Search results for "verisign"
.Com registry offers $2 discount on deleting domain names.
Verisign is testing lower wholesale prices for deleting .com domain names later this month.
From December 15-31, registrars will be able to register .com domain names on the day they delete for $5.85. Regular wholesale pricing is $7.85 per year.
The domain names must be registered before midnight on the day they are deleted. They must be registered through the auto batch pool, which is a secondary registry-registrar connection. Most domain names registered are done through a “live” pool, which will not qualify for the discount.
This is an interesting test. The timing could be that Verisign is trying to push up its numbers just before the quarter ends. But it also could be that they are trying to figure out how to improve long term re-registration of domain names that expire. (Or maybe both.)
Verisign has considered offering tiered pricing on expired domain names, essentially discounting the price over time if there are no takers when the domain drops. But in this test the discount is only good on the day the domain expires, and the discount is the same if you grab the domain immediately after it drops or later in the day.
End user customers are unlikely to see any price decrease from the test.
Verisign loses another string confusion challenge.
Verisign, the registry for .net domain names, has lost a string confusion objection it brought against M-Net and its application for the top level domain .mnet.
M-Net is a pay-TV channel in South Africa. It applied for .mnet as a closed .brand domain name, and the closed nature weighed heavily in the panelist’s decision.
Verisign tried to argue that M-Net could change its business model in the future, and this could cause confusion with .net.
Panelist Bruce Belding considered that .mnet would be targeted to consumers in South Africa, and determined that people in this target market are not likely to be confused or misled by the coexistence of .net and .mnet domain names. He pointed out that the target market internet user is accustomed to differentiating between various domain names.
Verisign filed seven string confusion objections related to .net and lost all of them.
Despite Whois problems in June, Verisign reported meeting its SLA for .com.
Each month Verisign and the other domain name registries submit reports to ICANN that include their uptime and performance numbers.
One of the Service Level Agreements (SLAs) for Verisign’s .com contract is 100% uptime for Whois.
While reviewing recent registry reports this week I was surprised to see that Verisign reported it met its 100% SLA in June.
You may recall that Verisign had a hiccup in its Whois service in early June. When you searched for a domain on VerisignInc.com or via port 43, you received a response “No match for domain….” If you did the same domain search a second time you got the correct result.
This caused problems for anyone doing Whois lookups at the registry, not to mention some registrars that apparently use Whois for domain availability lookups (it’s uncommon for registrars to use Whois for this purpose).
I reached out to Verisign to understand why it reported 100% for Whois in June. The company released this statement to Domain Name Wire:
Due to a configuration issue, some users querying Verisign’s public Whois service during the period June 1-June 2, 2013, may have intermittently received an incorrect response of No Match for the specified domain name. We corrected the issue on June 2 and have implemented additional monitoring to prevent this from occurring again.
We conducted a review of the issue and determined in the course of that review that while non-persistent but nevertheless inaccurate responses are undesirable, they did not constitute what common understanding would call service unavailability.
Risk disclosures heavily focused on new top level domain names.
Verisign filed its 10-Q with the SEC last week. Comparing the risk factors section to the one in the previous quarter, it hasn’t changed much. Yet it’s interesting to see how changes at ICANN and new TLDs are finding their way into the risks section.
Here are some highlights:
the impact of decisions by distributors to offer competing or replacement products or modify or cease their marketing practices;
This relates to new top level domains, as well as other registries doing marketing deals with registrars to push their domains over .com and .net.
the impact of ICANN’s Registry Agreement for new gTLDs, which requires the distribution of new gTLDs only through registrars who have executed the new Registry Accreditation Agreement (“RAA”).
Essentially all registrars will have to sign the 2013 RAA before selling new TLDs.
the availability of alternatives to our products;
ICANN’s plan for the introduction of new gTLDs could cause security, stability and resiliency problems that could substantially and permanently harm our business;
This has been part of Verisign’s ongoing FUD campaign around new TLDs.
