Domain Name Wire » Policy & Law

Poll: How Long Until New Top Level Domain Names?

Andrew Allemann — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 18:10:08 +0000

When do you think new TLDs will be available for registration?

Another ICANN meeting has wrapped up. Blows were dealt to many, but some progress was made. With EOI off the table, the focus is on settling the “overarching issues”. The intellectual property constituency, which didn’t show up to Nairobi, was perhaps the biggest winner.

New TLDs are going to happen. It’s a matter of when.

During Domainer Mardi Gras, I asked my panel when they thought new TLDs would actually be available. More specifically, when will be I be able to go to a domain name registrar and register a new domain name and start using it?

The earliest estimate was April 2011, with the latest September 2012. With the latest information coming out of Nairobi, when do you think the first new TLD will become available for registration?

Note: There is a poll embedded within this post, please visit the site to participate in this post's poll.

Review and rate domain name parking companies at Parking Judge.

ICANN Board Drops Bomb on Registrars Hoping to Launch New TLDs

Andrew Allemann — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 15:29:37 +0000

Board opts for separation of registrars and registries for new top level domain names.

ICANN’s board resolved today that there will be “strict separation of entities offering registry services and those acting as registrars. No co-ownership will be allowed.”

However, the board left the possibility open for compromise, stating that if the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) comes up with a compromise, it will consider it.

This is bad news for companies such as Demand Media, which owns registrar eNom and hoped to apply for new top level domain names. It’s good news for incumbent registries VeriSign, Neustar, and Afilias.

The issue of registry/registrar separation has been a hot topic since the start of discussions on new top level domain names. The separation of the .com registry from the registrar business opened the door to massive registrar competition. Without it, it’s fair to wonder if behemoths such as Go Daddy, eNom, and Tucows would be around today.

But proponents of allowing integration — including some of these very same registrars that benefited to separation the first time around — argue that was a different time with a different set of circumstances.

Practically speaking, I don’t think prohibiting registrars from being registries will make that much of a difference in new TLDs. It will just create a headache for registrars as they create separate legal and financial structures to side step the prohibition.

Review and rate domain name parking companies at Parking Judge.

Shocker: ICANN Nixes Expressions of Interest for New TLDs

Andrew Allemann — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 15:13:01 +0000

No Expressions of Interest for new top level domain names.

I guess I’m not in the internal loop at ICANN, but I’m surprised that its board voted to completely nix the idea of “Expressions of Interest” for new top level domain names.

The idea was simple. If you want to apply for a new top level domain name, you would make a $55,000 deposit per TLD and name the string.

This would resolve a whole host of issues. First, we’d know how many TLDs will be applied for when the new TLD application process starts. This could resolve issues with root zone scaling, assuage trademark interest fears (or at least let them know what they’re dealing with), and uncover possible conflicts and issues that will rear their heads when the application process starts (and it’s too late to do anything about it).

But ICANN’s board decided the costs of running the EOI were outweighed by the costs of a potential delay to new gTLDs by using resources for EOI, not knowing the date the overarching issues for new TLDs will be resolved, and difficulty synchronizing the new TLD progress with the EOI process. So ICANN wants to focus staff resources on resolving remaining new TLD issues rather than doing the EOI.

Practically speaking, this means we’ll go into the new TLD process blind. We’ll have no idea how many TLDs will be applied for. We’ll have to resolve root zone scaling for the prospect of 100 TLDs or 10,000 TLDs. We won’t understand potential string conflicts and gaming until its too late.

That’s unfortunate.

Yes, there are issues with the proposed EOI. But it seems to me that the benefits of EOI outweighed the costs.

Review and rate domain name parking companies at Parking Judge.

ICANN Delays .XXX (Again)

Andrew Allemann — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 15:02:56 +0000

.XXX decision pushed until next ICANN meeting.

Should we really be so surprised?

ICANN’s board has decided not to act on the independent review of its decision to deny ICM Registry the .xxx top level domain name. Until further comment.

Insert joke about delayed sexual gratification here.

ICANN has punted. “Let’s think about this some more” is the message, a message that ICANN has sent for years on a variety of topics.

The ICANN board originally authorized entering into a contract with ICM registry to launch .xxx in the last sTLD round. After getting pressure from a number of groups including governments, ICANN’s board later voted to nix .xxx. ICM registry used ICANN’s so-called independent review process to question ICANN’s reversal. That independent review group said ICANN violated its bylaws when it reneged on .xxx.

But here’s the catch. The independent review board merely makes a decision that the ICANN board can decide what to do with.

To be clear, it didn’t kill .xxx. It merely resolved “create a transparent set of process options which can be published for public comment”. It is directing ICANN’s CEO and general counsel to “finalize a report of possible process options for further consideration.”

