Displaying posts tagged under "google"
Group’s definition of “cloud community” is too broad.
Cloud Industry Forum Limited has lost its community objections against three applications for the .cloud top level domain name.
The objections were filed against the three applicants who planned to keep their .cloud registries closed to registrations: Google, Amazon.com, and Symantec.
Panelist Stephen L. Drymer ruled that the community Cloud Industry Forum claimed in the objection is not “clearly delineated.”
The trade group refereed to the community in question as the “cloud computing industry,” and then listed 13 examples of participants. They range from hosting providers to lawyers specializing in the field to entities that represent end-users.
Drymer determined that’s not a clearly delineated community:
“With respect, what Objector is proposing here is effectively a community of virtually anyone and everyone – individuals; businesses; private and public groups; professional, academic and government entities – having anything to do with or any interest in cloud computing.”
Drymer later clarified that it’s not just the generic nature of “cloud” alone that formed his opinion, but the broad and ever-changing community Cloud Industry Forum Limited sought to represent.
I wonder what would have happened had the objector simply said it represented cloud service providers and not everyone who touches cloud services? After all, “sport” can apparently be a community.
One applicant for .cars has good questions about how exactly it can resolve its contention set.
DERcars, an applicant for the .cars top level domain name, has filed a reconsideration request (pdf) with ICANN’s board after Google won a string confusion objection against the company’s .cars application.
I wrote about the .cars case a few weeks ago, and said that ICANN would be forced to act in the wake of the string confusion objection. As one reader pointed out, it won’t necessarily be forced to act. ICANN may be able to play a wait-and-see game, but the .cars situation is certainly sticky. Here’s why.
Google applied for .car, while DERcars, Donuts, and Uniregistry applied for .cars. Google subsequently filed string confusion objections against each of the .cars applications.
It lost the cases against Donuts and Uniregistry, but had good luck of the draw with the panelist for the DERcars objection and succeeded in that objection.
As a result, DERcars’ .cars application is placed in a contention set with Google’s application for .car. DERcars is also in contention with Donuts and Uniregistry. This means that Donuts and Uniregistry are in indirect contention with Google’s .car application. Here’s a graphic to explain this.
The dashed lines represent indirect contention and the solid lines indicate direct contention.
According to the rulebook, that means all four applications are currently in one contention set. They will remain in one contention set until the DERcars application is resolved. (This is my interpretation of the rulebook after consulting with a couple sources.)
But how will that work? Several applicants and industry participants I’ve corresponded with have different opinions on how it could be resolved. As DERcars points out in its reconsideration request, it would seem that DERcars might be forced to compete in two separate contention set auctions.
It casts a lot of uncertainty on all .car/.cars applicants.
Should Donuts and Uniregistry work out their contention set now, with the possibility that the winner between the two would then have to resolve the contention set with DERcars if it forces Google to pull out?
How would an auction of last resort work? Would one go before the other? Which one? If DERcars wins an auction against Google, would it then have to participate in another auction with Donuts and Uniregistry? Would there instead by some sort of simultaneous auction?
It’s rather complicated. ICANN hasn’t spelled out the details of its auction process yet, but after making some inquiries I don’t believe the full ramifications of this exact scenario were previously considered.
Perhaps the problem will be simplified. Maybe DERcars decides it can’t compete against Google. Perhaps Donuts and Uniregistry hold a private auction with part of the proceeds going to pay DERcars to exit the race.
Maybe “wait and see” will be the best way for ICANN to handle this. If it gets resolved on its own, designing the auction will be easier. But right now it’s rather messy.
Google buys CRR.com domain from Telepathy.
It would seem that good .com domains are still highly prized, even by new top level domain name applicants.
Google has acquired the domain name CRR.com, and I have no doubt it was acquired for the company’s new TLD subsidiary Charleston Road Registry.
Google currently uses the long domain name CharlestonRoadRegistry.com to promote its new TLDs. I’m somewhat surprised it is sticking with this brand for spreading public awareness of its new TLDs, but if it plans to use the brand then using a shortcut of CRR.com makes a lot of sense.
Congrats are in order to Nat Cohen and his company Telepathy, which sold the domain name to Google. Based on my knowledge of Telepathy’s domain name sales, I’d bet the domain was sold for either a high five figure amount or a low six figure amount.
Google to make one more domain open, Amazon relents on 25.
Google and Amazon.com have changed their minds about operating some of their applied-for generic top level domain names as “closed” domain names.
For many domains, the companies had planned to not offer second level domain name registrations, such as myname.blog, to the public. Instead, they planned to only register such domains within the company. Amazon wanted to keep all of its domain names restricted while Google has a mixed bag of registration policies.
Facing pressure, Google had already changed its mind on some applications. For example, in May it changed .app from a closed TLD to an open one.
But in the wake of “advice” from ICANN’s Governmental Advisory Committee, both Google and Amazon have retreated on more domain names.
Google plans to change one application, .blog, to an open domain.
Amazon’s move is much bigger. It has retreated on 25 domain names and now plans to offer registrations for .cloud, .game, .app, .search, and many others to the public.
It hasn’t (yet) changed its mind on other generics, such as .coupon and .smile.
Of course, there’s a pretty sizable loophole that would allow these companies to make their domains technically open to registration while limiting the number of actual third party registrations: pricing. The applicant guidebook does not prevent Amazon from charging $1 million a year for a domain registration, effectively blocking third parties from registering domains.
A conflicting opinion over .cars leads to an interesting contention set problem.
A panelist for a string confusion objection brought by Google against DERcars, LLC over the top level domain name .cars has ruled in favor of Google.
By ruling in favor of Google, that means DERcars’ application for .cars will be put into a contention set with Google’s application for .car.
This creates a big problem.
You see, DERcars’ application isn’t the only one for .cars. Donuts applied for it, too. Google also objected to Donuts’ application but a different panelist ruled against Google in that case. Uniregistry also applied and Google’s objection in that case is still outstanding. [Update: Uniregistry won its case.]
How will this work? One application for .cars will be in a contention set with .car, but at least one won’t.
If DERcars wins an auction against Google, would it then also have to go to auction against Donuts (and possibly Uniregistry?)
ICANN is going to be forced to show its hand after this decision. The issue of conflicting string confusion objections will have to be addressed.
[See the comments for discussion on how this will likely be handled.]