Home / Blogs

Afilias’ Rule Violations Continue to Delay .WEB

As I noted on May 26, the final decision issued on May 20 in the Independent Review Process (IRP) brought by Afilias against the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) rejected Afilias’ petition to nullify the results of the public auction for .WEB, and it further rejected Afilias’ demand to have it be awarded .WEB (at a price substantially lower than the winning bid). Instead, as we urged, the IRP Panel determined that the ICANN Board should move forward with reviewing the objections made about .WEB, and to make a decision on delegation thereafter.

Afilias and its counsel both issued press releases claiming victory in an attempt to put a positive spin on the decision. In contrast to this public position, Afilias then quickly filed a 68-page application asking the Panel to reverse its decision. This application is, however, not permitted by the arbitration rules—which expressly prohibit such requests for “do overs.”

In addition to Afilias’ facially improper application, there is an even more serious instance of rule-breaking now described in a July 23 letter from Nu Dot Co (NDC) to ICANN. This letter sets out in considerable detail how Afilias engaged in prohibited conduct during the blackout period immediately before the .WEB auction in 2016, in violation of the auction rules. The letter shows how this rule violation is more than just a technicality; it was part of a broader scheme to rig the auction. The attachments to the letter shed light on how, during the blackout period, Afilias offered NDC money to stop ICANN’s public auction in favor of a private process—which would in turn deny the broader internet community the benefit of the proceeds of a public auction.

Afilias’ latest application to reverse the Panel’s decision, like its pre-auction misconduct 5 years ago, has only led to unnecessary delay of the delegation of .WEB. It is long past time for this multi-year campaign to come to an end. The Panel’s unanimous ruling makes clear that it strongly agrees.

By Kirk Salzmann, Sr. Director & Sr. Corporate Counsel, Litigation and Employment at Verisign

He is responsible for all aspects of litigation affecting Verisign, and for supporting the company’s Human Resources department. Kirk has more than 20 years of litigation experience in the internet infrastructure, wireless and wireline telecommunications industries.

Visit Page

Filed Under

CircleID Newsletter The Weekly Wrap

More and more professionals are choosing to publish critical posts on CircleID from all corners of the Internet industry. If you find it hard to keep up daily, consider subscribing to our weekly digest. We will provide you a convenient summary report once a week sent directly to your inbox. It's a quick and easy read.

I make a point of reading CircleID. There is no getting around the utility of knowing what thoughtful people are thinking and saying about our industry.

VINTON CERF
Co-designer of the TCP/IP Protocols & the Architecture of the Internet

Comments

.web - IOD Karl Auerbach  –  Sep 14, 2021 3:09 PM

I have an existing paid registration contract for cavebear.web with IOD, which was a California Corporation back circa year 2000.  Even if the corporate entity of IOD may no longer exist (I don’t know), its contractual rights and duties still do, although they may have moved into hands of those to whom its assets and liabilities were distributed.

We all remember IOD - it applied to ICANN to recognize its already operational .web business, it’s application was put into a favored holding pattern by ICANN, and never actually denied.

I have maintained active DNS resolvers for cavebear.web under that agreement ever since that era.

If ICANN (another California corporation) were to delegate .web to someone else that could be construed as interfering with a pre-existing business relationship.  That could be unpleasant.

Comment Title:

  Notify me of follow-up comments

We encourage you to post comments and engage in discussions that advance this post through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can report it using the link at the end of each comment. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of CircleID. For more information on our comment policy, see Codes of Conduct.

Related

Topics

Domain Names

Sponsored byVerisign

Domain Management

Sponsored byMarkMonitor

Threat Intelligence

Sponsored byWhoisXML API

Cybersecurity

Sponsored byVerisign

Brand Protection

Sponsored byAppdetex

IPv4 Markets

Sponsored byIPXO