in their support for U.N. control of the root zone, claim to fear that the U.S. will unilaterally delete .IR. Under United State-ICANN management, no TLD been "wiped off the map." Meanwhile, the Iranian President aspires to genocide while complaining about root zone management.

New York Times: TEHRAN, Oct. 28 - The president of Iran stood by his earlier call to "wipe Israel off the map" on Friday, while other Iranian officials played it down and some commentators here suggested it was a sign of what they considered his amateurism. The president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, was cheered by thousands of supporters during an anti-Israel rally in Tehran on Friday. "My words are the Iranian nation's words," he said of his statement, which was widely condemned around the world, the Iranian news agency IRNA quoted him as saying. "Westerners are free to comment, but their reaction is invalid."

Update: The headline was intended as irony. I wasn't suggesting that ICANN, or anyone else, seriously delete a ccTLD.

Ross Rader: "What does the Snapnames lawsuit have to do with the Verisign lawsuit?"

Excellent question.

In today's show: music by Kevin Johnson, my one year anniversary (almost) of podcasting, and the effect of the proposed new COM registry contract on ICANN's budget. (iPro Radio 54 / 10 Minutes) Header Music: "The Bad Old Days" by Kevin Johnson.

John Berryhill doesn't have a weblog, but his posts to various mailing lists are consistently worth reading. Here's his post today to the ICANN registrars.

I recorded the registrars' meeting with ICANN today for later listening, so if you're interested, here is the link: registrar-meeting1- 27Oct2005.mp3 (50 megs). I haven't listened yet so I have no idea how informative the meeting was. I'll probably post some thoughts tomorrow after I've had a chance to listen.

Yes, of course it is. That, and more, on today's podcast. With background links to the ICANN Board resolution, Verisign litigation documents, the current .COM registry agreement, and this post from Byte.org. (iPro Radio 53 / 10 Minutes) Header Music: "Rocks for Dinner" by Kevin Johnson.

Jay Westerdal from Name Intelligence, Inc. has run the numbers, and based on the current growth rate of the .COM zone file and the expected escalation of .COM registry-level prices in the proposed new contracts, Verisign will be pulling in over a billion annually (that's $1,150,641,387.77, to be precise) by the year 2012.

The next, harder question is what is the delta between the revenue to be generated under the proposed new contracts and the revenue generated if .COM were put out for a competive bid?

As George Kirikos points out here, Tucows has offered to run .COM for $2.00 a name. At that price, Verisign's annual monopoly profit in 2012 would be $903,745,689.52.

Okay, you're skeptical; after all, Tucows' proposal was presented at an open microphone and not in a binding bid. So instead take the Afilias ($3.25) bid for .NET. (Proposed pricing on the Sentan, DENIC, and CORE++ bids was confidential...or I just couldn't find it.). Assume that by 2012, inflation would have required Afilias to raise the price by $1.00. (You also could assume that, as with most technology services, the price would actually decline over time as the costs of providing the services were driven down by the declining costs of infrastructure and bandwidth.) At $4.25, Verisign's monopoly rent for 2012 would be $626,094,278.99.

Any answer to the question I posed above though is, of course, pure speculation. We won't be able to measure the delta between Verisign's revenue and a competitor's revenue unless we put the registry out to bid. And, I suppose, that's precisely the point of my central complaint about the new agreements.

"So I got my reading glasses, and I got my reading drink, and I've read it now, I'll tell you what I think...." Words from today's header music to guide the podcast. A second-look at the ICANN-Verisign contracts. A little thinking out loud about ICANN's role in settlement discussions, and the effect of .COM's monopolistic pricing model. (iPro Radio 53 / 10 Minutes) Header Music: "Good for Nothing" by Kevin Johnson.

In today's show, I provide an initial summary of the ICANN-Verisign settlement agreement and make a few preliminary thoughts. I also catch up on some housekeeping and alert ICANN-followers to the category-specific RSS feeds of this weblog. (iPro Radio 51 / 11 Minutes) Header Music: "Blue Line Blues" by Kevin Johnson.

