Hello Claire, I just wanted to document my Zoom intervention on today’s CPWG call here via the mailing list to hopefully spur additional discussion. Claire I will document my concerns here and in the CPWG mailing list. Louie Touton’s original General Counsel had a saying that ICANN’s mission is to protect competition, not individual competitors’ business models. All too often in ICANN’s current PDP, Registrars and Registrars flex their de facto veto authority at the GNSO to impede real, meaningful change. Why this is BAD for ICANN is that it demonstrates that certain aspects of ICANN’s multistakeholder model have been captured, thus leaving disenfranchised members to resort to national laws, see NIS2, Chinese Real Name Verification, India litigation, etc. Sadly, one can see the handwriting on the wall on how this PDP will end, and one needs to look no further back in history than the transfer PDP. The registrars will get almost everything they want, and ALAC will get some consolation footnote about addressing their concerns in future work. Registrars will be out in force in this PDP as they are the tip of the Abuse spear since most Registries have now gone thin. Registries will largely remain silent because they do not want to alienate their channel or incur higher listing/placement fees. In fact, the importance of Registries NOT upsetting their Registrar channel is a topic of an upcoming session at the ICANN Contractual Party Summit, see https://cpsummit2026.sched.com/event/2GbE1/how-to-engage-and-not-enrage-the-... Thoughts? Comments? Best regards, Michael
Sadly, I tend to agree with Mike. Eons ago when the GNSO Council was reorganized, one of the rationales for two SG (Rr and Ry) was that their interests were different. Vertical integration reduced that, but the overriding consideration that Registries do not want to go against their customers was and has been largely ignored. It takes something VERY important to Registries to disagree with Registrars. Generally, they either agree, or simply stay quiet. That results in a pretty impenetrable barrier. Alan On Wed, Apr 8, 2026 at 12:29 PM mike palage.com via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
Hello Claire,
I just wanted to document my Zoom intervention on today’s CPWG call here via the mailing list to hopefully spur additional discussion.
Claire I will document my concerns here and in the CPWG mailing list. Louie Touton’s original General Counsel had a saying that ICANN’s mission is to protect competition, not individual competitors’ business models. All too often in ICANN’s current PDP, Registrars and Registrars flex their de facto veto authority at the GNSO to impede real, meaningful change. Why this is BAD for ICANN is that it demonstrates that certain aspects of ICANN’s multistakeholder model have been captured, thus leaving disenfranchised members to resort to national laws, see NIS2, Chinese Real Name Verification, India litigation, etc.
Sadly, one can see the handwriting on the wall on how this PDP will end, and one needs to look no further back in history than the transfer PDP. The registrars will get almost everything they want, and ALAC will get some consolation footnote about addressing their concerns in future work.
Registrars will be out in force in this PDP as they are the tip of the Abuse spear since most Registries have now gone thin. Registries will largely remain silent because they do not want to alienate their channel or incur higher listing/placement fees. In fact, the importance of Registries NOT upsetting their Registrar channel is a topic of an upcoming session at the ICANN Contractual Party Summit, see https://cpsummit2026.sched.com/event/2GbE1/how-to-engage-and-not-enrage-the-...
Thoughts? Comments?
Best regards,
Michael _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Alan, This is one of the reasons I have repeatedly been beating the drum about ICANN’s failure to undertake a comprehensive economic study of the unique identifiers that ICANN holds a monopoly over through the IANA function. On the issue of vertical integration, the ICANN Board acted unilaterally in approving the change and has never undertaken a proper economic or legal analysis of its decision. The listing/marketing fees that Registrars are imposing on Registry Operators are a silent tax on prospective TLD applicants that most do not fully appreciate. Reading between the lines of the CPH Summit session on "do not enrage the channel" basically discourages innovation at the Registry Level. Instead of applauding the ZERO instances of DNS abuse in fTLDs TLDs, most Registrars do not want to be bothered. They just want all Registries to be the same cookie-cutter business model. Anyone up for an economic fact-finding excursion? I know where the bodies are buried. I just need some help digging them up and documenting them. Best regards, Michael From: Alan Greenberg <greenberg.alan@gmail.com> Date: Wednesday, April 8, 2026 at 4:19 PM To: mike palage.com <mike@palage.com> Cc: ICANN At-Large Staff via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CPWG] DNS Abuse PDP Sadly, I tend to agree with Mike. Eons ago when the GNSO Council was reorganized, one of the rationales for two SG (Rr and Ry) was that their interests were different. Vertical integration reduced that, but the overriding consideration that Registries do not want to go against their customers was and has been largely ignored. It takes something VERY important to Registries to disagree with Registrars. Generally, they either agree, or simply stay quiet. That results in a pretty impenetrable barrier. Alan On Wed, Apr 8, 2026 at 12:29 PM mike palage.com<http://palage.com> via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org>> wrote: Hello Claire, I just wanted to document my Zoom intervention on today’s CPWG call here via the mailing list to hopefully spur additional discussion. Claire I will document my concerns here and in the CPWG mailing list. Louie Touton’s original General Counsel had a saying that ICANN’s mission is to protect competition, not individual competitors’ business models. All too often in ICANN’s current PDP, Registrars and Registrars flex their de facto veto authority at the GNSO to impede real, meaningful change. Why this is BAD for ICANN is that it demonstrates that certain aspects of ICANN’s multistakeholder model have been captured, thus leaving disenfranchised members to resort to national laws, see NIS2, Chinese Real Name Verification, India litigation, etc. Sadly, one can see the handwriting on the wall on how this PDP will end, and one needs to look no further back in history than the transfer PDP. The registrars will get almost everything they want, and ALAC will get some consolation footnote about addressing their concerns in future work. Registrars will be out in force in this PDP as they are the tip of the Abuse spear since most Registries have now gone thin. Registries will largely remain silent because they do not want to alienate their channel or incur higher listing/placement fees. In fact, the importance of Registries NOT upsetting their Registrar channel is a topic of an upcoming session at the ICANN Contractual Party Summit, see https://cpsummit2026.sched.com/event/2GbE1/how-to-engage-and-not-enrage-the-... Thoughts? Comments? Best regards, Michael _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org<mailto:cpwg-leave@icann.org> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
*Subject:* Re: [CPWG] DNS Abuse PDP – Structural & Economic Considerations Dear Mike, Alan, and Claire, Thank you for the thoughtful interventions. Allow me to respond to each point directly and practically. ------------------------------ *1. On the alignment (or misalignment) between Registries and Registrars (Alan’s point)* You are correct—Registries and Registrars were structurally separated because their incentives are fundamentally different. The obvious implication is this: If policy development begins treating them as aligned or interchangeable, the system risks losing its built-in checks and balances. *Proper handling:* - Policy discussions must explicitly acknowledge these divergent incentives - Impact assessments should be conducted separately for Registries and Registrars - Any consensus claims should clearly distinguish whether alignment is real or assumed Blurring these roles doesn’t simplify governance—it weakens it. ------------------------------ *2. On ICANN’s lack of comprehensive economic analysis (Mike’s point)* The concern here is straightforward: decisions affecting a global naming monopoly are being made without a transparent economic baseline. That’s not just a gap—it’s a governance risk. *Proper handling:* - A formal, independent economic study should be commissioned covering: - Pricing structures across Registries and Registrars - Market entry barriers for new gTLD applicants - Downstream cost impacts on end users - Findings should be publicly available and used as a reference point for future PDPs You cannot regulate what you have not properly measured. ------------------------------ *3. On vertical integration and unilateral Board decisions* The issue isn’t just the decision—it’s the absence of a documented, transparent justification. When structural changes are made without economic and legal analysis, trust erodes. *Proper handling:* - Any future structural changes should require: - Published economic impact assessments - Legal review summaries - Community consultation before implementation - Retrospectively, it would be appropriate to review the outcomes of vertical integration with actual data If decisions shape the market, they must be accountable to it. ------------------------------ *4. On registrar-imposed listing/marketing fees (“silent tax”)* This is a classic case of cost shifting within the value chain—often invisible to new entrants. The reality is simple: If fees are not transparent, they distort competition. *Proper handling:* - Introduce transparency requirements for all registry–registrar commercial terms that materially affect market access - Consider standardized disclosure frameworks for TLD applicants - Evaluate whether such fees create anti-competitive effects If it impacts entry, it must be visible. ------------------------------ *5. On “do not enrage the channel” and innovation constraints* If innovation is being informally discouraged to maintain operational convenience, that’s a systemic issue—not just a cultural one. Especially when, as noted, some TLDs demonstrate *zero DNS abuse*, this should be a signal for differentiation—not suppression. *Proper handling:* - Recognize and reward high-performing TLDs (e.g., low or zero abuse rates) - Allow differentiated registry models rather than enforcing uniformity - Encourage registrar participation in innovation instead of passive resistance A system that penalizes excellence eventually standardizes mediocrity. ------------------------------ *6. On the proposal for an economic fact-finding effort* This is probably the most actionable point raised. The need is clear: Without evidence, discussions remain theoretical. *Proper handling:* - Establish a structured, community-supported fact-finding initiative - Define scope clearly (pricing, abuse mitigation costs, integration effects, market barriers) - Ensure outputs are documented, verifiable, and usable in PDP processes If there are insights to uncover, they should be formalized—not anecdotal. ------------------------------ *Closing Thought* At its core, this discussion highlights a recurring issue: Policy is moving faster than structured evidence and institutional accountability. The fix is not complicated— Measure properly, disclose transparently, and decide collectively. Everything else is noise. Kind regards, Chubasco Maximus Diranga AMOC Stratum Tech Solutions “Simple, genuine goodness is the best capital to found the business of this life upon. It lasts when fame and money fail, and is the only riches we can take out of this world with us.” On Thu, Apr 9, 2026 at 10:28 AM mike palage.com via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
Alan,
This is one of the reasons I have repeatedly been beating the drum about ICANN’s failure to undertake a comprehensive economic study of the unique identifiers that ICANN holds a monopoly over through the IANA function.
On the issue of vertical integration, the ICANN Board acted unilaterally in approving the change and has never undertaken a proper economic or legal analysis of its decision. The listing/marketing fees that Registrars are imposing on Registry Operators are a silent tax on prospective TLD applicants that most do not fully appreciate.
Reading between the lines of the CPH Summit session on "do not enrage the channel" basically discourages innovation at the Registry Level. Instead of applauding the ZERO instances of DNS abuse in fTLDs TLDs, most Registrars do not want to be bothered. They just want all Registries to be the same cookie-cutter business model.
Anyone up for an economic fact-finding excursion? I know where the bodies are buried. I just need some help digging them up and documenting them.
Best regards,
Michael
*From: *Alan Greenberg <greenberg.alan@gmail.com> *Date: *Wednesday, April 8, 2026 at 4:19 PM *To: *mike palage.com <mike@palage.com> *Cc: *ICANN At-Large Staff via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [CPWG] DNS Abuse PDP
Sadly, I tend to agree with Mike. Eons ago when the GNSO Council was reorganized, one of the rationales for two SG (Rr and Ry) was that their interests were different. Vertical integration reduced that, but the overriding consideration that Registries do not want to go against their customers was and has been largely ignored. It takes something VERY important to Registries to disagree with Registrars. Generally, they either agree, or simply stay quiet.
That results in a pretty impenetrable barrier.
Alan
On Wed, Apr 8, 2026 at 12:29 PM mike palage.com via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
Hello Claire,
I just wanted to document my Zoom intervention on today’s CPWG call here via the mailing list to hopefully spur additional discussion.
Claire I will document my concerns here and in the CPWG mailing list. Louie Touton’s original General Counsel had a saying that ICANN’s mission is to protect competition, not individual competitors’ business models. All too often in ICANN’s current PDP, Registrars and Registrars flex their de facto veto authority at the GNSO to impede real, meaningful change. Why this is BAD for ICANN is that it demonstrates that certain aspects of ICANN’s multistakeholder model have been captured, thus leaving disenfranchised members to resort to national laws, see NIS2, Chinese Real Name Verification, India litigation, etc.
Sadly, one can see the handwriting on the wall on how this PDP will end, and one needs to look no further back in history than the transfer PDP. The registrars will get almost everything they want, and ALAC will get some consolation footnote about addressing their concerns in future work.
Registrars will be out in force in this PDP as they are the tip of the Abuse spear since most Registries have now gone thin. Registries will largely remain silent because they do not want to alienate their channel or incur higher listing/placement fees. In fact, the importance of Registries NOT upsetting their Registrar channel is a topic of an upcoming session at the ICANN Contractual Party Summit, see https://cpsummit2026.sched.com/event/2GbE1/how-to-engage-and-not-enrage-the-...
Thoughts? Comments?