ICANN is mandated by the Affirmation of Commitments by the DOC and ICANN to uphold a “bottom-up” or “multi-stakeholder” Internet governance approach. We believe recent actions by ICANN have signaled a willingness to abandon this model on certain important issues that impact our business and the Internet community. If ICANN fails to uphold the multi-stakeholder model, it could harm our business and our relationship with ICANN;…
Another one of Verisign’s ongoing battles, which is certainly hurting the company’s business relationship with ICANN. Verisign told ICANN it believes it is failing to uphold the model, ICANN wrote back saying it’s wrong.
With the introduction of new gTLDs, many of our registrars, based upon their registrant needs, may choose to focus their short- or long-term marketing efforts on these new offerings and/or reduce the prominence or visibility of our products and services on their e-commerce platforms, and if we are unable to maintain their focus on our products and services or move through them to engage the same registrants, this could harm our business.
In other words, will registrars start showing new TLD options higher up in results than .com and Verisign’s other TLDs?
If other registries launch marketing campaigns for new or existing TLDs, including forms of marketing campaigns that we are prohibited from running under the terms of our agreements with ICANN, which result in registrars or their resellers giving other TLDs greater prominence on their websites, advertising or marketing materials, we could be at a competitive disadvantage and our business could suffer.
Similar issue here, except that Verisign’s contract may be more restrictive in requiring it to make the same offers to all registrars.
ICANN plans on offering a second round of new gTLDs after the completion of the initial round, the timing of which is uncertain. In addition, as set forth in the Verisign Labs Technical Report #1130007 version 2.2: New gTLD Security and Stability Considerations released on March 28, 2013, we believe there are issues regarding the deployment of the new gTLDs that should be addressed before any new gTLDs are delegated, and despite our efforts some of these issues have not been addressed by ICANN sufficiently, if at all.
Again, part of Verisign’s ongoing campaign to slow down the introduction of new TLDs.
There is one paragraph that appears to be new in the latest report regarding Verisign’s roll managing the root zone:
Under its new gTLD program, ICANN intends to recommend for delegation into the root zone up to 1,400 new TLDs potentially within a compressed timeframe. On October 23, 2013, the DOC authorized the delegation of the first four new IDN gTLDs. In view of our role as the Root Zone Maintainer, and as a root operator, we face increased risks should ICANN’s delegation of these new TLDs cause security and stability problems within the DNS and/or for parties who rely on the DNS. Such risks include potential instability of the DNS including potential fragmentation of the DNS should ICANN’s delegations create sufficient instability, and potential claims based on our role in the root zone provisioning and delegation process. These risks, alone or in the aggregate, have the potential to cause serious harm to our Registry Services business. Further, our business could also be harmed through security, stability and resiliency degradation if the delegation of new TLDs into the root zone causes problems to certain components of the DNS ecosystem or the third parties routing Internet communications present inconsistent data for these new TLDs or other aspects of the global DNS or other relying parties are negatively impacted as a result of unaddressed domain name collisions.
Domain name registry shows off its patent portfolio, but still won’t say how it plans to make money from it.
Verisign has created a website dedicated to its patents and released a whitepaper about its intellectual property – but still won’t say how it plans to monetize its IP portfolio.
Yesterday the company formally unveiled VerisignPatents.com, a sort of patent marking site that lists all of its patents.
For example, under the header “Domain Registry Services”, the company lists six patents that it claims protect its new gTLD services.
New Generic Top-level Domain (gTLD) Services
Verisign Product, New gTLD Services, are protected by the following U.S. Patent Nos.: 8,140,884; 8,327,019; 7,467,140; 8,090,693; 7,299,299; 8,527,945
The company also published a whitepaper titled Innovation + Initiatives that details “Verisign’s systematic approach to innovation and its extensive portfolio of intellectual property.”
On the company’s analyst conference call yesterday, one analyst asked if Verisign’s IP monetization plans just involved extracting royalties from competing registries. Verisign CEO James Bidzos responded “It’s more than that.”
Bidzos says the company is still evaluating its options for monetizing the IP. It will be interesting to see how aggressive the company is in going after competing registries, and how this might affect its future contract renewal for the .com namespace.