Exhibit A to the proposed ICANN-Verisign Settlement Agreement contains a reference to a "February, 2005 agreement between ICANN and Verisign." I can't find this agreement on any of the pages linked here. This would have been an interesting time for ICANN and Verisign, coming in the middle of the .NET process. Have I just missed the link to this agreement on the ICANN site? Links appreciated. Help me blog readers....

I haven't made my way through all of the Verisign-ICANN Agreements yet, but my first stop was the "Root Server Management Transition Agreement." This is good stuff. Read this excerpt:

Verisign and ICANN agree to....


Giving ICANN the authority to edit and publish the root zone does two things, as I see it. First, it removes that publication authority from Verisign, which, as a contractor with the USG, has perhaps enjoyed some legal and other protections not available to other registries and ICANN participants. Second, and more importantly, it's an important step foward in ICANN's process toward independence from the U.S.

Julian Sanchez, writing in Reason Online, has some reasonable thoughts about oversight and management of the Internet's root zone.

This just hit the wire services: "The Internet's key oversight agency said Monday it had tentatively agreed to settle a longstanding dispute with VeriSign Inc., a private company that runs much of the Internet's core."

Viviane Reding, European Commissioner responsible for Information Society and Media, in a speech on WSIS: "The recent controversy around a possible new .xxx Top Level Domain for adult content highlighted this bizarre situation. Several public administrations have expressed concern over this initiative, including the European Commission, but it will be the sole right of the US government to decide whether this Top Level Domain enters cyberspace or not, even though it will be visible on the screens of net users in countries all around the world."

This is not only wrong, it's irresponsible. Ms. Reding completely ignores ICANN's role in the selection of new gTLDs: a process that has nothing to do with the United States government. Either the author of this paper has no clue about how new gTLDs are selected or she's intentionally misstating the facts for political effect (can you say 'Weapons of Mass Destruction'?). If it's the latter, be very afraid. This is less about getting the U.S. out of the way than it is about putting the EU (and other governments) in the way of private-sector led processes.

Viviane Reding's lies certainly will be believed by emerging countries with less previous experience within the GAC and ICANN. It's one thing to have an honest debate about the future of the Internet's core set of resources; it's quite something else to manipulate opinion by playing on the worst fears of emerging governments and those who know nothing about ICANN's processes.

Here's the truth of the matter. The U.S. has charged ICANN, a multi-stakeholder, international body with an international Board of Directors, with the responsibility of selecting new gTLDs. Since ICANN was created in 1998, ICANN has selected nine new gTLDs (.BIZ, .INFO, .PRO, .NAME, .MUSEUM, .AERO, .COOP, .JOBS, and .TRAVEL) and all nine have been entered into the root zone. The idea that it is the United States government that will decide whether .XXX is appropriate for the root zone or not is completely out of touch with reality...and history.

One final point. If, like Ms. Reding, you put the .XXX decision-making on the U.S. government rather than ICANN, you're implying that the the new body you'd like to put in place of the United States would have power over the selection of new gTLDs. In other words, you're advocating the replacement of benign, laissez faire oversight (US) with a top-down control model (EU+other nationa). This is bad.

Personally, I favor replacing them both and making ICANN the final arbiter. But that model is much closer to the status quo than it is to the plan mapped out by Commissioner Reding.

Harris Miller, President of the Information Technology Association of America: "In attempting to act as an advocate for developing nations, the EU has instead done little more than compromise its own common sense."

Marc Canter has penned an absolutely terrific article: Breaking the Web Wide Open!  Must reading.

Karl Auerbach: "Suddenly internet governance has become a hot topic. Words and phrases fly back and forth but minds rarely meet. We do not have discussion, we have chaos. We are not moving forwards towards a resolution. Its time to step back and review some basic principles...."

Good stuff.

United Press International: "U.S. officials find it inexplicable that the Brussels-based club has ganged up with the likes of Russia, China and Iran ahead of a U.N. summit on the information society in Tunisia next month. They argue that ICANN has never abused its authority and always adopted a light-touch approach to regulating the Internet."

