Idea to get data on new TLDs will probably take longer than expected.

If the current draft plan (pdf) for accepting “Expressions of Interest” for new top level domain names is adopted in similar form, ICANN won’t start accepting applications until June 2010 at the earliest.

The delay is because ICANN will shift its planned communications efforts for new TLD applications to promote Expressions of Interest instead. The current proposal for Expressions of Interest would not allow EOIs to be submitted until the communication period ends, which will be at least four months.

But June 2010 might be optimistic. The draft plan also calls for the some of major overarching issues — such as registrar/registry separation and rights protection — to be decided prior to accepting Expressions of Interest. This may mean the 4th draft of the applicant guidebook will be released prior to accepting EOIs. If the communication period doesn’t run concurrently to resolving these outstanding issues, it would push the dates further back. Because the communications would require a “due date” for submitting EOIs, running them concurrently might not be feasible.

Although open for comment, the draft plan suggests a price tag of $55,000 to submit an Expression of Interest. This is an upfront payment for the actual application, although refunds will only be given if the actual launch date of reviewing applications is delayed beyond a certain point.

When is a typo not a typo?

Is eHelper.com a typo of EdHelper.com? Yes, according to National Arbitration Forum panelist Sandra J. Franklin.

In a decision handed down yesterday, Franklin awarded the domain name eHelper.com to the owner of EdHelper.com. It’s a strange decision since eHelper is fundamentally different than EdHelper. It’s not a typo in the same way EdHlper.com would be, and eHelper.com is a legitimate, stand alone name for a possible web site. It’s like saying that Domains.com is a typo of iDomains.com because it omits one letter. Or Bay.com is a typo of eBay.com.

Even in the examples of typosquatting cases Franklin gives, they were all clear cut cases, whereas this is completely different. In her decision, she wrote:

Complainant argues that Respondent’s ehelper.com domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s EDHELPER mark pursuant to Policy 4(a)(i). Respondent’s disputed domain name merely deletes a letter from Complainant’s mark and adds the generic top-level domain name (“gTLD”) extension “.com.” The Panel finds that the mere deletion of a letter from Complainant’s EDHELPER mark results in confusing similarity for the purposes of Policy 4(a)(i). See Guinness UDV N. Am., Inc. v. Dallas Internet Servs., D2001-1055 (WIPO Dec. 12, 2001) (finding the smirnof.com domain name confusingly similar to the complainant’s SMIRNOFF mark because merely removing the letter “f” from the mark was insignificant); see also Neiman Marcus Group, Inc. v. Party Night, Inc., FA 114546 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 23, 2002) (finding that the neimanmacus.com domain name was a simple misspelling of the complainant’s NEIMAN MARCUS mark and was a classic example of typosquatting, which was evidence that the domain name was confusingly similar to the mark).

It didn’t help that the owner of eHelper.com didn’t respond to the complaint. But finding typosquatting in this case is quite a stretch. Perhaps it’s an example cut-and-paste arbitration.

VeriSign price increase makes sense for the company.

There has been a collective whine from the domainer community over the past 12 hours after news broke that VeriSign is increasing .com prices again.

I’m whining, too. But this is an expected and smart move by VeriSign.

VeriSign’s contract with ICANN allows it to raise prices 7% in any four years of its current six year contract. It raised prices in the first two years, bringing VeriSign’s take of a .com registration from $6.00 to $6.86. The assumption was that VeriSign would increase the price each year for the first four years to maximize its revenue. After all, not raising it in one year meant the registry would lose out on that increase every year until it hit its four price increases, and the compounding effect would also be lost.

In the third year (this year), VeriSign didn’t raise rates. Although the economy may have played a factor, the real reason was politics. VeriSign was being trotted in front of congress this year to testify about ICANN and the end of its Memorandum of Understanding with the U.S. government. It was a politically untenable environment to jack up rates again.

In fact, during VeriSign’s first quarter conference call this year President and COO Mark McLaughlin said:

So far we’ve taken two of these increases. And the patentees’ have been thoughtful about the timing of the increases, and I think we should be continuing to do so particularly in life as the impact of an increase could have on sales in this weak economy, as well as some uncertainty in the multiple constituencies that are involved in this industry.

