Just read a post on the ICANN Blog entitled "is ICANN handling too many policy issues?". The post is a response by ICANN VP of Policy Development David Olive to an article published in another blog and asking that very question.

David joined ICANN earlier this year (February) to manage its policy department. As Vice Chair of the GNSO I was fortunate to work with him almost from the get-go while he took over from previous VP Policy Denise Michel (who is now advisor to the ICANN CEO). David is an instantly likeable guy: soft-spoken yet resolute, mild-mannered and extremely easy to get on with, he has brought a new energy to ICANN's policy team.

Now you guessed it, if I start off by being so nice about David it's because I'm about to criticise him . Well actually, not so much criticise as simply disagree with his latest post. David argues that ICANN isn't taking on too much policy work because a) everyone's issues are important and ICANN could not say "yes" to one and refuse another and b) the work isn't prioritised so it looks like it's all over the place when it actually isn't.

ICANN's Board met on August 5th and approved a number of resolutions, including one that must have been particularly pleasing for Chairman Peter Dengate Thrush. Even before he became Chair, Dengate Thrush has always argued for some kind of compensation for that position.

Now approved, this will be paid on a pro-rata basis starting on August 6, 2010.

I think this is one of the sanest decisions the ICANN Board has taken in years. The amount of work asked of ICANN volunteers, specially the Board and its Chair, is enormous. Chairing the ICANN Board has become a full-time job and if the body in charge of coordinating the Internet's naming and numbering system wants to keep drawing quality people to its top volunteer positions, it must be ready to compensate them.

At all levels, there's a terrific amount of volunteer goodwill within ICANN. Taking one group I am currently involved in as an example, the Vertical Integration Working Group, I am stunned by the dedication of its members. With 2 teleconference meetings a week (each lasting from 1.5 to 2 hours) and numerous position papers and other reports drafted, the sixty plus members of the group have spared no effort in their quest to find a solution that will then benefit the whole community as part of the new gTLD program.

Being on the Board is even more demanding. And it requires complete impartiality. I know of several people who have both the expertise and the will to serve as Board members but to do so, would be required to give up their day jobs. The question then becomes: how can ICANN expect them to give up their salary and maybe even a long-term career just for the "honour" of serving a 3-year term on the Board?

Compensating the Board Chair is clearly a sensible decision and a step in the right direction, but it does generate its own sets of problems. Why only the Chair? In fact, why stop at Board members?

These are questions that ICANN will also have to look at in the near future. 

COM and NET registry Verisign has just reported its results for the second quarter of the year. Analyst expectations were for revenue figures somewhere around $166.5 million. Helped by its naming operations, Verisign beat those forecasts at $168.7 million.

The company ended its second quarter (from April to June 30th) with a profit of $35.2 million, up from $34.9 million for the same quarter a year ago.

The bulk of Verisign's business is now centered around domain names, in particular its management of the COM and NET namespaces. The company claims 101.5 million active domain names in those two suffixes at the end of Q2, a 9% increase year-over-year.

In May, Verisign inked a deal with Symantec to sell its authentication business for about $1.28 billion in cash. A purchase which should complete 3 months after the sale date of May 19.