Today's show, podcast number 50,  is a bit of a reflective ramble. Sparked by Charlie Nesson's podcasts, I think out loud about ICANN's future and why many of us were so excited about ICANN at its creation. I also speculate that WSIS arose as response to politicians' fear of the Internet as a disruptive technology for governance. (iPro Radio 50 / 10 Minutes) Header Music: "Shadow in the Way," by Tift Merritt.

Declan McCullagh and Anne Broachem writing in CNET's News.com: "In a sign that traditionally obscure discussions about Internet control have taken on new prominence, President Bush broached the topic in a meeting this week with European Commission President José Barroso."

Ross Rader: "Why don't I find this reassuring?"

Karl Auerbach, in a post titled "Time for Euthenasia" writes: "The ALAC was given a fair chance to succeed.  But it has not done so. It is time to write off ICANN's ALAC as the failure it is."

I've only been associated with the ALAC since March of this year, so I can't speak to its work the first couple of years, but I have a different impression both of the ALAC's performance and its role in ICANN. First, I think all the ALAC members would admit that the ALAC has not been a success. That doesn't mean it's a failure though. Second, as far as whether it's time to shutter the ALAC, it depends on what the alternative is. If the alternative is a more empowered At Large, then by all means, yes, let's get rid of the ALAC and do this new thing. But if the alternative is getting rid of At Large participation in ICANN altogether, no way.

What has the ALAC done? You can start with the Board. The ALAC has five appointments to make to the NomComm, the largest voting bloc on this important ICANN body. You only need to look at people like Joi Ito, Veni Markovski, and Njeri Rionge to see the difference that the ALAC has made in the composition of the ICANN Board. We also have a Board liaison, Roberto Gaetano, appointed from our own ranks. I, for one, feel better about ICANN because I know that Roberto is there. Avri Doria is now a voting member of the GNSO Council, appointed by the NomComm, and I think you can draw a straight line between the ALAC's participation in the NomComm and Ms. Doria's appointment to this body.

Where the ALAC still faces its biggest challenge is in building the byzantine structures of ALSs and RALOs contemplated in the post-ICANN Reform bylaws. We don't like it either. We've recently proposed some bylaw changes to the ICANN Board that will make it easier to accredit At Large Structures, but we'd like to find a better overall structure for participation by end-users. Ideas are welcome. We also need to improve in providing policy advice to the GNSO, ASO, ccSO and ICANN Board. But don't take away our voice altogether.

I'll make a few suggestions for ALAC improvements in an upcoming podcast.

Take a look: audio.weblogs.com.

In today's show I talk about yesterday's Strategic Planning Meeting in Marina del Rey (my notes are here, in opml). I also welcome the ICANN Board into town for their two-day "Board retreat" with today's header music and talk a little bit about what a "Post-MOU" ICANN should look like. (iPro Radio 49 / 10 Minutes) Header Music: "All My Rowdy Friends Are Coming Over Tonight" by Hank Williams, Jr.

I'm at the ICANN Strategic Planning workshop in Marina del Rey. Today is primarily a brainstorming session about ICANN's challenges and priorities. I'll try to make sense of all of this in the coming days, but I've been taking notes in OPML.

If you have an OPML application, then you know what that coffee cup means. If not, you can look over here.

Scripting News: "On this day in 1998, Jon Postel died."

Ross Rader: "Hopefully we’re in sync with where Jon would have wanted us to be."

Resolutions have been proposed in both the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate to support the status quo in the oversight of ICANN and the DNS. The text of the resolutions are here: House Resolution HR268 and Senate Resolution S273. Thanks to the reader who sent in the text!

Press Release from the Office of U.S. Senator Norm Coleman (R-MN): "Senator Norm Coleman today introduced a Sense of the Senate Resolution to protect the U.S.’s historic role in overseeing the operations of the Internet from an effort to transfer control over the unprecedented communications and informational medium to the U.N....."