Best regards,
Michael _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
This conversation goes WAY beyond the DNS abuse PDP 1 and you cannot expect it to be addressed there. Kind regards, Justine On Thu, 9 Apr 2026 at 11:42, Chubasco Diranga via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
*Subject:* Re: [CPWG] DNS Abuse PDP – Structural & Economic Considerations
Dear Mike, Alan, and Claire,
Thank you for the thoughtful interventions. Allow me to respond to each point directly and practically. ------------------------------
*1. On the alignment (or misalignment) between Registries and Registrars (Alan’s point)*
You are correct—Registries and Registrars were structurally separated because their incentives are fundamentally different.
The obvious implication is this: If policy development begins treating them as aligned or interchangeable, the system risks losing its built-in checks and balances.
*Proper handling:*
- Policy discussions must explicitly acknowledge these divergent incentives - Impact assessments should be conducted separately for Registries and Registrars - Any consensus claims should clearly distinguish whether alignment is real or assumed
Blurring these roles doesn’t simplify governance—it weakens it. ------------------------------
*2. On ICANN’s lack of comprehensive economic analysis (Mike’s point)*
The concern here is straightforward: decisions affecting a global naming monopoly are being made without a transparent economic baseline.
That’s not just a gap—it’s a governance risk.
*Proper handling:*
- A formal, independent economic study should be commissioned covering: - Pricing structures across Registries and Registrars - Market entry barriers for new gTLD applicants - Downstream cost impacts on end users - Findings should be publicly available and used as a reference point for future PDPs
You cannot regulate what you have not properly measured. ------------------------------
*3. On vertical integration and unilateral Board decisions*
The issue isn’t just the decision—it’s the absence of a documented, transparent justification.
When structural changes are made without economic and legal analysis, trust erodes.
*Proper handling:*
- Any future structural changes should require: - Published economic impact assessments - Legal review summaries - Community consultation before implementation - Retrospectively, it would be appropriate to review the outcomes of vertical integration with actual data
If decisions shape the market, they must be accountable to it. ------------------------------
*4. On registrar-imposed listing/marketing fees (“silent tax”)*
This is a classic case of cost shifting within the value chain—often invisible to new entrants.
The reality is simple: If fees are not transparent, they distort competition.
*Proper handling:*
- Introduce transparency requirements for all registry–registrar commercial terms that materially affect market access - Consider standardized disclosure frameworks for TLD applicants - Evaluate whether such fees create anti-competitive effects
If it impacts entry, it must be visible. ------------------------------
*5. On “do not enrage the channel” and innovation constraints*
If innovation is being informally discouraged to maintain operational convenience, that’s a systemic issue—not just a cultural one.
Especially when, as noted, some TLDs demonstrate *zero DNS abuse*, this should be a signal for differentiation—not suppression.
*Proper handling:*
- Recognize and reward high-performing TLDs (e.g., low or zero abuse rates) - Allow differentiated registry models rather than enforcing uniformity - Encourage registrar participation in innovation instead of passive resistance
A system that penalizes excellence eventually standardizes mediocrity. ------------------------------
*6. On the proposal for an economic fact-finding effort*
This is probably the most actionable point raised.
The need is clear: Without evidence, discussions remain theoretical.
*Proper handling:*
- Establish a structured, community-supported fact-finding initiative - Define scope clearly (pricing, abuse mitigation costs, integration effects, market barriers) - Ensure outputs are documented, verifiable, and usable in PDP processes
If there are insights to uncover, they should be formalized—not anecdotal. ------------------------------
*Closing Thought*
At its core, this discussion highlights a recurring issue: Policy is moving faster than structured evidence and institutional accountability.
The fix is not complicated— Measure properly, disclose transparently, and decide collectively.
Everything else is noise.
Kind regards,
Chubasco Maximus Diranga AMOC Stratum Tech Solutions “Simple, genuine goodness is the best capital to found the business of this life upon. It lasts when fame and money fail, and is the only riches we can take out of this world with us.”
On Thu, Apr 9, 2026 at 10:28 AM mike palage.com via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
Alan,
This is one of the reasons I have repeatedly been beating the drum about ICANN’s failure to undertake a comprehensive economic study of the unique identifiers that ICANN holds a monopoly over through the IANA function.
On the issue of vertical integration, the ICANN Board acted unilaterally in approving the change and has never undertaken a proper economic or legal analysis of its decision. The listing/marketing fees that Registrars are imposing on Registry Operators are a silent tax on prospective TLD applicants that most do not fully appreciate.
Reading between the lines of the CPH Summit session on "do not enrage the channel" basically discourages innovation at the Registry Level. Instead of applauding the ZERO instances of DNS abuse in fTLDs TLDs, most Registrars do not want to be bothered. They just want all Registries to be the same cookie-cutter business model.
Anyone up for an economic fact-finding excursion? I know where the bodies are buried. I just need some help digging them up and documenting them.
Best regards,
Michael
*From: *Alan Greenberg <greenberg.alan@gmail.com> *Date: *Wednesday, April 8, 2026 at 4:19 PM *To: *mike palage.com <mike@palage.com> *Cc: *ICANN At-Large Staff via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [CPWG] DNS Abuse PDP
Sadly, I tend to agree with Mike. Eons ago when the GNSO Council was reorganized, one of the rationales for two SG (Rr and Ry) was that their interests were different. Vertical integration reduced that, but the overriding consideration that Registries do not want to go against their customers was and has been largely ignored. It takes something VERY important to Registries to disagree with Registrars. Generally, they either agree, or simply stay quiet.
That results in a pretty impenetrable barrier.
Alan
On Wed, Apr 8, 2026 at 12:29 PM mike palage.com via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
Hello Claire,
I just wanted to document my Zoom intervention on today’s CPWG call here via the mailing list to hopefully spur additional discussion.
Claire I will document my concerns here and in the CPWG mailing list. Louie Touton’s original General Counsel had a saying that ICANN’s mission is to protect competition, not individual competitors’ business models. All too often in ICANN’s current PDP, Registrars and Registrars flex their de facto veto authority at the GNSO to impede real, meaningful change. Why this is BAD for ICANN is that it demonstrates that certain aspects of ICANN’s multistakeholder model have been captured, thus leaving disenfranchised members to resort to national laws, see NIS2, Chinese Real Name Verification, India litigation, etc.
Sadly, one can see the handwriting on the wall on how this PDP will end, and one needs to look no further back in history than the transfer PDP. The registrars will get almost everything they want, and ALAC will get some consolation footnote about addressing their concerns in future work.
Registrars will be out in force in this PDP as they are the tip of the Abuse spear since most Registries have now gone thin. Registries will largely remain silent because they do not want to alienate their channel or incur higher listing/placement fees. In fact, the importance of Registries NOT upsetting their Registrar channel is a topic of an upcoming session at the ICANN Contractual Party Summit, see https://cpsummit2026.sched.com/event/2GbE1/how-to-engage-and-not-enrage-the-...
Thoughts? Comments?
Best regards,
Michael _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Justine, Completely agree that this discussion goes WAY beyond the DNS Abuse PDP. However, I moved this thread from the CPWG call to have a more in-depth discussion about the deficiencies in the current GNSO organizational structure and PDP process. With regard to the DNS Abuse PDP1, in my professional opinion, 90% of that final output was largely preordained at last year’s contracting party summit. Unfortunately, these discussions occurred during a closed session, and I cannot publicly share those discussions. However, later this year, when you take your seat on the ICANN Board of Directors, you will be in a legal position to request access to those Zoom recordings. This should also coincide with the potential output of DNS Abuse PDP 1 work. At that time, you would then be in a position to make an informed decision on whether ALAC and the rest of the non-contracting party stakeholders ever had the opportunity to make a substantive impact on the output of that work, or whether the outcome was largely preordained over a year ago. Best regards, Michael From: Justine Chew via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Date: Wednesday, April 8, 2026 at 11:57 PM To: Chubasco Diranga <alpharulz@gmail.com>, mike palage.com <mike@palage.com> Cc: ICANN At-Large Staff via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Subject: [CPWG] Re: DNS Abuse PDP This conversation goes WAY beyond the DNS abuse PDP 1 and you cannot expect it to be addressed there. Kind regards, Justine On Thu, 9 Apr 2026 at 11:42, Chubasco Diranga via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org>> wrote: Subject: Re: [CPWG] DNS Abuse PDP – Structural & Economic Considerations Dear Mike, Alan, and Claire, Thank you for the thoughtful interventions. Allow me to respond to each point directly and practically. ________________________________ 1. On the alignment (or misalignment) between Registries and Registrars (Alan’s point) You are correct—Registries and Registrars were structurally separated because their incentives are fundamentally different. The obvious implication is this: If policy development begins treating them as aligned or interchangeable, the system risks losing its built-in checks and balances. Proper handling: * Policy discussions must explicitly acknowledge these divergent incentives * Impact assessments should be conducted separately for Registries and Registrars * Any consensus claims should clearly distinguish whether alignment is real or assumed Blurring these roles doesn’t simplify governance—it weakens it. ________________________________ 2. On ICANN’s lack of comprehensive economic analysis (Mike’s point) The concern here is straightforward: decisions affecting a global naming monopoly are being made without a transparent economic baseline. That’s not just a gap—it’s a governance risk. Proper handling: * A formal, independent economic study should be commissioned covering: * Pricing structures across Registries and Registrars * Market entry barriers for new gTLD applicants * Downstream cost impacts on end users * Findings should be publicly available and used as a reference point for future PDPs You cannot regulate what you have not properly measured. ________________________________ 3. On vertical integration and unilateral Board decisions The issue isn’t just the decision—it’s the absence of a documented, transparent justification. When structural changes are made without economic and legal analysis, trust erodes. Proper handling: * Any future structural changes should require: * Published economic impact assessments * Legal review summaries * Community consultation before implementation * Retrospectively, it would be appropriate to review the outcomes of vertical integration with actual data If decisions shape the market, they must be accountable to it. ________________________________ 4. On registrar-imposed listing/marketing fees (“silent tax”) This is a classic case of cost shifting within the value chain—often invisible to new entrants. The reality is simple: If fees are not transparent, they distort competition. Proper handling: * Introduce transparency requirements for all registry–registrar commercial terms that materially affect market access * Consider standardized disclosure frameworks for TLD applicants * Evaluate whether such fees create anti-competitive effects If it impacts entry, it must be visible. ________________________________ 5. On “do not enrage the channel” and innovation constraints If innovation is being informally discouraged to maintain operational convenience, that’s a systemic issue—not just a cultural one. Especially when, as noted, some TLDs demonstrate zero DNS abuse, this should be a signal for differentiation—not suppression. Proper handling: * Recognize and reward high-performing TLDs (e.g., low or zero abuse rates) * Allow differentiated registry models rather than enforcing uniformity * Encourage registrar participation in innovation instead of passive resistance A system that penalizes excellence eventually standardizes mediocrity. ________________________________ 6. On the proposal for an economic fact-finding effort This is probably the most actionable point raised. The need is clear: Without evidence, discussions remain theoretical. Proper handling: * Establish a structured, community-supported fact-finding initiative * Define scope clearly (pricing, abuse mitigation costs, integration effects, market barriers) * Ensure outputs are documented, verifiable, and usable in PDP processes If there are insights to uncover, they should be formalized—not anecdotal. ________________________________ Closing Thought At its core, this discussion highlights a recurring issue: Policy is moving faster than structured evidence and institutional accountability. The fix is not complicated— Measure properly, disclose transparently, and decide collectively. Everything else is noise. Kind regards, Chubasco Maximus Diranga AMOC Stratum Tech Solutions “Simple, genuine goodness is the best capital to found the business of this life upon. It lasts when fame and money fail, and is the only riches we can take out of this world with us.” On Thu, Apr 9, 2026 at 10:28 AM mike palage.com<http://palage.com> via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org>> wrote: Alan, This is one of the reasons I have repeatedly been beating the drum about ICANN’s failure to undertake a comprehensive economic study of the unique identifiers that ICANN holds a monopoly over through the IANA function. On the issue of vertical integration, the ICANN Board acted unilaterally in approving the change and has never undertaken a proper economic or legal analysis of its decision. The listing/marketing fees that Registrars are imposing on Registry Operators are a silent tax on prospective TLD applicants that most do not fully appreciate. Reading between the lines of the CPH Summit session on "do not enrage the channel" basically discourages innovation at the Registry Level. Instead of applauding the ZERO instances of DNS abuse in fTLDs TLDs, most Registrars do not want to be bothered. They just want all Registries to be the same cookie-cutter business model. Anyone up for an economic fact-finding excursion? I know where the bodies are buried. I just need some help digging them up and documenting them. Best regards, Michael From: Alan Greenberg <greenberg.alan@gmail.com<mailto:greenberg.alan@gmail.com>> Date: Wednesday, April 8, 2026 at 4:19 PM To: mike palage.com<http://palage.com> <mike@palage.com<mailto:mike@palage.com>> Cc: ICANN At-Large Staff via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CPWG] DNS Abuse PDP Sadly, I tend to agree with Mike. Eons ago when the GNSO Council was reorganized, one of the rationales for two SG (Rr and Ry) was that their interests were different. Vertical integration reduced that, but the overriding consideration that Registries do not want to go against their customers was and has been largely ignored. It takes something VERY important to Registries to disagree with Registrars. Generally, they either agree, or simply stay quiet. That results in a pretty impenetrable barrier. Alan On Wed, Apr 8, 2026 at 12:29 PM mike palage.com<http://palage.com> via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org>> wrote: Hello Claire, I just wanted to document my Zoom intervention on today’s CPWG call here via the mailing list to hopefully spur additional discussion. Claire I will document my concerns here and in the CPWG mailing list. Louie Touton’s original General Counsel had a saying that ICANN’s mission is to protect competition, not individual competitors’ business models. All too often in ICANN’s current PDP, Registrars and Registrars flex their de facto veto authority at the GNSO to impede real, meaningful change. Why this is BAD for ICANN is that it demonstrates that certain aspects of ICANN’s multistakeholder model have been captured, thus leaving disenfranchised members to resort to national laws, see NIS2, Chinese Real Name Verification, India litigation, etc. Sadly, one can see the handwriting on the wall on how this PDP will end, and one needs to look no further back in history than the transfer PDP. The registrars will get almost everything they want, and ALAC will get some consolation footnote about addressing their concerns in future work. Registrars will be out in force in this PDP as they are the tip of the Abuse spear since most Registries have now gone thin. Registries will largely remain silent because they do not want to alienate their channel or incur higher listing/placement fees. In fact, the importance of Registries NOT upsetting their Registrar channel is a topic of an upcoming session at the ICANN Contractual Party Summit, see https://cpsummit2026.sched.com/event/2GbE1/how-to-engage-and-not-enrage-the-... Thoughts? Comments? Best regards, Michael _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org<mailto:cpwg-leave@icann.org> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org<mailto:cpwg-leave@icann.org> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org<mailto:cpwg-leave@icann.org> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
*However, I moved this thread from the CPWG call to have a more in-depth discussion about the deficiencies in the current GNSO organizational structure and PDP process.*
This also goes WAY beyond the DNS Abuse PDP 1 and you also cannot expect it to be addressed there. Kind regards, Justine On Thu, 9 Apr 2026 at 13:00, michael palage.com <michael@palage.com> wrote:
Justine,
Completely agree that this discussion goes WAY beyond the DNS Abuse PDP. However, I moved this thread from the CPWG call to have a more in-depth discussion about the deficiencies in the current GNSO organizational structure and PDP process.
