My Comments To The ICANN Board Regarding The Transfer Policy Final Report

The turd polishers at ICANN have produced yet another highly polished turd of a report regarding domain name transfer policy, that is open for public comments until 23:59 UTC time on Monday June 16, 2025 (i.e. less than 24 hours from the time of this blog post). The report is being voted upon by the ICANN Board, so this is really the final opportunity to go “on the record” with your input (which will in all likelihood be completely ignored, but some of us still choose to submit comments regardless).

Our complete submission is now visible on ICANN’s website here, or you can read the main 19 page PDF here.

For a small taste of the contents of the document, here’s the “Conclusion” section from the final page of the PDF:

The analysis presented herein underscores that the “push-based” transfer system and enhanced WHOIS transparency within the Losing FOA are not merely incremental improvements but represent fundamental shifts necessary for establishing robust domain name security and ensuring comprehensive registrant protection in the evolving digital landscape. These proposals address inherent vulnerabilities in the current transfer policy that the Transfer Policy Review Working Group’s Final Report has, regrettably, failed to adequately address.

The working group’s dismissal of the push-based system due to a stated preference for “incremental change” and perceived workload reveals a systemic bias within ICANN policy development towards minor adjustments over truly transformative ideas. This incrementalist approach inherently limits ICANN’s capacity to achieve optimal security and fulfill its mandate, highlighting the critical need for Board intervention. Furthermore, the dominance of registrars within this working group and the referral of critical proposals to “Tech Ops,” which is not a true multistakeholder forum, point to a fundamental challenge within ICANN’s multistakeholder model regarding the perceived balance of power and influence. The Board’s decision on this report will therefore signal its commitment not only to domain transfer security but also to the integrity of genuine multistakeholder engagement and registrant representation, thereby impacting ICANN’s overall legitimacy and accountability.

Therefore, it is strongly urged that the ICANN Board reject the Transfer Policy Review Working Group’s Final Report in its current form. The Board should instead mandate further work by a truly multistakeholder body, with explicit instructions to thoroughly evaluate and prioritize the push-based transfer system and the enhanced WHOIS transparency proposal within the Losing GOA. This decisive action would demonstrate a commitment to innovation and prioritize registrant security over incrementalism or the vested interests of specific contracted parties. By taking such a course, the ICANN Board would not only address critical security deficiencies but also reaffirm its dedication to its core mission and the principles of a balanced, accountable multistakeholder model.

Rocket.com revisited

While I continue to discover previously unreported domain name transactions in public financial statements, I am mostly refraining from posting new articles due to the widespread and repeated parastic copycat “journalism” in the domain name industry. To understand why parasitic “journalism” is harmful, see this document by Grok, or this document by ChatGPT.

That being said, it’s worth revisiting the prior article regarding the Rocket.com domain name transaction, where I was first (like usual) to report on the transaction price, due to meticulous research. In that article, it was clear that the seller obtained $14 million for the domain name, on a net basis.

Continue reading “Rocket.com revisited”

My Comments to ICANN Opposing the 2024 .COM Renewal

The public comment period regarding the .COM renewal ends today (November 5, 2024). ICANN routinely ignores public input, and I expect that will continue with this comment period.

Regardless, I’ve submitted a comment opposing to the .COM renewal, in order to be on the record. You can also read it here (PDF).

Continue reading “My Comments to ICANN Opposing the 2024 .COM Renewal”

Rocket.com domain name changed hands for USD $14 million

According to a financial filing today by the seller of the Rocket.com domain name, L3Harris:

“For the quarter and three quarters ended September 27, 2024, includes $14 million of income net of related expenses from a domain name sale.” (page 29)

Clearly, that is a reference to the Rocket.com domain name transaction.

While I continue to be “on strike” due to the ongoing and widespread parasitic “journalism” in the domain name industry, I’ll make an exception for this 8-figure transaction.

In my personal opinion, this domain name sold for far too little, and the seller should have negotiated a much higher transaction price, given the market cap of the buyer.

[NB: Like the Voice.com $30 million deal, this disclosure revealed the net proceeds received by the seller. The buyer may have paid more than $14 million (as it appears the seller paid commission expenses, i.e. the “net of related expenses” language above), but that value isn’t public as of this point. It might come to light in a filing by the buyer at some point, although this transaction would likely not be considered “material” to them, given their market cap.]

AI-generated Audio Podcast about ICANN IGO Issues and Domain Disputes

(if you’re having trouble using the media player, the MP3 is here)

In January 2023, I submitted extensive comments to ICANN, regarding IGO Issues and domain name disputes. There were 3 quite detailed PDFs in that submission (as there were other comment periods over the years), that many may not have read.

