Popular model for landrush phase of new TLDs might find its way to Verisign.
Verisign is considering some sort of “Early Access” period when it launches IDN .com transliterations, company executives explained today on the company’s 3rd quarter conference call.
In response to an analyst’s question, CEO James Bidzos said the rollouts will begin with the mandated sunrise period. After that, the company might have “Early Access” opportunities for those that want to “get in the door early”, he explained.
New top level domain name company Donuts popularized an Early Access model similar to a Dutch auction. Domains are available at a high premium the first day, dropping over time until domain names are offered at standard prices. Other new top level domain name companies have since imitated Donuts’ approach.
Verisign will launch 11 transliterations of .com and .net, such as .点看.
The company originally planned to keep transliterations locked for the owners of the same second level domain name in .com, but might adjust the program due to ICANN’s contract requirements.
Verisign expects to launch at least one of the domain names by the end of year. It won’t release all 11 at once, but also doesn’t plan to have 11 separate launches.
Steve says
“keep transliterations locked for the owners of the same second level domain name in .com”
They would be insane to split .com
Imagine 2 versions of the same domain owned by different people??? Crazy.
Joseph Peterson says
@Steve,
We’ve seen that kind of division play out in all sorts of ways online – some good, some bad.
For example, many ccTLDs can be registered both as SLDs and 3LDs: India has both .IN and .CO.IN; Mexico deals in both .MX and .COM.MX.
Quite recently, .CO.UK expanded to include direct SLD registrations .UK. After some protest, Nominet (the .UK registry) settled on what I think is a very fair policy, which phases the new extension in over 5 years and gives registrants grandfathered rights during that period. Subsequently, .NZ did something similar – but, as I recollect, quite suddenly, without adequate consumer protection.
The same division of brand names occurs across IDN + “.COM” already. Ninos.com and Niños.com (an IDN) may be owned by separate people. So if that were to occur in the IDN “.COM” TLDs, then it wouldn’t be unprecedented. Perhaps not ideal, but not unprecedented.
The whole nTLD program subdivides brand name ownership between pre-existing domains and newly introduced domains. You could very well say this about NewsMedia.com versus News.Media or BobsPhotography.com versus Bobs.Photography:
“Imagine 2 versions of the same domain owned by different people??? Crazy.”
Andrew Allemann says
Verisign would like to do something similar to what Nominet did (but in perpetuity), but ICANN won’t allow it.
Drewbert says
So much for ICANN caring about the stability and security of the DNS.
They’ve even allowed ASCII newGTLD’s to offer non-latin IDN at 2LD. That’s just nuts! It’s all just a money-grab.
2
Mark Tomich says
NewsMedia.com versus News.Media is really not a valid argument as it does not create user confusion. No one is mistakenly visiting each of these sites looking for the other.
That’s not the case with verisign’s .com transliterations. In many countries the extensions (.com and its idn counterpart) are already used and viewed as one in the same. Russia and Japan are two quick examples. One can just google the extensions and already see their usage. This is horrendous for most stakeholders and the international community as a whole and will create complete and utter user confusion.
David Wrixon says
Like Icann cares about any of that.
Joseph Peterson says
@Mark Tomich,
Genuinely, you make an excellent point about IDN versions of “.COM” being already in use.
The only non-Latin script I’m able to read is Arabic; and I can attest to the fact that we already spell out domains using “.كوم” to mean “.COM”. So if these 2 spellings end up going different directions, then the consequences for consumers will be disastrous.
If ICANN policy really forces Verisign – as it reportedly forced the ICM Registry – NOT to grandfather in registrants, then that ICANN policy will damage internet usability.
ICANN really ought to rethink this, although I highly doubt they will. At this point the train may have left the station. We can await the head-on collision between 2 trains, but we probably can’t stop it.
But now for some sarcasm:
“NewsMedia.com versus News.Media is really not a valid argument as it does not create user confusion. No one is mistakenly visiting each of these sites looking for the other.”
Really? “No one” would mistakenly visit NewsMedia.com rather than News.Media? Guardian angels are much more efficacious than I’d realized.
Steve says
.in, .co.in
.mx , .co.mx
.co.uk and .uk
etc. are completely different domain extensions.
钱.com and
钱.点看
are the same and should be owned by the same person imo.
Steve says
“a registrant of an IDN.com or IDN.net or registrant in one of our new IDN TLDs will have the sole right, subject to applicable rights protection mechanisms, but not be required to register the same second level name across all or any of our IDN TLDS, including .com or .net TLD as applicable.”