With regard to the DNS Abuse PDP1, in my professional opinion, 90% of that final output was largely preordained at last year’s contracting party summit. Unfortunately, these discussions occurred during a closed session, and I cannot publicly share those discussions. However, later this year, when you take your seat on the ICANN Board of Directors, you will be in a legal position to request access to those Zoom recordings. This should also coincide with the potential output of DNS Abuse PDP 1 work.
At that time, you would then be in a position to make an informed decision on whether ALAC and the rest of the non-contracting party stakeholders ever had the opportunity to make a substantive impact on the output of that work, or whether the outcome was largely preordained over a year ago.
Best regards,
Michael
*From: *Justine Chew via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> *Date: *Wednesday, April 8, 2026 at 11:57 PM *To: *Chubasco Diranga <alpharulz@gmail.com>, mike palage.com < mike@palage.com> *Cc: *ICANN At-Large Staff via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> *Subject: *[CPWG] Re: DNS Abuse PDP
This conversation goes WAY beyond the DNS abuse PDP 1 and you cannot expect it to be addressed there.
Kind regards, Justine
On Thu, 9 Apr 2026 at 11:42, Chubasco Diranga via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
*Subject:* Re: [CPWG] DNS Abuse PDP – Structural & Economic Considerations
Dear Mike, Alan, and Claire,
Thank you for the thoughtful interventions. Allow me to respond to each point directly and practically. ------------------------------
*1. On the alignment (or misalignment) between Registries and Registrars (Alan’s point)*
You are correct—Registries and Registrars were structurally separated because their incentives are fundamentally different.
The obvious implication is this: If policy development begins treating them as aligned or interchangeable, the system risks losing its built-in checks and balances.
*Proper handling:*
- Policy discussions must explicitly acknowledge these divergent incentives - Impact assessments should be conducted separately for Registries and Registrars - Any consensus claims should clearly distinguish whether alignment is real or assumed
Blurring these roles doesn’t simplify governance—it weakens it. ------------------------------
*2. On ICANN’s lack of comprehensive economic analysis (Mike’s point)*
The concern here is straightforward: decisions affecting a global naming monopoly are being made without a transparent economic baseline.
That’s not just a gap—it’s a governance risk.
*Proper handling:*
- A formal, independent economic study should be commissioned covering: - Pricing structures across Registries and Registrars - Market entry barriers for new gTLD applicants - Downstream cost impacts on end users - Findings should be publicly available and used as a reference point for future PDPs
You cannot regulate what you have not properly measured. ------------------------------
*3. On vertical integration and unilateral Board decisions*
The issue isn’t just the decision—it’s the absence of a documented, transparent justification.
When structural changes are made without economic and legal analysis, trust erodes.
*Proper handling:*
- Any future structural changes should require: - Published economic impact assessments - Legal review summaries - Community consultation before implementation - Retrospectively, it would be appropriate to review the outcomes of vertical integration with actual data
If decisions shape the market, they must be accountable to it. ------------------------------
*4. On registrar-imposed listing/marketing fees (“silent tax”)*
This is a classic case of cost shifting within the value chain—often invisible to new entrants.
The reality is simple: If fees are not transparent, they distort competition.
*Proper handling:*
- Introduce transparency requirements for all registry–registrar commercial terms that materially affect market access - Consider standardized disclosure frameworks for TLD applicants - Evaluate whether such fees create anti-competitive effects
If it impacts entry, it must be visible. ------------------------------
*5. On “do not enrage the channel” and innovation constraints*
If innovation is being informally discouraged to maintain operational convenience, that’s a systemic issue—not just a cultural one.
Especially when, as noted, some TLDs demonstrate *zero DNS abuse*, this should be a signal for differentiation—not suppression.
*Proper handling:*
- Recognize and reward high-performing TLDs (e.g., low or zero abuse rates) - Allow differentiated registry models rather than enforcing uniformity - Encourage registrar participation in innovation instead of passive resistance
A system that penalizes excellence eventually standardizes mediocrity. ------------------------------
*6. On the proposal for an economic fact-finding effort*
This is probably the most actionable point raised.
The need is clear: Without evidence, discussions remain theoretical.
*Proper handling:*
- Establish a structured, community-supported fact-finding initiative - Define scope clearly (pricing, abuse mitigation costs, integration effects, market barriers) - Ensure outputs are documented, verifiable, and usable in PDP processes
If there are insights to uncover, they should be formalized—not anecdotal. ------------------------------
*Closing Thought*
At its core, this discussion highlights a recurring issue: Policy is moving faster than structured evidence and institutional accountability.
The fix is not complicated— Measure properly, disclose transparently, and decide collectively.
Everything else is noise.
Kind regards,
Chubasco Maximus Diranga AMOC Stratum Tech Solutions “Simple, genuine goodness is the best capital to found the business of this life upon. It lasts when fame and money fail, and is the only riches we can take out of this world with us.”
On Thu, Apr 9, 2026 at 10:28 AM mike palage.com via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
Alan,
This is one of the reasons I have repeatedly been beating the drum about ICANN’s failure to undertake a comprehensive economic study of the unique identifiers that ICANN holds a monopoly over through the IANA function.
On the issue of vertical integration, the ICANN Board acted unilaterally in approving the change and has never undertaken a proper economic or legal analysis of its decision. The listing/marketing fees that Registrars are imposing on Registry Operators are a silent tax on prospective TLD applicants that most do not fully appreciate.
Reading between the lines of the CPH Summit session on "do not enrage the channel" basically discourages innovation at the Registry Level. Instead of applauding the ZERO instances of DNS abuse in fTLDs TLDs, most Registrars do not want to be bothered. They just want all Registries to be the same cookie-cutter business model.
Anyone up for an economic fact-finding excursion? I know where the bodies are buried. I just need some help digging them up and documenting them.
Best regards,
Michael
*From: *Alan Greenberg <greenberg.alan@gmail.com> *Date: *Wednesday, April 8, 2026 at 4:19 PM *To: *mike palage.com <mike@palage.com> *Cc: *ICANN At-Large Staff via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [CPWG] DNS Abuse PDP
Sadly, I tend to agree with Mike. Eons ago when the GNSO Council was reorganized, one of the rationales for two SG (Rr and Ry) was that their interests were different. Vertical integration reduced that, but the overriding consideration that Registries do not want to go against their customers was and has been largely ignored. It takes something VERY important to Registries to disagree with Registrars. Generally, they either agree, or simply stay quiet.
That results in a pretty impenetrable barrier.
Alan
On Wed, Apr 8, 2026 at 12:29 PM mike palage.com via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
Hello Claire,
I just wanted to document my Zoom intervention on today’s CPWG call here via the mailing list to hopefully spur additional discussion.
Claire I will document my concerns here and in the CPWG mailing list. Louie Touton’s original General Counsel had a saying that ICANN’s mission is to protect competition, not individual competitors’ business models. All too often in ICANN’s current PDP, Registrars and Registrars flex their de facto veto authority at the GNSO to impede real, meaningful change. Why this is BAD for ICANN is that it demonstrates that certain aspects of ICANN’s multistakeholder model have been captured, thus leaving disenfranchised members to resort to national laws, see NIS2, Chinese Real Name Verification, India litigation, etc.
Sadly, one can see the handwriting on the wall on how this PDP will end, and one needs to look no further back in history than the transfer PDP. The registrars will get almost everything they want, and ALAC will get some consolation footnote about addressing their concerns in future work.
Registrars will be out in force in this PDP as they are the tip of the Abuse spear since most Registries have now gone thin. Registries will largely remain silent because they do not want to alienate their channel or incur higher listing/placement fees. In fact, the importance of Registries NOT upsetting their Registrar channel is a topic of an upcoming session at the ICANN Contractual Party Summit, see https://cpsummit2026.sched.com/event/2GbE1/how-to-engage-and-not-enrage-the-...
Thoughts? Comments?