Using the NotebookLM AI tool I mentioned in an earlier post today, that generated an excellent podcast regarding domain name transfer policy, I figured I’d let the AI summarize my IGO-related submissions. The result is the embedded audio in this blog post. It did a fairly good job of explaining things at a high-level, although it missed an important detail, namely that IGOs are able to assert immunity when they’re the defendant, and thus the “role reversal” gives them a big advantage (especially if they’re no longer agreeing to the mutual jurisdiction clause). I hope this piques the interest of those who’ve not followed this important issue, and causes them to dive deeper into the PDFs (which have more detailed arguments).

 

 

Push system for domain name transfers already in place for .co.uk!

Theo Develegas, the author of DomainGang, has a personal blog. He wrote about a .co.uk transfer today:

https://acro.net/blog/enom-end-of-an-era-the-fastest-domain-transfer-ever/

which noted:

What surprised me was the way .co.uk domains are transferred to another registrar, in this case Spaceship. After unlocking the domain, I went to Spaceship to begin the transfer out which required to copy an IPS tag into the domain’s record.

What is an IPS tag for domains, you may ask. It’s like a reverse authentication code: You get it from the registrar you move your .co.uk domain to and provide it to the registrar where the domain sits at.

The moment the IPS tag was updated at eNom the domain was no longer there. It was an instant change of registrar! All I had to do next was complete the transfer at Spaceship by submitting the request. The domain appeared in my account, once again instantly.

That’s the kind of “push” system  for domain name transfers that I’ve been advocating for more than 2 years at ICANN, for gTLD domain names like .com. It’s already in production. There’s no excuse now for ICANN not to adopt this, at least as a pilot project, for gTLD domain names.

 

AI-generated Audio Podcast about ICANN Transfer Policy

Prepare to be blown away! 

As regular readers of this blog will be aware, I’ve written extensively about proposed changes to the ICANN Transfer Policy.  Last week, I blogged about my 2024 submission to ICANN. It also mentioned my previous extensive submissions in 2022.

Today, I read about an interesting AI tool created by Google called NotebookLM which is able to summarize documents and even create audio podcasts. So, as an experiment, I uploaded my 2024 and 2022 ICANN submissions into NotebookLM, and here’s the result (7 minutes and 41 seconds in length).

(if you’re having trouble using the media player, the MP3 file is here)

Isn’t that simply incredible?

Continue reading “AI-generated Audio Podcast about ICANN Transfer Policy”

My 2024 Submission To ICANN Regarding Transfer Policy, ahead of September 30 deadline

ICANN has another public comment period regarding transfer policy. The deadline to submit comments is Monday September 30, 2024 at 23:59 UTC time.

My company’s submission can be read here. I focused on the lack of consideration of a “push” system of transfers, and lack of overall consideration of registrants’ input.

This isn’t the first time that ICANN has asked for input on transfer policy. My company submitted substantial comments in 2022 as well, which the captured working group, dominated by registrars, has not incorporated into its latest set of recommendations.

As this is likely the final opportunity to impact the working group’s final recommendations before they’re sent to the GNSO Council (despite being misleadingly labelled as an “Inital Report“, which I called out in my latest comments), now is the time to make a submission on this important topic which affects registrants.

Hopefully my company’s submission of today, and also from 2022, will help stimulate your own thinking, before you submit your own comments.

[For posterity and archival purposes, one can find a PDF version of my submitted comments here.]

 

Domain Literati community on GoodReads

Like many involved in the domain name industry, I like to read books. I decided to organize the non-fiction and fiction books I’ve read and am reading using the GoodReads website and app. GoodReads allows members to create community groups, and I noticed that there wasn’t one associated with the domain name industry, so I decided to create one!

Domain Literati logo
Domain Literati logo

Introducing DomainLiterati.com!

Of course I had to think of a name, and “Domain Literati” seemed appropriate. Even the dot-com was available! Using ChatGPT, I generated a quick logo and and a landing page.

I don’t expect that this will be a very active group, but if others want to read more, see what their peers are reading, or inspire others to read good books, it might be beneficial to join the group on GoodReads.

In March 2024, JMB acquired $8.5 million of intangible assets that included Gold.com’s domain name

From page 29 of the A-MARK PRECIOUS METALS, INC. SEC filing of today:

In March 2024, JMB acquired $8.5 million of intangible assets that included Gold.com’s domain name.

Normally, given the widespread parasitic “journalism” in the domain name industry, I’d have kept this SEC filings research to myself. But, since it was widely known that gold.com had changed hands, it was trivial to setup a RSS feed for the SEC filing, to monitor the upcoming financial statements for this tidbit.

If one scrolls down to page 30 of that same SEC filing, one will note that there’s an entry of $8,515,000 for “domain name”, which appears to correspond to the gold.com transaction.

Gold.com domain transaction documented in SEC filing
Gold.com domain name transaction documented in SEC filing, from page 30 of https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1591588/000095017024057222/amrk-20240331.htm

As per the original press release, the seller was advised by Andrew Miller of Hilco Digital Assets.