If that doesn’t happen then all registrants have been misled and both Verisign and Icann have made millions from this illusion. Seems like a dangerous road to go down. Fun times.
David Wrixon says
Seems to me the case has just been made to resolve whether ICANN should be independent or not.
On the basis of this they should be Independent from anything to do with DNS system. Bunch of completely corrupt incompetants.
David Wrixon says
Seems the only Bottom up approach they are interested is shafting the Registrants.
And remember, Not for Profit does not mean you are immune to getting your ass sued. All they are interested is seeking out a juristication where that will never happen. Not sure why they did not consider Norht Korea or even Iran.
Mark Tomich says
Both pronounced the same. Imagine trying to explain the address to someone you just met. Perhaps dot com 2 or dot com alt. Or maybe you simply have to write it out for everyone.
This is more than ICANN. Verisign should have not been making promises they could not keep.
David Wrixon says
And Verisign are worth sueing because they are wealthy. With ICANN it would be more about putting the clowns out on the street.
Rubens Kuhl says
At that time it was impossible to predict the hard stance ICANN would have in favor of trademark owners; ICANN did envision and still allow a negotiation of such grandfathering programs, it just denied every attempt that was tried.
ICM, Verisign and a good number of Geo TLD registries tried to propose those changes with reasonable arguments, and ICANN denied them all.
In this case blame belongs only to ICANN.
abcbrand says
Verisign succeeded in this process only by lulling IDN.com owners with promises of grandfathering & entitlement. If those owners were against them from the start, Verisign’s applications could not have progressed. Excuse me for disbelieving the billionaire behemoth — Verisign’s rewrite favors themselves totally. I predict not only lawsuits, but also concerted action against Verisign’s suitability to properly manage .com
MJK says
The only way to stop this is for everybody to sue in his/her local Court worldwide. The amount of cases and litigation that Verisign would have to deal with would be a humilation and overwhelming. If anybody is seriously interested in coordinating such a strategy, please post.
Andrew Allemann says
What would suing Verisign accomplish. They want to do the “unlock”/matching thing, but ICANN won’t let them.
MJK says
Thanks for the question. How did the ICM registry grant the 30 day matching period, while Verisign cannot do the same thing? This I am missing. For existing IDN holders, no launch would be better than a launch where the .com names are mixed up randomly between IDN.com and IDN.IDN.
Andrew Allemann says
I suspect that Verisign will offer something similar. They haven’t said anything to the contrary, and it’s in the company’s best interests.
MJK says
Andrew, thank you for following this so closely for us! If Verisign offers a similar program, it is a great compromise for all involved (IDN.com holders are protected if they opt in and Verisign can run off with all that extra money). Of course, it will increase costs, but with the increase in costs, IDN hoarders will be more likely to divest or develop, which can only be good for the IDN market in general. In your opinion, since ICM was allowed to do it this way, is there any reason that Verisign cannot follow suit?
Andrew Allemann says
I can think of no reason it can’t or won’t follow suit. One trick is they’ll have to convince registrars to get on board. Registrars aren’t always good with programs like this, and IDNs further complicate the issue.
abcbrand says
Reading Verisign’s .com Registry Agreement (posted at ICANN)
https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/agreement-2012-12-05-en
Article IV, Section 4.2 (on Renewal), it seems almost impossible to dislodge Verisign from their monopoly position at the end of this agreement term three years from now (2018-Nov-30). BUT the same section puts heavy emphasis and penalties on Failure to Perform in Good Faith. Adjustments thus far to Verisign’s promises so hugely favor Verisign, at heavy cost to IDN.com owners, the fiasco appears designed as a smokescreen. Remember their promises:
(quote)
In practice, Verisign’s proposed approach means that the registrant for a second-level domain name in our IDN.IDN, IDN.com or IDN.net will have the sole right (subject to applicable rights protection mechanisms), but not be required to register that identical second-level domain in any of the top-level IDNs, .COM or .NET as applicable.
In order to illustrate our approach, we have identified two use cases below:
Use Case No. 1: Bob Smith already has a registration for an IDN.net second level domain name. That second level domain name will be unavailable in all of the new .NET TLDs except to Bob Smith. Bob Smith may choose not to register that second level domain name in any of the new transliterations of the .NET TLDs.
Use Case No. 2: John Doe does not have a registration for an IDN.com second level domain name. John Doe registers a second level domain name in our Thai transliteration of .COM but in no other TLD. That second level domain name will be unavailable in all other transliterations of .COM IDN TLDs and in the .COM registry unless and until John Doe (and only John Doe) registers it in another .COM IDN TLD or in the .COM registry”
(end quote)