Best regards,
Michael _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Justine, Where do you recommend that the issue be addressed? Best regards, Michael From: Justine Chew via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Date: Thursday, April 9, 2026 at 1:16 AM To: michael palage.com <michael@palage.com> Cc: ICANN At-Large Staff via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Subject: [CPWG] Re: DNS Abuse PDP However, I moved this thread from the CPWG call to have a more in-depth discussion about the deficiencies in the current GNSO organizational structure and PDP process. This also goes WAY beyond the DNS Abuse PDP 1 and you also cannot expect it to be addressed there. Kind regards, Justine On Thu, 9 Apr 2026 at 13:00, michael palage.com<http://palage.com> <michael@palage.com<mailto:michael@palage.com>> wrote: Justine, Completely agree that this discussion goes WAY beyond the DNS Abuse PDP. However, I moved this thread from the CPWG call to have a more in-depth discussion about the deficiencies in the current GNSO organizational structure and PDP process. With regard to the DNS Abuse PDP1, in my professional opinion, 90% of that final output was largely preordained at last year’s contracting party summit. Unfortunately, these discussions occurred during a closed session, and I cannot publicly share those discussions. However, later this year, when you take your seat on the ICANN Board of Directors, you will be in a legal position to request access to those Zoom recordings. This should also coincide with the potential output of DNS Abuse PDP 1 work. At that time, you would then be in a position to make an informed decision on whether ALAC and the rest of the non-contracting party stakeholders ever had the opportunity to make a substantive impact on the output of that work, or whether the outcome was largely preordained over a year ago. Best regards, Michael From: Justine Chew via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org>> Date: Wednesday, April 8, 2026 at 11:57 PM To: Chubasco Diranga <alpharulz@gmail.com<mailto:alpharulz@gmail.com>>, mike palage.com<http://palage.com> <mike@palage.com<mailto:mike@palage.com>> Cc: ICANN At-Large Staff via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org>> Subject: [CPWG] Re: DNS Abuse PDP This conversation goes WAY beyond the DNS abuse PDP 1 and you cannot expect it to be addressed there. Kind regards, Justine On Thu, 9 Apr 2026 at 11:42, Chubasco Diranga via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org>> wrote: Subject: Re: [CPWG] DNS Abuse PDP – Structural & Economic Considerations Dear Mike, Alan, and Claire, Thank you for the thoughtful interventions. Allow me to respond to each point directly and practically. ________________________________ 1. On the alignment (or misalignment) between Registries and Registrars (Alan’s point) You are correct—Registries and Registrars were structurally separated because their incentives are fundamentally different. The obvious implication is this: If policy development begins treating them as aligned or interchangeable, the system risks losing its built-in checks and balances. Proper handling: * Policy discussions must explicitly acknowledge these divergent incentives * Impact assessments should be conducted separately for Registries and Registrars * Any consensus claims should clearly distinguish whether alignment is real or assumed Blurring these roles doesn’t simplify governance—it weakens it. ________________________________ 2. On ICANN’s lack of comprehensive economic analysis (Mike’s point) The concern here is straightforward: decisions affecting a global naming monopoly are being made without a transparent economic baseline. That’s not just a gap—it’s a governance risk. Proper handling: * A formal, independent economic study should be commissioned covering: * Pricing structures across Registries and Registrars * Market entry barriers for new gTLD applicants * Downstream cost impacts on end users * Findings should be publicly available and used as a reference point for future PDPs You cannot regulate what you have not properly measured. ________________________________ 3. On vertical integration and unilateral Board decisions The issue isn’t just the decision—it’s the absence of a documented, transparent justification. When structural changes are made without economic and legal analysis, trust erodes. Proper handling: * Any future structural changes should require: * Published economic impact assessments * Legal review summaries * Community consultation before implementation * Retrospectively, it would be appropriate to review the outcomes of vertical integration with actual data If decisions shape the market, they must be accountable to it. ________________________________ 4. On registrar-imposed listing/marketing fees (“silent tax”) This is a classic case of cost shifting within the value chain—often invisible to new entrants. The reality is simple: If fees are not transparent, they distort competition. Proper handling: * Introduce transparency requirements for all registry–registrar commercial terms that materially affect market access * Consider standardized disclosure frameworks for TLD applicants * Evaluate whether such fees create anti-competitive effects If it impacts entry, it must be visible. ________________________________ 5. On “do not enrage the channel” and innovation constraints If innovation is being informally discouraged to maintain operational convenience, that’s a systemic issue—not just a cultural one. Especially when, as noted, some TLDs demonstrate zero DNS abuse, this should be a signal for differentiation—not suppression. Proper handling: * Recognize and reward high-performing TLDs (e.g., low or zero abuse rates) * Allow differentiated registry models rather than enforcing uniformity * Encourage registrar participation in innovation instead of passive resistance A system that penalizes excellence eventually standardizes mediocrity. ________________________________ 6. On the proposal for an economic fact-finding effort This is probably the most actionable point raised. The need is clear: Without evidence, discussions remain theoretical. Proper handling: * Establish a structured, community-supported fact-finding initiative * Define scope clearly (pricing, abuse mitigation costs, integration effects, market barriers) * Ensure outputs are documented, verifiable, and usable in PDP processes If there are insights to uncover, they should be formalized—not anecdotal. ________________________________ Closing Thought At its core, this discussion highlights a recurring issue: Policy is moving faster than structured evidence and institutional accountability. The fix is not complicated— Measure properly, disclose transparently, and decide collectively. Everything else is noise. Kind regards, Chubasco Maximus Diranga AMOC Stratum Tech Solutions “Simple, genuine goodness is the best capital to found the business of this life upon. It lasts when fame and money fail, and is the only riches we can take out of this world with us.” On Thu, Apr 9, 2026 at 10:28 AM mike palage.com<http://palage.com> via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org>> wrote: Alan, This is one of the reasons I have repeatedly been beating the drum about ICANN’s failure to undertake a comprehensive economic study of the unique identifiers that ICANN holds a monopoly over through the IANA function. On the issue of vertical integration, the ICANN Board acted unilaterally in approving the change and has never undertaken a proper economic or legal analysis of its decision. The listing/marketing fees that Registrars are imposing on Registry Operators are a silent tax on prospective TLD applicants that most do not fully appreciate. Reading between the lines of the CPH Summit session on "do not enrage the channel" basically discourages innovation at the Registry Level. Instead of applauding the ZERO instances of DNS abuse in fTLDs TLDs, most Registrars do not want to be bothered. They just want all Registries to be the same cookie-cutter business model. Anyone up for an economic fact-finding excursion? I know where the bodies are buried. I just need some help digging them up and documenting them. Best regards, Michael From: Alan Greenberg <greenberg.alan@gmail.com<mailto:greenberg.alan@gmail.com>> Date: Wednesday, April 8, 2026 at 4:19 PM To: mike palage.com<http://palage.com> <mike@palage.com<mailto:mike@palage.com>> Cc: ICANN At-Large Staff via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CPWG] DNS Abuse PDP Sadly, I tend to agree with Mike. Eons ago when the GNSO Council was reorganized, one of the rationales for two SG (Rr and Ry) was that their interests were different. Vertical integration reduced that, but the overriding consideration that Registries do not want to go against their customers was and has been largely ignored. It takes something VERY important to Registries to disagree with Registrars. Generally, they either agree, or simply stay quiet. That results in a pretty impenetrable barrier. Alan On Wed, Apr 8, 2026 at 12:29 PM mike palage.com<http://palage.com> via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org>> wrote: Hello Claire, I just wanted to document my Zoom intervention on today’s CPWG call here via the mailing list to hopefully spur additional discussion. Claire I will document my concerns here and in the CPWG mailing list. Louie Touton’s original General Counsel had a saying that ICANN’s mission is to protect competition, not individual competitors’ business models. All too often in ICANN’s current PDP, Registrars and Registrars flex their de facto veto authority at the GNSO to impede real, meaningful change. Why this is BAD for ICANN is that it demonstrates that certain aspects of ICANN’s multistakeholder model have been captured, thus leaving disenfranchised members to resort to national laws, see NIS2, Chinese Real Name Verification, India litigation, etc. Sadly, one can see the handwriting on the wall on how this PDP will end, and one needs to look no further back in history than the transfer PDP. The registrars will get almost everything they want, and ALAC will get some consolation footnote about addressing their concerns in future work. Registrars will be out in force in this PDP as they are the tip of the Abuse spear since most Registries have now gone thin. Registries will largely remain silent because they do not want to alienate their channel or incur higher listing/placement fees. In fact, the importance of Registries NOT upsetting their Registrar channel is a topic of an upcoming session at the ICANN Contractual Party Summit, see https://cpsummit2026.sched.com/event/2GbE1/how-to-engage-and-not-enrage-the-... Thoughts? Comments? Best regards, Michael _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org<mailto:cpwg-leave@icann.org> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org<mailto:cpwg-leave@icann.org> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org<mailto:cpwg-leave@icann.org> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Hi all Another bit of history. During the Vertical Integration WG - I co-chaired the WG - the issue of unbalancing the relative power between Registries and Registrars has been raised. The problem is that while Registries cannot have a preferential relationship with a Registrar, because if they provide strategic info to one Registrar they are obliged to distribute the same information to all ICANN accredited Registrars, the reverse is not true. The result is, in a vertically integrated Ry&Rar, that if the owner is the Registrar strategy can be developed in the Registry (their subsidiary) but being the Registrar the formal owner there is no obligation to diffuse anything. That only few people in the Vertical Integration WG have seen this coming, while the ICANN Board did not, is quite worrisome, whatever the reason for the underestimation. OTOH, it has taken years before some effects of this situation did surface - like the attempt (failed) to put PIR (.org) under the control of a Registrar. Cheers, Roberto On 09.04.2026, at 00:27, mike palage.com via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote: Alan, This is one of the reasons I have repeatedly been beating the drum about ICANN’s failure to undertake a comprehensive economic study of the unique identifiers that ICANN holds a monopoly over through the IANA function. On the issue of vertical integration, the ICANN Board acted unilaterally in approving the change and has never undertaken a proper economic or legal analysis of its decision. The listing/marketing fees that Registrars are imposing on Registry Operators are a silent tax on prospective TLD applicants that most do not fully appreciate. Reading between the lines of the CPH Summit session on "do not enrage the channel" basically discourages innovation at the Registry Level. Instead of applauding the ZERO instances of DNS abuse in fTLDs TLDs, most Registrars do not want to be bothered. They just want all Registries to be the same cookie-cutter business model. Anyone up for an economic fact-finding excursion? I know where the bodies are buried. I just need some help digging them up and documenting them. Best regards, Michael From: Alan Greenberg <greenberg.alan@gmail.com> Date: Wednesday, April 8, 2026 at 4:19 PM To: mike palage.com <mike@palage.com> Cc: ICANN At-Large Staff via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CPWG] DNS Abuse PDP Sadly, I tend to agree with Mike. Eons ago when the GNSO Council was reorganized, one of the rationales for two SG (Rr and Ry) was that their interests were different. Vertical integration reduced that, but the overriding consideration that Registries do not want to go against their customers was and has been largely ignored. It takes something VERY important to Registries to disagree with Registrars. Generally, they either agree, or simply stay quiet. That results in a pretty impenetrable barrier. Alan On Wed, Apr 8, 2026 at 12:29 PM mike palage.com<http://palage.com/> via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org>> wrote: Hello Claire, I just wanted to document my Zoom intervention on today’s CPWG call here via the mailing list to hopefully spur additional discussion. Claire I will document my concerns here and in the CPWG mailing list. Louie Touton’s original General Counsel had a saying that ICANN’s mission is to protect competition, not individual competitors’ business models. All too often in ICANN’s current PDP, Registrars and Registrars flex their de facto veto authority at the GNSO to impede real, meaningful change. Why this is BAD for ICANN is that it demonstrates that certain aspects of ICANN’s multistakeholder model have been captured, thus leaving disenfranchised members to resort to national laws, see NIS2, Chinese Real Name Verification, India litigation, etc. Sadly, one can see the handwriting on the wall on how this PDP will end, and one needs to look no further back in history than the transfer PDP. The registrars will get almost everything they want, and ALAC will get some consolation footnote about addressing their concerns in future work. Registrars will be out in force in this PDP as they are the tip of the Abuse spear since most Registries have now gone thin. Registries will largely remain silent because they do not want to alienate their channel or incur higher listing/placement fees. In fact, the importance of Registries NOT upsetting their Registrar channel is a topic of an upcoming session at the ICANN Contractual Party Summit, see https://cpsummit2026.sched.com/event/2GbE1/how-to-engage-and-not-enrage-the-... Thoughts? Comments? Best regards, Michael _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org<mailto:cpwg-leave@icann.org> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Dear Mike Thanks for your feedback. I note that it has generated considerable discussion. The concerns raised regarding input by the registries and registrars is valid. This underscores the importance of consistently engaging with and providing feedback to the At-Large community through the CPWG, so that when the team speaks, we accurately reflect the positions of the ALAC/At-Large in advancing the interest of end users. That said, while the discussion is certainly valuable, as Justine noted, much of it extends beyond the scope of the DNS Abuse PDP 1. Thanks for initiating this conversation. CCC On Thu, 9 Apr 2026 at 08:44, Roberto Gaetano via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
Hi all
Another bit of history.
During the Vertical Integration WG - I co-chaired the WG - the issue of unbalancing the relative power between Registries and Registrars has been raised. The problem is that while Registries cannot have a preferential relationship with a Registrar, because if they provide strategic info to one Registrar they are obliged to distribute the same information to all ICANN accredited Registrars, the reverse is not true.
The result is, in a vertically integrated Ry&Rar, that if the owner is the Registrar strategy can be developed in the Registry (their subsidiary) but being the Registrar the formal owner there is no obligation to diffuse anything.
That only few people in the Vertical Integration WG have seen this coming, while the ICANN Board did not, is quite worrisome, whatever the reason for the underestimation. OTOH, it has taken years before some effects of this situation did surface - like the attempt (failed) to put PIR (.org) under the control of a Registrar.
Cheers, Roberto
On 09.04.2026, at 00:27, mike palage.com via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
Alan,
This is one of the reasons I have repeatedly been beating the drum about ICANN’s failure to undertake a comprehensive economic study of the unique identifiers that ICANN holds a monopoly over through the IANA function.
On the issue of vertical integration, the ICANN Board acted unilaterally in approving the change and has never undertaken a proper economic or legal analysis of its decision. The listing/marketing fees that Registrars are imposing on Registry Operators are a silent tax on prospective TLD applicants that most do not fully appreciate.
Reading between the lines of the CPH Summit session on "do not enrage the channel" basically discourages innovation at the Registry Level. Instead of applauding the ZERO instances of DNS abuse in fTLDs TLDs, most Registrars do not want to be bothered. They just want all Registries to be the same cookie-cutter business model.
Anyone up for an economic fact-finding excursion? I know where the bodies are buried. I just need some help digging them up and documenting them.
Best regards,
Michael
*From: *Alan Greenberg <greenberg.alan@gmail.com> *Date: *Wednesday, April 8, 2026 at 4:19 PM *To: *mike palage.com <mike@palage.com> *Cc: *ICANN At-Large Staff via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [CPWG] DNS Abuse PDP
Sadly, I tend to agree with Mike. Eons ago when the GNSO Council was reorganized, one of the rationales for two SG (Rr and Ry) was that their interests were different. Vertical integration reduced that, but the overriding consideration that Registries do not want to go against their customers was and has been largely ignored. It takes something VERY important to Registries to disagree with Registrars. Generally, they either agree, or simply stay quiet.
That results in a pretty impenetrable barrier.
