<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[ga] Loopholes and Ambiguities in Contracts that ICANN Oversees
- To: GNSO GA Mailing List <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: [ga] Loopholes and Ambiguities in Contracts that ICANN Oversees
- From: George Kirikos <gkirikos@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2013 23:02:44 -0800 (PST)
Hi folks,
ICANN oversees the creation of many contracts. Its highest paid contractor has
historically been the law firm of Jones Day, and of course ICANN has many
lawyers on staff. In the past I've identified loopholesin proposed contracts,
and those were corrected before they were exploited.
http://www.circleid.com/posts/icann_tiered_pricing_tld_biz_info_org_domain/
However, are there other loopholes sitting in existing contracts waiting to be
exploited, or ambiguities with major financial consequences depending on their
interpretation?
While doing some background research for some comments on a story by Mike
Berkens of TheDomains.com concerning IFFOR:
http://www.thedomains.com/2013/01/09/after-collecting-at-least-1-4-million-iffor-funded-by-xxx-finally-gives-2-grants-of-5k-each/
the non-profit that receives $10 per .XXX domain name, I looked at the
Sponsoring Organization Agreement which ICANN had posted in August 2010.
Paragraph 1 states that ICM agrees to:
http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/xxx-revised-icm-agreement-24aug10-en.htm
"Pay to IFFOR the sum of US$10 per ***resolving registration*** in the .xxx
sTLD per year (or, ****in the event of a price change of the regular wholesale
price to registrars from US$60 per resolving registration, a sum of no less
than 15% of the regular wholesale price****) for IFFOR to develop policies in
furtherance of the Policy Goals, to administer the Grants Program, and to
provide ombudsman, labeling, and monitoring services in accordance with and as
detailed in this Agreement</blockquote>
(emphasis added)
This section seems straightforward, but is it? Consider the following:
1. If ICM Registry dropped the wholesale price from $60/domain per year to
$59.99 (or raised it to $60.01), it would allow them to reduce the payment to
IFFOR from $10/domain per year, to $9/domain per year. By lowering the price to
registrars by a penny, they'd get back a dollar in savings on payouts to IFFOR.
On 100,000+ domain names, that's a significant annual savings for ICM Registry.
Over 10 years, that's a 7-figure cumulative savings, that goes straight to
their bottom line. This "loophole" existed because the $10 was 16.67% of $60
price, not 15%, and thus there's an elegant arbitrage opportunity that could be
immediately exploited by ICM, simply by making a minor adjustment to the
wholesale price. If one wanted to be aggressive, one could conceivably try to
make that change retroactively (i.e. going back to the launch date of the
registry).
2. What is a "resolving registration"? ICM has boasted about having more than
250,000 .xxx domains under management,
http://www.thedomains.com/2012/04/22/lawley-tells-bloomberg-there-are-250k-xxx-domains-under-management-applied-for-sex-porn-adult-to-protect-holders/
however a large number of those were paid defensive blocking registrations (in
the sunrise period, names like verizon.xxx). There are also a large number of
domain names that the registry reserved without payment, for example names of
politicians, celebrities, or ICANN staff (e.g. BarackObama.xxx, DonaldTrump.xxx
and RodBeckstrom.xxx). Here's where things get interesting -- unlike other
registries where reserved domains don't resolve (e.g. g.com doesn't resolve,
and is reserved because it's a 1-character domain in the .com TLD), ICM has
created a parked page for all their reserved domains (paid sunrise defensive
blocking registrations, and unpaid reserved names), and has been doing so since
they launched). All parked domains *resolve* in the DNS, and one might argue
are **resolving registrations**. These reserved domains each have a WHOIS
record and are thus arguably "registrations", and definitely resolve. Since
there might be roughly 100,000 or more of
these kinds of names, ICM might be on the hook for a 7-figure annual payout to
IFFOR, if they owed $10 for each of those domain names per year. Since IFFOR
has yet to make public their financial statements, it's unclear what ICM has
actually paid them. Obviously if ICM had to pay out that amount (and wasn't
already paying IFFOR for these resolving reserved domains), they'd immediately
stop those names from resolving. But, critics of ICM and ICANN (e.g. Manwin)
could definitely have a field day over whether a 7-figure payout was due for
*past* reserved registrations that ICM had allowed to resolve, and whether ICM
had met its obligations to IFFOR.
Strictly speaking, the above is a contract between ICM and IFFOR, but ICANN had
some overisght when it was created, and should have spotted these issues before
they took effect.
In conclusion, ICANN needs to do a much better job in examining contracts for
loopholes and ambiguous language, especially given the huge financial
consequences of errors. If each new gTLD operator is allowed to create custom
contracts with ICANN, the opportunities for even more loopholes to slip through
the cracks will multiply.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos
http://www.leap.com/
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|