This decision to not raise rates in 2009 will cost VeriSign over $75 million in pure profit over the next two years. If VeriSign raises rates again next year it will have “caught up” to its maximum pricing under the contract, so its loss from not increasing rates in 2009 is two years worth of revenue at the higher prices, not to mention the compounding effect of missing a seven percent increase.

With this year’s legislative focus on domain names behind us, there won’t be as much scrutiny of VeriSign in 2010.

The current wholesale price of .com domains is $7.04 including an 18 cent ICANN fee. The new price will be $7.52 including the ICANN fee, effective July 1, 2010.

The argument that registrations will decrease as a result of this price increase is largely a fallacy. It’s true that people will drop domain names making between $7.04 and $7.51 if they have no potential of future sale. But that’s limited mostly to typos, and the increase in revenue more than makes up for losing these domains.

This increase will affect professional domainers with large portfolios more than other consumers. And no one on Capitol Hill cares about domainers. ICANN’s take, at least when I talked to them about VeriSign price increases a couple years ago, was that we shouldn’t complain. After all, registering a .com domain name cost $35 a year just a decade ago.

But the move will also build political pressure increase over time, and it may backfire as VeriSign attempts to get the business of people wishing to release new TLDs. The true cost of managing the .com registry is perhaps a dollar or two a domain. That’s what some registries will offer as pricing to new TLD operators. How will VeriSign be able to offer lower prices to new TLD operators with a straight face? Won’t people start to question its costs for .com? The answer is probably that VeriSign won’t risk the heat on .com at the expense of picking up some small new TLD contracts.

Then there’s also a lawsuit that could force ICANN to open the .com registry up to competitive bid. But that won’t be settled any time soon.

So we can go ahead and whine about .com prices increasing. I know I’m going to. But I also know that, if I were in VeriSign’s shoes, I’d do the exact same thing.

Help shape the 5th Annual Domain Name Wire Survey.

It’s almost time for the 5th Annual Domain Name Wire Survey, where you get to pick the best domain name registrars, parking companies, and services in the industry.

Last year the survey included a free-form question about which third party domain name software or hosted application you find most valuable. We received a lot of different answers. This year the question will be multiple choice. With that in mind, please help by commenting on any software or hosted applications you think should be included for this question:

Which software or hosted application is most valuable to your domain name business for research and management?

We’re not looking for monetization solutions, forums, or blogs here. Here are top answers from last year that will be included:

DomainTools
Wordtracker (keyword tool)
Estibot
Watch My Domains
FreshDrop
XSite Pro

Domain tasting is down, but the registration game is merely changing.

ICANN is reporting that domain name tasting is down 99.7% since it implemented new policies to thwart it. Tasting is registering a domain name to test for traffic, and returning it within five days for a full refund if it doesn’t get enough traffic.

The new policies limited the number of domains a registrar could return for a refund. This changed the domain tasting model on its head and eliminated most tasting overnight.

But that’s about to change. It won’t exactly be tasting per se, but the days of seeing decent domain names drop and not be snapped up right away by large portfolio holders are about to end. Remember, domain tasting is a statistical game, and it used to be easy: register everything and see what made money. Now registrars are limited to how many domains they can return, so they need higher accuracy with their initial registrations. And they’re getting there, thanks to data provided by a number of sources. Domain Name Wire is aware of at least one highly reliable data source being offered to domain name registrars that will enable them to register domain names with a good understanding of exactly how much traffic they get. So hold on.

In another interesting note, ICANN’s latest report shows exception requests filed by registrars. These exception requests are filed with the registrar in an attempt to get full refunds for batches of domain names due to extraordinary circumstances. Most of the exception requests were due to fraud, but .com registry VeriSign rejected them, saying fraud is not an “extraordinary event”. One example: in July Moniker requested a refund on 6,992 domain names citing PayPal fraud and phishing. It was denied.