Alan
On Wed, Apr 8, 2026 at 12:29 PM mike palage.com via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
Hello Claire,
I just wanted to document my Zoom intervention on today’s CPWG call here via the mailing list to hopefully spur additional discussion.
Claire I will document my concerns here and in the CPWG mailing list. Louie Touton’s original General Counsel had a saying that ICANN’s mission is to protect competition, not individual competitors’ business models. All too often in ICANN’s current PDP, Registrars and Registrars flex their de facto veto authority at the GNSO to impede real, meaningful change. Why this is BAD for ICANN is that it demonstrates that certain aspects of ICANN’s multistakeholder model have been captured, thus leaving disenfranchised members to resort to national laws, see NIS2, Chinese Real Name Verification, India litigation, etc.
Sadly, one can see the handwriting on the wall on how this PDP will end, and one needs to look no further back in history than the transfer PDP. The registrars will get almost everything they want, and ALAC will get some consolation footnote about addressing their concerns in future work.
Registrars will be out in force in this PDP as they are the tip of the Abuse spear since most Registries have now gone thin. Registries will largely remain silent because they do not want to alienate their channel or incur higher listing/placement fees. In fact, the importance of Registries NOT upsetting their Registrar channel is a topic of an upcoming session at the ICANN Contractual Party Summit, see https://cpsummit2026.sched.com/event/2GbE1/how-to-engage-and-not-enrage-the-...
Thoughts? Comments?
Best regards,
Michael _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
-- CCC
Might I ask if this is a kind of ‘*right house, wrong room’* situation here? Or, deemed a distraction being not PDP framed? Given the substance of the issue, engaging the most policy-active and informed end-user representatives is not only appropriate but a necessary first step to any upstream action. Or, is mine a peculiar view of this group? Let us be clear. This group through the ALAC can direct an intervention on any matter whatsoever fitting the description of end user interest. It need not be packaged through the lens of a PDP. I could have missed it but I do believe the case is made the matter under discussion has some end user impact. If the objective is to advance this discussion meaningfully, redirecting purely for ticking the right “venue” box is not persuasive. Carlton ============================== *Carlton A Samuels* *Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Thu, 9 Apr 2026 at 12:43, Claire Craig via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
Dear Mike Thanks for your feedback. I note that it has generated considerable discussion. The concerns raised regarding input by the registries and registrars is valid. This underscores the importance of consistently engaging with and providing feedback to the At-Large community through the CPWG, so that when the team speaks, we accurately reflect the positions of the ALAC/At-Large in advancing the interest of end users.
That said, while the discussion is certainly valuable, as Justine noted, much of it extends beyond the scope of the DNS Abuse PDP 1.
Thanks for initiating this conversation. CCC
On Thu, 9 Apr 2026 at 08:44, Roberto Gaetano via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
Hi all
Another bit of history.
During the Vertical Integration WG - I co-chaired the WG - the issue of unbalancing the relative power between Registries and Registrars has been raised. The problem is that while Registries cannot have a preferential relationship with a Registrar, because if they provide strategic info to one Registrar they are obliged to distribute the same information to all ICANN accredited Registrars, the reverse is not true.
The result is, in a vertically integrated Ry&Rar, that if the owner is the Registrar strategy can be developed in the Registry (their subsidiary) but being the Registrar the formal owner there is no obligation to diffuse anything.
That only few people in the Vertical Integration WG have seen this coming, while the ICANN Board did not, is quite worrisome, whatever the reason for the underestimation. OTOH, it has taken years before some effects of this situation did surface - like the attempt (failed) to put PIR (.org) under the control of a Registrar.
Cheers, Roberto
On 09.04.2026, at 00:27, mike palage.com via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
Alan,
This is one of the reasons I have repeatedly been beating the drum about ICANN’s failure to undertake a comprehensive economic study of the unique identifiers that ICANN holds a monopoly over through the IANA function.
On the issue of vertical integration, the ICANN Board acted unilaterally in approving the change and has never undertaken a proper economic or legal analysis of its decision. The listing/marketing fees that Registrars are imposing on Registry Operators are a silent tax on prospective TLD applicants that most do not fully appreciate.
Reading between the lines of the CPH Summit session on "do not enrage the channel" basically discourages innovation at the Registry Level. Instead of applauding the ZERO instances of DNS abuse in fTLDs TLDs, most Registrars do not want to be bothered. They just want all Registries to be the same cookie-cutter business model.
Anyone up for an economic fact-finding excursion? I know where the bodies are buried. I just need some help digging them up and documenting them.
Best regards,
Michael
*From: *Alan Greenberg <greenberg.alan@gmail.com> *Date: *Wednesday, April 8, 2026 at 4:19 PM *To: *mike palage.com <mike@palage.com> *Cc: *ICANN At-Large Staff via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [CPWG] DNS Abuse PDP
Sadly, I tend to agree with Mike. Eons ago when the GNSO Council was reorganized, one of the rationales for two SG (Rr and Ry) was that their interests were different. Vertical integration reduced that, but the overriding consideration that Registries do not want to go against their customers was and has been largely ignored. It takes something VERY important to Registries to disagree with Registrars. Generally, they either agree, or simply stay quiet.
That results in a pretty impenetrable barrier.
Alan
On Wed, Apr 8, 2026 at 12:29 PM mike palage.com via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
Hello Claire,
I just wanted to document my Zoom intervention on today’s CPWG call here via the mailing list to hopefully spur additional discussion.
Claire I will document my concerns here and in the CPWG mailing list. Louie Touton’s original General Counsel had a saying that ICANN’s mission is to protect competition, not individual competitors’ business models. All too often in ICANN’s current PDP, Registrars and Registrars flex their de facto veto authority at the GNSO to impede real, meaningful change. Why this is BAD for ICANN is that it demonstrates that certain aspects of ICANN’s multistakeholder model have been captured, thus leaving disenfranchised members to resort to national laws, see NIS2, Chinese Real Name Verification, India litigation, etc.
Sadly, one can see the handwriting on the wall on how this PDP will end, and one needs to look no further back in history than the transfer PDP. The registrars will get almost everything they want, and ALAC will get some consolation footnote about addressing their concerns in future work.
Registrars will be out in force in this PDP as they are the tip of the Abuse spear since most Registries have now gone thin. Registries will largely remain silent because they do not want to alienate their channel or incur higher listing/placement fees. In fact, the importance of Registries NOT upsetting their Registrar channel is a topic of an upcoming session at the ICANN Contractual Party Summit, see https://cpsummit2026.sched.com/event/2GbE1/how-to-engage-and-not-enrage-the-...
Thoughts? Comments?
Best regards,
Michael _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
-- CCC _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
I agree Carlton. Such a discussion from within the OFB did seem relevant and perhaps its own submission on the issue. M On Thu, 9 Apr 2026, 9:17 am Carlton Samuels via CPWG, <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
Might I ask if this is a kind of ‘*right house, wrong room’* situation here? Or, deemed a distraction being not PDP framed?
Given the substance of the issue, engaging the most policy-active and informed end-user representatives is not only appropriate but a necessary first step to any upstream action.
Or, is mine a peculiar view of this group?
Let us be clear. This group through the ALAC can direct an intervention on any matter whatsoever fitting the description of end user interest. It need not be packaged through the lens of a PDP.
I could have missed it but I do believe the case is made the matter under discussion has some end user impact.
If the objective is to advance this discussion meaningfully, redirecting purely for ticking the right “venue” box is not persuasive.
Carlton
============================== *Carlton A Samuels*
*Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================
On Thu, 9 Apr 2026 at 12:43, Claire Craig via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
Dear Mike Thanks for your feedback. I note that it has generated considerable discussion. The concerns raised regarding input by the registries and registrars is valid. This underscores the importance of consistently engaging with and providing feedback to the At-Large community through the CPWG, so that when the team speaks, we accurately reflect the positions of the ALAC/At-Large in advancing the interest of end users.
That said, while the discussion is certainly valuable, as Justine noted, much of it extends beyond the scope of the DNS Abuse PDP 1.
Thanks for initiating this conversation. CCC
On Thu, 9 Apr 2026 at 08:44, Roberto Gaetano via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
Hi all
Another bit of history.
During the Vertical Integration WG - I co-chaired the WG - the issue of unbalancing the relative power between Registries and Registrars has been raised. The problem is that while Registries cannot have a preferential relationship with a Registrar, because if they provide strategic info to one Registrar they are obliged to distribute the same information to all ICANN accredited Registrars, the reverse is not true.
The result is, in a vertically integrated Ry&Rar, that if the owner is the Registrar strategy can be developed in the Registry (their subsidiary) but being the Registrar the formal owner there is no obligation to diffuse anything.
That only few people in the Vertical Integration WG have seen this coming, while the ICANN Board did not, is quite worrisome, whatever the reason for the underestimation. OTOH, it has taken years before some effects of this situation did surface - like the attempt (failed) to put PIR (.org) under the control of a Registrar.
Cheers, Roberto
On 09.04.2026, at 00:27, mike palage.com via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
Alan,
This is one of the reasons I have repeatedly been beating the drum about ICANN’s failure to undertake a comprehensive economic study of the unique identifiers that ICANN holds a monopoly over through the IANA function.
On the issue of vertical integration, the ICANN Board acted unilaterally in approving the change and has never undertaken a proper economic or legal analysis of its decision. The listing/marketing fees that Registrars are imposing on Registry Operators are a silent tax on prospective TLD applicants that most do not fully appreciate.
Reading between the lines of the CPH Summit session on "do not enrage the channel" basically discourages innovation at the Registry Level. Instead of applauding the ZERO instances of DNS abuse in fTLDs TLDs, most Registrars do not want to be bothered. They just want all Registries to be the same cookie-cutter business model.
Anyone up for an economic fact-finding excursion? I know where the bodies are buried. I just need some help digging them up and documenting them.
Best regards,
Michael
*From: *Alan Greenberg <greenberg.alan@gmail.com> *Date: *Wednesday, April 8, 2026 at 4:19 PM *To: *mike palage.com <mike@palage.com> *Cc: *ICANN At-Large Staff via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [CPWG] DNS Abuse PDP
Sadly, I tend to agree with Mike. Eons ago when the GNSO Council was reorganized, one of the rationales for two SG (Rr and Ry) was that their interests were different. Vertical integration reduced that, but the overriding consideration that Registries do not want to go against their customers was and has been largely ignored. It takes something VERY important to Registries to disagree with Registrars. Generally, they either agree, or simply stay quiet.
That results in a pretty impenetrable barrier.
Alan
On Wed, Apr 8, 2026 at 12:29 PM mike palage.com via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
Hello Claire,
I just wanted to document my Zoom intervention on today’s CPWG call here via the mailing list to hopefully spur additional discussion.
Claire I will document my concerns here and in the CPWG mailing list. Louie Touton’s original General Counsel had a saying that ICANN’s mission is to protect competition, not individual competitors’ business models. All too often in ICANN’s current PDP, Registrars and Registrars flex their de facto veto authority at the GNSO to impede real, meaningful change. Why this is BAD for ICANN is that it demonstrates that certain aspects of ICANN’s multistakeholder model have been captured, thus leaving disenfranchised members to resort to national laws, see NIS2, Chinese Real Name Verification, India litigation, etc.
Sadly, one can see the handwriting on the wall on how this PDP will end, and one needs to look no further back in history than the transfer PDP. The registrars will get almost everything they want, and ALAC will get some consolation footnote about addressing their concerns in future work.
Registrars will be out in force in this PDP as they are the tip of the Abuse spear since most Registries have now gone thin. Registries will largely remain silent because they do not want to alienate their channel or incur higher listing/placement fees. In fact, the importance of Registries NOT upsetting their Registrar channel is a topic of an upcoming session at the ICANN Contractual Party Summit, see https://cpsummit2026.sched.com/event/2GbE1/how-to-engage-and-not-enrage-the-...
Thoughts? Comments?
Best regards,
Michael _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
-- CCC _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
This is the kind of issue that a holistic review might have addressed. I have little hope it will be properly addressed in my lifetime... Whether it is worth waving a red flag anyway? Good question. Alan On Thu, Apr 9, 2026 at 3:17 PM Carlton Samuels via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
Might I ask if this is a kind of ‘*right house, wrong room’* situation here? Or, deemed a distraction being not PDP framed?
Given the substance of the issue, engaging the most policy-active and informed end-user representatives is not only appropriate but a necessary first step to any upstream action.
Or, is mine a peculiar view of this group?
Let us be clear. This group through the ALAC can direct an intervention on any matter whatsoever fitting the description of end user interest. It need not be packaged through the lens of a PDP.
I could have missed it but I do believe the case is made the matter under discussion has some end user impact.
If the objective is to advance this discussion meaningfully, redirecting purely for ticking the right “venue” box is not persuasive.