ICANN’s board will take into consideration the options and public comments at the June meeting in Brussels.

My guess is ICANN eventually approves ICM registry to run .xxx. Frankly, it should strip all of the “policy” elements of the original .xxx contract and just make it a traditional TLD agreement. But ICANN is scared to make a decision prior to the launch of new TLDs, since it will surely set off a firestorm of people opposed to .xxx and other similar TLDs coming to the net when new gTLDs are launched. Perhaps it will “buy off” ICM registry to wait until the new TLD launch.

Review and rate domain name parking companies at Parking Judge.

American Express Wants .Me Domain, Samsung Goes After ccTLDs

Andrew Allemann — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 16:16:28 +0000

American Express gets into .me UDRP game, Samsung starts collecting ccTLDs.

American Express has joined a list of companies to use domain name arbitration to get their .me domain names. The company filed a complaint with WIPO for AmericanExpress.me, which is owned by a New Jersey resident. The domain currently has a GoDaddy parking page. First ad? “American Express® Cards”.

Other companies/brands to get their corresponding .me domain names through UDRP include Overstock, Mozilla, Firefox, ExxonMobil, Sprite, and Porsche.

In other UDRP news, Samsung is starting to get results from a slew of UDRPs it filed for country code domain names a couple months ago. So far it has picked up Samsung.cd (Congo), Samsung.la (Laos), and Samsung.md (Moldova). It has cases pending for Samsung.nu, .nu, .as, .com.ve, .bz, and .tm.

Review and rate domain name parking companies at Parking Judge.

Marchex Gets UDRP Win with Clara.com, Robot Blocking Justified

Andrew Allemann — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 22:31:58 +0000

Company defends generic domain name and explains legitimate reasons for blocking robots.txt from parked domain names.

Marchex subsidiary MDNH has successfully defended the domain name Clara.com from an attack by a magazine publisher in Spain.

Complainant Rba Edipresse, S.L. owns a magazine called Clara, and argued that it should get the domain name because it has trademarks for the term “Clara” and that Marchex hadn’t used the domain name since it was registered.

Clara.com was one of the domain names Marchex acquired when it bought UltSearch. It pointed out that the domain name is generic (woman’s name, translates to “clear” in Spanish) and that the parked page at Clara.com didn’t contain links competing with the magazine. In other words, the magazine didn’t have exclusive rights to the term Clara. The panel agreed with this assessment.

The complainant argued that Marchex’s use of robots.txt to exclude bots from visiting the site, including Archive.org, was a sign of bad faith. Complainants frequently suggest that using robots.txt to block archive.org is a sign of bad faith, especially when the block is placed after a complaint is received. In this case, robots.txt was in place well before the complaint was made. Further, Marchex and sttorney John Berryhill explained many legitimate reasons why the company uses robots.txt on parked domain names:

1. Lowers bandwidth costs
2. Limits click fraud and appearance of click fraud due to same IP
3. Avoids reverse engineering, copyright issues, click fraud, and other issues inherent with archiving
4. Keep parked pages out of search engines
5. Archived pages show only what was visible in one location; geo-targeting of parked domains means archives not accurate for all users

Review and rate domain name parking companies at Parking Judge.

Typo? CanadaDrugs.com vs. CanadaRugs.com

Andrew Allemann — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 15:37:59 +0000

Online pharmacy argues “Rugs” is merely a typo of “Drugs”.

Take two of these and
fire your lawyer in the morning.

Here’s an interesting UDRP case from National Arbitration Forum.

The company that runs CanadaDrugs.com, a popular online pharmacy, filed a complaint against the owner of CanadaRugs.com, which is a parked page featuring links for rugs.

CanadaDrugs.com tried to argue that the owner of CanadaRugs.com was typosquatting:

Complainant submits that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to its website and Canada Drugs Marks and that respondent has merely removed the letter “d” from the spelling of the word “Drugs” in the Domain Name. Complainant also submits that this omission of the letter “d” constitutes typosquatting and that Respondent has registered the Domain Name in an effort to take advantage of internet users’ typographical errors. Complainant argues that this alteration is not sufficient to distinguish the Domain Name from its own domain name and registered marks.

Hmm. Did it not occur to their lawyers that “Rugs” is a word?

The links on CanadaRugs.com are clearly unrelated to drugs, but the complainant argued that the parked page was a sign of bad faith intent to profit on the “typo”.

The panelist found that the two domain names were not confusingly similar for this reason. He then considered the last two elements of the UDRP “for completeness”, finding in the respondent’s favor. But for some reason he neglected to consider reverse domain name hijacking, even though the respondent asked for it.

The kicker? CanadaRugs.com is available for purchase on Sedo for only 500 EUR.

Review and rate domain name parking companies at Parking Judge.