Carlton
============================== *Carlton A Samuels*
*Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================
On Thu, 9 Apr 2026 at 12:43, Claire Craig via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
Dear Mike Thanks for your feedback. I note that it has generated considerable discussion. The concerns raised regarding input by the registries and registrars is valid. This underscores the importance of consistently engaging with and providing feedback to the At-Large community through the CPWG, so that when the team speaks, we accurately reflect the positions of the ALAC/At-Large in advancing the interest of end users.
That said, while the discussion is certainly valuable, as Justine noted, much of it extends beyond the scope of the DNS Abuse PDP 1.
Thanks for initiating this conversation. CCC
On Thu, 9 Apr 2026 at 08:44, Roberto Gaetano via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
Hi all
Another bit of history.
During the Vertical Integration WG - I co-chaired the WG - the issue of unbalancing the relative power between Registries and Registrars has been raised. The problem is that while Registries cannot have a preferential relationship with a Registrar, because if they provide strategic info to one Registrar they are obliged to distribute the same information to all ICANN accredited Registrars, the reverse is not true.
The result is, in a vertically integrated Ry&Rar, that if the owner is the Registrar strategy can be developed in the Registry (their subsidiary) but being the Registrar the formal owner there is no obligation to diffuse anything.
That only few people in the Vertical Integration WG have seen this coming, while the ICANN Board did not, is quite worrisome, whatever the reason for the underestimation. OTOH, it has taken years before some effects of this situation did surface - like the attempt (failed) to put PIR (.org) under the control of a Registrar.
Cheers, Roberto
On 09.04.2026, at 00:27, mike palage.com via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
Alan,
This is one of the reasons I have repeatedly been beating the drum about ICANN’s failure to undertake a comprehensive economic study of the unique identifiers that ICANN holds a monopoly over through the IANA function.
On the issue of vertical integration, the ICANN Board acted unilaterally in approving the change and has never undertaken a proper economic or legal analysis of its decision. The listing/marketing fees that Registrars are imposing on Registry Operators are a silent tax on prospective TLD applicants that most do not fully appreciate.
Reading between the lines of the CPH Summit session on "do not enrage the channel" basically discourages innovation at the Registry Level. Instead of applauding the ZERO instances of DNS abuse in fTLDs TLDs, most Registrars do not want to be bothered. They just want all Registries to be the same cookie-cutter business model.
Anyone up for an economic fact-finding excursion? I know where the bodies are buried. I just need some help digging them up and documenting them.
Best regards,
Michael
*From: *Alan Greenberg <greenberg.alan@gmail.com> *Date: *Wednesday, April 8, 2026 at 4:19 PM *To: *mike palage.com <mike@palage.com> *Cc: *ICANN At-Large Staff via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [CPWG] DNS Abuse PDP
Sadly, I tend to agree with Mike. Eons ago when the GNSO Council was reorganized, one of the rationales for two SG (Rr and Ry) was that their interests were different. Vertical integration reduced that, but the overriding consideration that Registries do not want to go against their customers was and has been largely ignored. It takes something VERY important to Registries to disagree with Registrars. Generally, they either agree, or simply stay quiet.
That results in a pretty impenetrable barrier.
Alan
On Wed, Apr 8, 2026 at 12:29 PM mike palage.com via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
Hello Claire,
I just wanted to document my Zoom intervention on today’s CPWG call here via the mailing list to hopefully spur additional discussion.
Claire I will document my concerns here and in the CPWG mailing list. Louie Touton’s original General Counsel had a saying that ICANN’s mission is to protect competition, not individual competitors’ business models. All too often in ICANN’s current PDP, Registrars and Registrars flex their de facto veto authority at the GNSO to impede real, meaningful change. Why this is BAD for ICANN is that it demonstrates that certain aspects of ICANN’s multistakeholder model have been captured, thus leaving disenfranchised members to resort to national laws, see NIS2, Chinese Real Name Verification, India litigation, etc.
Sadly, one can see the handwriting on the wall on how this PDP will end, and one needs to look no further back in history than the transfer PDP. The registrars will get almost everything they want, and ALAC will get some consolation footnote about addressing their concerns in future work.
Registrars will be out in force in this PDP as they are the tip of the Abuse spear since most Registries have now gone thin. Registries will largely remain silent because they do not want to alienate their channel or incur higher listing/placement fees. In fact, the importance of Registries NOT upsetting their Registrar channel is a topic of an upcoming session at the ICANN Contractual Party Summit, see https://cpsummit2026.sched.com/event/2GbE1/how-to-engage-and-not-enrage-the-...
Thoughts? Comments?
Best regards,
Michael _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
-- CCC _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Mike, Carlton - the answer to Mike's question on forum is OFBWG. The reason for that is because what I understand Mike is asking pertains to what Alan touched on. It is connected to either a Structural Review or an Organizational Review, the substance of which are being discussed by the Review of Reviews CCG. And OFBWG is the designated forum for RoR discussions. Alan - I too am pessimistic but won't rule it out at this point, although I imagine it will take a lot for us to get there. Kind regards, Justine --------- On Fri, 10 Apr 2026, 03:59 Alan Greenberg via CPWG, <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
This is the kind of issue that a holistic review might have addressed. I have little hope it will be properly addressed in my lifetime...
Whether it is worth waving a red flag anyway? Good question.
Alan
On Thu, Apr 9, 2026 at 3:17 PM Carlton Samuels via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
Might I ask if this is a kind of ‘*right house, wrong room’* situation here? Or, deemed a distraction being not PDP framed?
Given the substance of the issue, engaging the most policy-active and informed end-user representatives is not only appropriate but a necessary first step to any upstream action.
Or, is mine a peculiar view of this group?
Let us be clear. This group through the ALAC can direct an intervention on any matter whatsoever fitting the description of end user interest. It need not be packaged through the lens of a PDP.
I could have missed it but I do believe the case is made the matter under discussion has some end user impact.
If the objective is to advance this discussion meaningfully, redirecting purely for ticking the right “venue” box is not persuasive.
Carlton
============================== *Carlton A Samuels*
*Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================
On Thu, 9 Apr 2026 at 12:43, Claire Craig via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
Dear Mike Thanks for your feedback. I note that it has generated considerable discussion. The concerns raised regarding input by the registries and registrars is valid. This underscores the importance of consistently engaging with and providing feedback to the At-Large community through the CPWG, so that when the team speaks, we accurately reflect the positions of the ALAC/At-Large in advancing the interest of end users.
That said, while the discussion is certainly valuable, as Justine noted, much of it extends beyond the scope of the DNS Abuse PDP 1.
Thanks for initiating this conversation. CCC
On Thu, 9 Apr 2026 at 08:44, Roberto Gaetano via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
Hi all
Another bit of history.
During the Vertical Integration WG - I co-chaired the WG - the issue of unbalancing the relative power between Registries and Registrars has been raised. The problem is that while Registries cannot have a preferential relationship with a Registrar, because if they provide strategic info to one Registrar they are obliged to distribute the same information to all ICANN accredited Registrars, the reverse is not true.
The result is, in a vertically integrated Ry&Rar, that if the owner is the Registrar strategy can be developed in the Registry (their subsidiary) but being the Registrar the formal owner there is no obligation to diffuse anything.
That only few people in the Vertical Integration WG have seen this coming, while the ICANN Board did not, is quite worrisome, whatever the reason for the underestimation. OTOH, it has taken years before some effects of this situation did surface - like the attempt (failed) to put PIR (.org) under the control of a Registrar.
Cheers, Roberto
On 09.04.2026, at 00:27, mike palage.com via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
Alan,
This is one of the reasons I have repeatedly been beating the drum about ICANN’s failure to undertake a comprehensive economic study of the unique identifiers that ICANN holds a monopoly over through the IANA function.
On the issue of vertical integration, the ICANN Board acted unilaterally in approving the change and has never undertaken a proper economic or legal analysis of its decision. The listing/marketing fees that Registrars are imposing on Registry Operators are a silent tax on prospective TLD applicants that most do not fully appreciate.
Reading between the lines of the CPH Summit session on "do not enrage the channel" basically discourages innovation at the Registry Level. Instead of applauding the ZERO instances of DNS abuse in fTLDs TLDs, most Registrars do not want to be bothered. They just want all Registries to be the same cookie-cutter business model.
Anyone up for an economic fact-finding excursion? I know where the bodies are buried. I just need some help digging them up and documenting them.
Best regards,
Michael
*From: *Alan Greenberg <greenberg.alan@gmail.com> *Date: *Wednesday, April 8, 2026 at 4:19 PM *To: *mike palage.com <mike@palage.com> *Cc: *ICANN At-Large Staff via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [CPWG] DNS Abuse PDP
Sadly, I tend to agree with Mike. Eons ago when the GNSO Council was reorganized, one of the rationales for two SG (Rr and Ry) was that their interests were different. Vertical integration reduced that, but the overriding consideration that Registries do not want to go against their customers was and has been largely ignored. It takes something VERY important to Registries to disagree with Registrars. Generally, they either agree, or simply stay quiet.
That results in a pretty impenetrable barrier.
Alan
On Wed, Apr 8, 2026 at 12:29 PM mike palage.com via CPWG < cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
Hello Claire,
I just wanted to document my Zoom intervention on today’s CPWG call here via the mailing list to hopefully spur additional discussion.
Claire I will document my concerns here and in the CPWG mailing list. Louie Touton’s original General Counsel had a saying that ICANN’s mission is to protect competition, not individual competitors’ business models. All too often in ICANN’s current PDP, Registrars and Registrars flex their de facto veto authority at the GNSO to impede real, meaningful change. Why this is BAD for ICANN is that it demonstrates that certain aspects of ICANN’s multistakeholder model have been captured, thus leaving disenfranchised members to resort to national laws, see NIS2, Chinese Real Name Verification, India litigation, etc.
Sadly, one can see the handwriting on the wall on how this PDP will end, and one needs to look no further back in history than the transfer PDP. The registrars will get almost everything they want, and ALAC will get some consolation footnote about addressing their concerns in future work.
Registrars will be out in force in this PDP as they are the tip of the Abuse spear since most Registries have now gone thin. Registries will largely remain silent because they do not want to alienate their channel or incur higher listing/placement fees. In fact, the importance of Registries NOT upsetting their Registrar channel is a topic of an upcoming session at the ICANN Contractual Party Summit, see https://cpsummit2026.sched.com/event/2GbE1/how-to-engage-and-not-enrage-the-...
Thoughts? Comments?
Best regards,
Michael _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
-- CCC _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
This thread is so engaging. For those unaware of the challenges raised, like me, I find it very enlightening. It would be really nice if the raised concerns are addressed holistically so the multistakeholder model can be preserved with power evenly distributed and stable. Thank you @Justine, Alan,Mike and Carlton On Thu, Apr 9, 2026 at 7:15 PM Justine Chew via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
Mike, Carlton - the answer to Mike's question on forum is OFBWG. The reason for that is because what I understand Mike is asking pertains to what Alan touched on. It is connected to either a Structural Review or an Organizational Review, the substance of which are being discussed by the Review of Reviews CCG. And OFBWG is the designated forum for RoR discussions.
Alan - I too am pessimistic but won't rule it out at this point, although I imagine it will take a lot for us to get there.
Kind regards, Justine ---------
On Fri, 10 Apr 2026, 03:59 Alan Greenberg via CPWG, <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
This is the kind of issue that a holistic review might have addressed. I have little hope it will be properly addressed in my lifetime...
Whether it is worth waving a red flag anyway? Good question.
Alan
On Thu, Apr 9, 2026 at 3:17 PM Carlton Samuels via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
Might I ask if this is a kind of ‘*right house, wrong room’* situation here? Or, deemed a distraction being not PDP framed?
Given the substance of the issue, engaging the most policy-active and informed end-user representatives is not only appropriate but a necessary first step to any upstream action.
Or, is mine a peculiar view of this group?
Let us be clear. This group through the ALAC can direct an intervention on any matter whatsoever fitting the description of end user interest. It need not be packaged through the lens of a PDP.
I could have missed it but I do believe the case is made the matter under discussion has some end user impact.
If the objective is to advance this discussion meaningfully, redirecting purely for ticking the right “venue” box is not persuasive.
Carlton
============================== *Carlton A Samuels*
*Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================
On Thu, 9 Apr 2026 at 12:43, Claire Craig via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
Dear Mike Thanks for your feedback. I note that it has generated considerable discussion. The concerns raised regarding input by the registries and registrars is valid. This underscores the importance of consistently engaging with and providing feedback to the At-Large community through the CPWG, so that when the team speaks, we accurately reflect the positions of the ALAC/At-Large in advancing the interest of end users.
That said, while the discussion is certainly valuable, as Justine noted, much of it extends beyond the scope of the DNS Abuse PDP 1.
Thanks for initiating this conversation. CCC
On Thu, 9 Apr 2026 at 08:44, Roberto Gaetano via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
Hi all
Another bit of history.
During the Vertical Integration WG - I co-chaired the WG - the issue of unbalancing the relative power between Registries and Registrars has been raised. The problem is that while Registries cannot have a preferential relationship with a Registrar, because if they provide strategic info to one Registrar they are obliged to distribute the same information to all ICANN accredited Registrars, the reverse is not true.
The result is, in a vertically integrated Ry&Rar, that if the owner is the Registrar strategy can be developed in the Registry (their subsidiary) but being the Registrar the formal owner there is no obligation to diffuse anything.
That only few people in the Vertical Integration WG have seen this coming, while the ICANN Board did not, is quite worrisome, whatever the reason for the underestimation. OTOH, it has taken years before some effects of this situation did surface - like the attempt (failed) to put PIR (.org) under the control of a Registrar.
Cheers, Roberto
On 09.04.2026, at 00:27, mike palage.com via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
Alan,
This is one of the reasons I have repeatedly been beating the drum about ICANN’s failure to undertake a comprehensive economic study of the unique identifiers that ICANN holds a monopoly over through the IANA function.
On the issue of vertical integration, the ICANN Board acted unilaterally in approving the change and has never undertaken a proper economic or legal analysis of its decision. The listing/marketing fees that Registrars are imposing on Registry Operators are a silent tax on prospective TLD applicants that most do not fully appreciate.
Reading between the lines of the CPH Summit session on "do not enrage the channel" basically discourages innovation at the Registry Level. Instead of applauding the ZERO instances of DNS abuse in fTLDs TLDs, most Registrars do not want to be bothered. They just want all Registries to be the same cookie-cutter business model.
Anyone up for an economic fact-finding excursion? I know where the bodies are buried. I just need some help digging them up and documenting them.
Best regards,
Michael
*From: *Alan Greenberg <greenberg.alan@gmail.com> *Date: *Wednesday, April 8, 2026 at 4:19 PM *To: *mike palage.com <mike@palage.com> *Cc: *ICANN At-Large Staff via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [CPWG] DNS Abuse PDP
Sadly, I tend to agree with Mike. Eons ago when the GNSO Council was reorganized, one of the rationales for two SG (Rr and Ry) was that their interests were different. Vertical integration reduced that, but the overriding consideration that Registries do not want to go against their customers was and has been largely ignored. It takes something VERY important to Registries to disagree with Registrars. Generally, they either agree, or simply stay quiet.
That results in a pretty impenetrable barrier.
Alan
On Wed, Apr 8, 2026 at 12:29 PM mike palage.com via CPWG < cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
Hello Claire,
I just wanted to document my Zoom intervention on today’s CPWG call here via the mailing list to hopefully spur additional discussion.
Claire I will document my concerns here and in the CPWG mailing list. Louie Touton’s original General Counsel had a saying that ICANN’s mission is to protect competition, not individual competitors’ business models. All too often in ICANN’s current PDP, Registrars and Registrars flex their de facto veto authority at the GNSO to impede real, meaningful change. Why this is BAD for ICANN is that it demonstrates that certain aspects of ICANN’s multistakeholder model have been captured, thus leaving disenfranchised members to resort to national laws, see NIS2, Chinese Real Name Verification, India litigation, etc.
Sadly, one can see the handwriting on the wall on how this PDP will end, and one needs to look no further back in history than the transfer PDP. The registrars will get almost everything they want, and ALAC will get some consolation footnote about addressing their concerns in future work.
Registrars will be out in force in this PDP as they are the tip of the Abuse spear since most Registries have now gone thin. Registries will largely remain silent because they do not want to alienate their channel or incur higher listing/placement fees. In fact, the importance of Registries NOT upsetting their Registrar channel is a topic of an upcoming session at the ICANN Contractual Party Summit, see https://cpsummit2026.sched.com/event/2GbE1/how-to-engage-and-not-enrage-the-...
Thoughts? Comments?
Best regards,
Michael _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
-- CCC _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Hello all, as per Alan's comment, I think the red flag has in fact been raised. I am also interested in this topic. Perhaps I can ask Alan and/or staff to suggest where this online discussion should take place. Best regards, Murray McKercher On Thu, Apr 9, 2026 at 11:47 PM Gbemisola Esho via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
This thread is so engaging. For those unaware of the challenges raised, like me, I find it very enlightening. It would be really nice if the raised concerns are addressed holistically so the multistakeholder model can be preserved with power evenly distributed and stable. Thank you @Justine, Alan,Mike and Carlton
On Thu, Apr 9, 2026 at 7:15 PM Justine Chew via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
Mike, Carlton - the answer to Mike's question on forum is OFBWG. The reason for that is because what I understand Mike is asking pertains to what Alan touched on. It is connected to either a Structural Review or an Organizational Review, the substance of which are being discussed by the Review of Reviews CCG. And OFBWG is the designated forum for RoR discussions.
Alan - I too am pessimistic but won't rule it out at this point, although I imagine it will take a lot for us to get there.
Kind regards, Justine ---------
On Fri, 10 Apr 2026, 03:59 Alan Greenberg via CPWG, <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
This is the kind of issue that a holistic review might have addressed. I have little hope it will be properly addressed in my lifetime...
Whether it is worth waving a red flag anyway? Good question.
Alan
On Thu, Apr 9, 2026 at 3:17 PM Carlton Samuels via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
Might I ask if this is a kind of ‘*right house, wrong room’* situation here? Or, deemed a distraction being not PDP framed?
Given the substance of the issue, engaging the most policy-active and informed end-user representatives is not only appropriate but a necessary first step to any upstream action.
Or, is mine a peculiar view of this group?
Let us be clear. This group through the ALAC can direct an intervention on any matter whatsoever fitting the description of end user interest. It need not be packaged through the lens of a PDP.
I could have missed it but I do believe the case is made the matter under discussion has some end user impact.
If the objective is to advance this discussion meaningfully, redirecting purely for ticking the right “venue” box is not persuasive.
Carlton
============================== *Carlton A Samuels*
*Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================
On Thu, 9 Apr 2026 at 12:43, Claire Craig via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
Dear Mike Thanks for your feedback. I note that it has generated considerable discussion. The concerns raised regarding input by the registries and registrars is valid. This underscores the importance of consistently engaging with and providing feedback to the At-Large community through the CPWG, so that when the team speaks, we accurately reflect the positions of the ALAC/At-Large in advancing the interest of end users.
That said, while the discussion is certainly valuable, as Justine noted, much of it extends beyond the scope of the DNS Abuse PDP 1.
Thanks for initiating this conversation. CCC
On Thu, 9 Apr 2026 at 08:44, Roberto Gaetano via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
Hi all
Another bit of history.
During the Vertical Integration WG - I co-chaired the WG - the issue of unbalancing the relative power between Registries and Registrars has been raised. The problem is that while Registries cannot have a preferential relationship with a Registrar, because if they provide strategic info to one Registrar they are obliged to distribute the same information to all ICANN accredited Registrars, the reverse is not true.
The result is, in a vertically integrated Ry&Rar, that if the owner is the Registrar strategy can be developed in the Registry (their subsidiary) but being the Registrar the formal owner there is no obligation to diffuse anything.
That only few people in the Vertical Integration WG have seen this coming, while the ICANN Board did not, is quite worrisome, whatever the reason for the underestimation. OTOH, it has taken years before some effects of this situation did surface - like the attempt (failed) to put PIR (.org) under the control of a Registrar.
Cheers, Roberto
On 09.04.2026, at 00:27, mike palage.com via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
Alan,
This is one of the reasons I have repeatedly been beating the drum about ICANN’s failure to undertake a comprehensive economic study of the unique identifiers that ICANN holds a monopoly over through the IANA function.
On the issue of vertical integration, the ICANN Board acted unilaterally in approving the change and has never undertaken a proper economic or legal analysis of its decision. The listing/marketing fees that Registrars are imposing on Registry Operators are a silent tax on prospective TLD applicants that most do not fully appreciate.
Reading between the lines of the CPH Summit session on "do not enrage the channel" basically discourages innovation at the Registry Level. Instead of applauding the ZERO instances of DNS abuse in fTLDs TLDs, most Registrars do not want to be bothered. They just want all Registries to be the same cookie-cutter business model.
Anyone up for an economic fact-finding excursion? I know where the bodies are buried. I just need some help digging them up and documenting them.
Best regards,
Michael
*From: *Alan Greenberg <greenberg.alan@gmail.com> *Date: *Wednesday, April 8, 2026 at 4:19 PM *To: *mike palage.com <mike@palage.com> *Cc: *ICANN At-Large Staff via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [CPWG] DNS Abuse PDP
Sadly, I tend to agree with Mike. Eons ago when the GNSO Council was reorganized, one of the rationales for two SG (Rr and Ry) was that their interests were different. Vertical integration reduced that, but the overriding consideration that Registries do not want to go against their customers was and has been largely ignored. It takes something VERY important to Registries to disagree with Registrars. Generally, they either agree, or simply stay quiet.
That results in a pretty impenetrable barrier.
Alan
On Wed, Apr 8, 2026 at 12:29 PM mike palage.com via CPWG < cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
Hello Claire,
I just wanted to document my Zoom intervention on today’s CPWG call here via the mailing list to hopefully spur additional discussion.
Claire I will document my concerns here and in the CPWG mailing list. Louie Touton’s original General Counsel had a saying that ICANN’s mission is to protect competition, not individual competitors’ business models. All too often in ICANN’s current PDP, Registrars and Registrars flex their de facto veto authority at the GNSO to impede real, meaningful change. Why this is BAD for ICANN is that it demonstrates that certain aspects of ICANN’s multistakeholder model have been captured, thus leaving disenfranchised members to resort to national laws, see NIS2, Chinese Real Name Verification, India litigation, etc.
Sadly, one can see the handwriting on the wall on how this PDP will end, and one needs to look no further back in history than the transfer PDP. The registrars will get almost everything they want, and ALAC will get some consolation footnote about addressing their concerns in future work.
Registrars will be out in force in this PDP as they are the tip of the Abuse spear since most Registries have now gone thin. Registries will largely remain silent because they do not want to alienate their channel or incur higher listing/placement fees. In fact, the importance of Registries NOT upsetting their Registrar channel is a topic of an upcoming session at the ICANN Contractual Party Summit, see https://cpsummit2026.sched.com/event/2GbE1/how-to-engage-and-not-enrage-the-...
Thoughts? Comments?
Best regards,
Michael _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
-- CCC _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Dear All, I find the points raised particularly important from an end-user perspective, especially where structural dynamics within the DNS ecosystem may influence the effectiveness of efforts to address DNS Abuse. From the At-Large perspective, it is useful to recall that DNS Abuse is not only a technical or contractual compliance issue, but also one that directly affects user trust, safety, and confidence in the Internet. Where structural or market dynamics risk creating disincentives to act on abuse mitigation, there may be implications for the stability and accountability of the DNS as a global public resource. I also find the observations regarding vertical integration and potential imbalances in influence between different parts of the contracted parties ecosystem noteworthy. While these questions may extend beyond the narrow scope of DNS Abuse PDP 1, they appear relevant to the broader question of whether existing governance mechanisms adequately support timely and effective responses to systemic risks affecting end users. In that regard, it may be helpful to ensure that discussions taking place in fora such as OFBWG and the Review of Reviews CCG remain visible and accessible to the At-Large community, so that end-user considerations continue to inform any future structural or organizational review processes. Strengthening feedback loops between policy discussions and review mechanisms could help ensure that emerging risks are identified early and addressed in a holistic manner. Ultimately, maintaining confidence in the multistakeholder model requires that all stakeholder groups, including end users, are able to meaningfully contribute to discussions where structural or economic factors may affect policy outcomes related to DNS Abuse. I therefore support the suggestion that we consider how best to channel this discussion into the appropriate fora while ensuring continuity of the issues raised here, particularly where they may have longer-term implications for end-user protection and trust in the DNS. Kind regards, Daniel Nanghaka Daniel Khauka. ICT & Digital Transformation Consultant | Knowledge Management & Innovation Specialist | Governance & Development Advisor Mobile +256 772 898298 (Uganda) ----------------------------------------- *"Working for Africa" * ----------------------------------------- On Fri, 10 Apr 2026 at 17:33, Murray McKercher via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
Hello all, as per Alan's comment, I think the red flag has in fact been raised. I am also interested in this topic. Perhaps I can ask Alan and/or staff to suggest where this online discussion should take place.
Best regards, Murray McKercher
On Thu, Apr 9, 2026 at 11:47 PM Gbemisola Esho via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
This thread is so engaging. For those unaware of the challenges raised, like me, I find it very enlightening. It would be really nice if the raised concerns are addressed holistically so the multistakeholder model can be preserved with power evenly distributed and stable. Thank you @Justine, Alan,Mike and Carlton
On Thu, Apr 9, 2026 at 7:15 PM Justine Chew via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
Mike, Carlton - the answer to Mike's question on forum is OFBWG. The reason for that is because what I understand Mike is asking pertains to what Alan touched on. It is connected to either a Structural Review or an Organizational Review, the substance of which are being discussed by the Review of Reviews CCG. And OFBWG is the designated forum for RoR discussions.
Alan - I too am pessimistic but won't rule it out at this point, although I imagine it will take a lot for us to get there.
Kind regards, Justine ---------
On Fri, 10 Apr 2026, 03:59 Alan Greenberg via CPWG, <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
This is the kind of issue that a holistic review might have addressed. I have little hope it will be properly addressed in my lifetime...
Whether it is worth waving a red flag anyway? Good question.
Alan
On Thu, Apr 9, 2026 at 3:17 PM Carlton Samuels via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
Might I ask if this is a kind of ‘*right house, wrong room’* situation here? Or, deemed a distraction being not PDP framed?
Given the substance of the issue, engaging the most policy-active and informed end-user representatives is not only appropriate but a necessary first step to any upstream action.
Or, is mine a peculiar view of this group?
Let us be clear. This group through the ALAC can direct an intervention on any matter whatsoever fitting the description of end user interest. It need not be packaged through the lens of a PDP.
I could have missed it but I do believe the case is made the matter under discussion has some end user impact.
If the objective is to advance this discussion meaningfully, redirecting purely for ticking the right “venue” box is not persuasive.
Carlton
============================== *Carlton A Samuels*
*Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================
On Thu, 9 Apr 2026 at 12:43, Claire Craig via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
Dear Mike Thanks for your feedback. I note that it has generated considerable discussion. The concerns raised regarding input by the registries and registrars is valid. This underscores the importance of consistently engaging with and providing feedback to the At-Large community through the CPWG, so that when the team speaks, we accurately reflect the positions of the ALAC/At-Large in advancing the interest of end users.
That said, while the discussion is certainly valuable, as Justine noted, much of it extends beyond the scope of the DNS Abuse PDP 1.
Thanks for initiating this conversation. CCC
On Thu, 9 Apr 2026 at 08:44, Roberto Gaetano via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
> Hi all > > Another bit of history. > > During the Vertical Integration WG - I co-chaired the WG - the issue > of unbalancing the relative power between Registries and Registrars has > been raised. The problem is that while Registries cannot have a > preferential relationship with a Registrar, because if they provide > strategic info to one Registrar they are obliged to distribute the same > information to all ICANN accredited Registrars, the reverse is not true. > > The result is, in a vertically integrated Ry&Rar, that if the owner > is the Registrar strategy can be developed in the Registry (their > subsidiary) but being the Registrar the formal owner there is no obligation > to diffuse anything. > > That only few people in the Vertical Integration WG have seen this > coming, while the ICANN Board did not, is quite worrisome, whatever the > reason for the underestimation. OTOH, it has taken years before some > effects of this situation did surface - like the attempt (failed) to put > PIR (.org) under the control of a Registrar. > > Cheers, > Roberto > > > On 09.04.2026, at 00:27, mike palage.com via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> > wrote: > > Alan, > > This is one of the reasons I have repeatedly been beating the drum > about ICANN’s failure to undertake a comprehensive economic study of the > unique identifiers that ICANN holds a monopoly over through the IANA > function. > > On the issue of vertical integration, the ICANN Board acted > unilaterally in approving the change and has never undertaken a proper > economic or legal analysis of its decision. The listing/marketing fees that > Registrars are imposing on Registry Operators are a silent tax on > prospective TLD applicants that most do not fully appreciate. > > Reading between the lines of the CPH Summit session on "do not > enrage the channel" basically discourages innovation at the Registry Level. > Instead of applauding the ZERO instances of DNS abuse in fTLDs TLDs, most > Registrars do not want to be bothered. They just want all Registries to be > the same cookie-cutter business model. > > Anyone up for an economic fact-finding excursion? I know where the > bodies are buried. I just need some help digging them up and documenting > them. > > Best regards, > > Michael > > > > > *From: *Alan Greenberg <greenberg.alan@gmail.com> > *Date: *Wednesday, April 8, 2026 at 4:19 PM > *To: *mike palage.com <mike@palage.com> > *Cc: *ICANN At-Large Staff via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> > *Subject: *Re: [CPWG] DNS Abuse PDP > > Sadly, I tend to agree with Mike. Eons ago when the GNSO Council was > reorganized, one of the rationales for two SG (Rr and Ry) was that their > interests were different. Vertical integration reduced that, but the > overriding consideration that Registries do not want to go against their > customers was and has been largely ignored. It takes something VERY > important to Registries to disagree with Registrars. Generally, they either > agree, or simply stay quiet. > > That results in a pretty impenetrable barrier. > > Alan > > On Wed, Apr 8, 2026 at 12:29 PM mike palage.com via CPWG < > cpwg@icann.org> wrote: > > Hello Claire, > > I just wanted to document my Zoom intervention on today’s CPWG call > here via the mailing list to hopefully spur additional discussion. > > Claire I will document my concerns here and in the CPWG mailing > list. Louie Touton’s original General Counsel had a saying that ICANN’s > mission is to protect competition, not individual competitors’ business > models. All too often in ICANN’s current PDP, Registrars and Registrars > flex their de facto veto authority at the GNSO to impede real, meaningful > change. Why this is BAD for ICANN is that it demonstrates that certain > aspects of ICANN’s multistakeholder model have been captured, thus leaving > disenfranchised members to resort to national laws, see NIS2, Chinese Real > Name Verification, India litigation, etc. > > Sadly, one can see the handwriting on the wall on how this PDP will > end, and one needs to look no further back in history than the transfer > PDP. The registrars will get almost everything they want, and ALAC will > get some consolation footnote about addressing their concerns in future > work. > > Registrars will be out in force in this PDP as they are the tip of > the Abuse spear since most Registries have now gone thin. Registries will > largely remain silent because they do not want to alienate their channel or > incur higher listing/placement fees. In fact, the importance of Registries > NOT upsetting their Registrar channel is a topic of an upcoming session at > the ICANN Contractual Party Summit, see > https://cpsummit2026.sched.com/event/2GbE1/how-to-engage-and-not-enrage-the-... > > Thoughts? Comments? > > Best regards, > > Michael > _______________________________________________ > CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org > To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org > > _______________________________________________ > By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of > your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list > accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy ( > https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of > Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the > Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, > including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling > delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. > > _______________________________________________ > CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org > To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org > > _______________________________________________ > By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of > your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list > accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy ( > https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of > Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the > Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, > including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling > delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. > > > _______________________________________________ > CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org > To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org > > _______________________________________________ > By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of > your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list > accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy ( > https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of > Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the > Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, > including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling > delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
-- CCC _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
On 08/04/2026 23:27, mike palage.com via CPWG wrote:
On the issue of vertical integration, the ICANN Board acted unilaterally in approving the change and has never undertaken a proper economic or legal analysis of its decision. The listing/marketing fees that Registrars are imposing on Registry Operators are a silent tax on prospective TLD applicants that most do not fully appreciate.
Afternoon all, I missed the last two calls due to a power failure making my main Windows PC unbootable. There may be a serious problem with ICANN's lack of data on registries and registrars that could affect any economic analysis. This is due to the state of registry reporting and also the sheer volume of data involved. A few years ago at one of the meetings/webinars, I asked an ICANN VP if it had historical data on registry reports and whether it had extracted, transformed and loaded the data. He replied that it had not. During a Covid lockdown, I took a look at the problem and integrated all the ICANN registry report data (CSV format, text format, PDF format, partial data with no ianai-ids etc). ICANN then tried to implement its Open Data project with a piece of software that was simply not able to integrate the existing data which ICANN had and there was an assumption made (not a good one) that all of the registry reports were in the same comma separated variable (CSV) format and had no errors. The project seems to have been consigned to that graveyard of ICANN projects that seemed good ideas at the time. However, I still update databases here with all that ICANN registry/registrar report data on a per gTLD and per registrar basis each month. The registry report dataset covers July 2001 to December 2025 (current). The data is also used to compute the HHI figure for each gTLD in each month to show the market concentration in each gTLD along with calculating the blended renewal rates from that data. The First Renewal Rates ( on a per domain name basis and not in the ICANN registry reports) for each gTLD is calculated for these monthly HosterStats reports and it is not unusual to see 80% of domain names in some gTLDs not being renewed. That is where the impact of bulk registrations appears because most domain names registered for nefarious purposes are one year registrations. Not only is the ICANN registry/registrars data in a database here, the domain names and their nameservers/hoster are also stored in the databases. And they go back to 2000. Both datasets would be usable for ecnomic studies and analysis. One of the monthly reports tracks the renewal rates across the registrars and brands. There are definitely some registrars that focus on discounts to drive registration volume.The Registrars and Resellers report has categorised brands covering 95% of the gTLD market. There is a significant percentage of resellers in the gTLD market. The data on the hidden resellers that use their registrar's DNS and their own web hosting is also generated monthly. Godaddy, for example, has over 12,000 of these hidden resellers. The sizes of these hidden resellers can vary with the smallest having a single gTLD website. If Vertical Integration means that a registry operator can operate both gTLDs and registrars, then the results have been mixed. One of the main examples was the Uniregistry gTLDs. In the irrational exuberence of the 2012 round, the registry operator registered thousands of potentially "good" domain names via its associated registrar. This effectively killed the landrush period in those gTLDs. Despite some purists disliking domain name speculation, it is an essential part of the launch of a TLD because it drives interest and awareness. Without interest and awareness, there are few registrations. The reaction what was effectively the plundering of gTLDs by the registry operator from the Domainer community was: why should we make you rich? The landrush period in the launch of a new TLD is a very important period when a new TLD gets most of its initial registrations. There is a level of speculation and domain names are heavily traded during this period. For most of these gTLDs, that didn't happen. The registry operator then increased the renewal prices leading to its gTLDs being removed from Godaddy. For a gTLD targeting the US market, having shelf space on Godaddy is essential. Vertical Integration might have seemed like a good idea at the time. It was another far more insidious idea that has caused problems for the 2012 round and that's the lack of price certainty. It seems that nobody was worried about how the registrants would cope with this.This might have been an At-Large issue rather than a CPH one. With .COM/NET, there is a certainty about registration and renewal fees. The new gTLD registries have much more control over their pricing. As a result, there is a number of different business models used by the registries and registrars. None of the new gTLDs became .COM killers. The heavy discounting model where there is massive discounts for the first year with the renewal rate shooting up to about $30 in the second means that 90% or more of heavily discounted registrations will not renew for a second year. Bulk registrations are a part of that. There is also a level of sweating the assets with some of the legacy gTLDs where renewal fees keep increasting year on year to target brand protection registrations. The most damange caused to the gTLDs is not from DNS Abuse. It was the abject failure of ICANN's board to deal with Domain Tasting in the 2005-2008 period. That led to the rise of the ccTLDs and outside the US, it is largely a ccTLD world now with even the .COM falling back to just over replacement level in many countries.Against all that, there is still the problem of DNS Abuse. The position of the CPH on who deals with DNS Abuse and what can be done is understandable. They have to operate in their own jurisdictions. For many registries, the domain names are not highly profitable and they make more from value added services like web hosting. They are also highly limited about what actions they can take against DNS Abuse. And even then there are different categories. Abusive registrations are different from compromised websites. Lurking in the background is the issue of Bulk Registrations. That is a problem that some registries and registrars may not want to address because their very existence depends on being able to offer discounted registrations. Some registrars even appear to have the characteristics of discount chasers with sawtooth registration and deletions patterns over gTLDs and years. For registry operators, being able to offer discounts is essential. On the Economics side of things, has ICANN hired a new economist yet?
Anyone up for an economic fact-finding excursion? I know where the bodies are buried. I just need some help digging them up and documenting them.
Every month, I publish reports on registrations activities, renewal activities, the web hosting market. The data on ICANN registrars has the year change, the five year change, the ten year change, the fifteen year change and the twenty year change for each registrar's DUMs. It is difficult not to be completely cynical about ICANN management's approach to understanding the gTLD market. They can order bespoke economic studies to justify their decisions. The problem is that many of these economists simply do not understand the dynamics and politics of the domain name business. Thus when these reports mention the academically sound theory of product substitution by new gTLDs, people in the business knew that it was just not going to happen. An economic analysis would be a good thing, but the business changes rapidly. This year's domain name market is different from last year's and those of previous years. The problem with a good economic analysis is that ICANN might not like what it sees and especially when it comes to the gTLD registration and hosting patters across developing markets. Regards...jmcc -- ********************************************************** John McCormac * e-mail: jmcc@hosterstats.com MC2 * web: http://www.hosterstats.com/ 22 Viewmount * Domain Registrations Statistics Waterford * Domnomics - the business of domain names Ireland * https://amzn.to/2OPtEIO IE * Skype: hosterstats.com ********************************************************** -- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com
participants (13)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Carlton Samuels -
Chubasco Diranga -
Claire Craig -
DANIEL NANGHAKA -
Gbemisola Esho -
John McCormac -
Justine Chew -
Maureen Hilyard -
michael palage.com -
mike palage.com -
Murray McKercher -
Roberto Gaetano