Displaying posts tagged under "icann"
Companies question result of panel decision that eliminated them from competition for .hotel domain name.
Six companies that saw their bids for the .hotel domain name die as a result of a Community Priority Evaluation decision in favor of HOTEL Top-Level-Domain S.a.r.l have asked ICANN for information regarding the decision.
The applicants filed a Document Information Disclosure Policy Request (DIDP) with ICANN on August 4. The DIDP requests resumes for people that served on the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) panel, as well as communications between the panel and ICANN and HOTEL Top-Level-Domain S.a.r.l.
The DIDP was signed by representatives of Donuts, Fairwinds, Fegistry, Famous Four Media, Minds + Machines and Radix.
ICANN has rebuffed the request (pdf), noting that EIU was contracted as a third party and that ICANN doesn’t have information about the specific panelists on the .hotel case. It declined to release other requested information on the grounds that it would violate non-disclosure provisions in the contract between ICANN and EIU.
Delays now require all-party consent, so contention set resolution should accelerate.
ICANN has published an updated “auction of last resort” schedule for new top level domain names.
It’s harder for individual applicants to postpone these auctions now that the framework for handling name collisions is finalized.
Postponements are now only possible if all parties in the contention set agree to the postponement. In that case, auctions can be postponed up to two months from their original date.
The next set of auctions will take place in September, unless they’re resolved by the parties ahead of time. On the schedule for September are .buy, .tech, .coach, .vip, .flowers, .ltd and .health.
Sources tell me that some of the TLDs on this list have already been settled privately. We’ll see that a lot going forward: last minute settlements ahead of an ICANN auction.
There are benefits to settling contention sets privately. Losers in ICANN auctions only get a small refund on their applications, whereas private settlements typically involve a payoff. Also, ICANN auction prices are public whereas private ones are not.
ICANN has held only one auction of last resort so far: .信息 was auctioned for $600,000.
Unfiltered tweet feed on ICANN website pokes fun at .xyz giveways.
Like many meetings/conferences, ICANN publishes a tweetstream on its page for each meeting. That includes the site for the upcoming ICANN 51 meeting in Los Angeles, which pulls in all tweets with the hashtag #icann51.
The conference is still a couple months away, so you won’t find many relevant tweets about the event. It’s also an unfiltered feed.
Which is what makes it funny. There are a bunch of parody accounts of ICANN CEO Fadi Chehadé, and one of them is featured front and center on the ICANN 51 meeting site right now:
The rest of the tweets on the page are due to spam hashtags from DomainGang.
Victims of terrorism want to be paid (in part) with country code top level domain names.
ICANN has responded to the U.S. federal court in the District of Columbia, arguing that ccTLDs (country Code top level domain names, e.g. .ca and .de) are not property and can’t be awarded to plaintiffs in a case involving terrorism.
Plaintiffs in Jenny Rubin, et al vs. The Islamic Republic of Iran, et al, say they are victims of terrorism from Iran, Syria and North Korea, and want control of country codes for each country (.IR, .SY, and .KP plus a couple IDN versions).
ICANN’s Motion to Quash argues that “country code Top-Level Domains (ccTLD) are part of a single, global interoperable Internet which ICANN serves to help maintain…ccTLD’s are not property, and are not ‘owned’ or ‘possessed’ by anyone including ICANN, and therefore cannot be seized in a lawsuit.”
ICANN’s general response was predictable.
Make no mistake — a ruling to the contrary would be devastating for the domain name system. One of the biggest threats to web is a splintering of the internet caused by governments upset that the U.S. government has too much control over the internet.
That’s a big part of the reason the U.S. government plans to end its role in the IANA contract for name delegation. It bothers other governments that the U.S. government has a sort of “veto power”.
While few people may be sympathetic to the three countries at issue, taking over their ccTLDs would be a horrible precedent that would throw the entire internet ecosystem into disarray.
It’s worth noting that gTLDs are a different matter. They are being treated like property and I wouldn’t be surprised to see them used as payment to settle legal issues in the future.
Domain Registry of America hits a wall.
ICANN has finally managed to suspend a scourge of the domain name registration business, Brandon Gray Internet Services (dba NameJuice.com).
You might not know the company by that name, but if you own domain names then you’ve likely received postal mailings from Domain Registry of America (DROA). The deceptive notices trick people into thinking they need to renew their domain name by responding to the notice. Doing so results in a transfer of the domain name to Brandon Gray registrar…and the pricetag is hefty.
The company has been doing this for over a decade. Register.com sued the company way back in 2002.
Many people in the ICANN community have been begging ICANN to take action for years. So why now?
For all its faults, you can credit the 2013 Registrar Accreditation Agreement for this one.
The 2013 RAA placed stricter controls on registrars as it relates to resellers. Accredited registrars can no longer turn a blind eye to activities undertaken by their resellers (or to hide behind resellers, as may be the case). This includes resellers undertaking deceptive advertising practices.
ICANN is also questioning (pdf) how the company obtained mailing addresses for so many domain name registrants. (In other words, it scraped whois to get the records).
The registrar is immediately suspended (although it hasn’t updated its website to reflect this) and may be terminated soon. ICANN sent a breach notice (pdf) along with the suspension notice. It has onerous requirements to cure the breach, including providing details behind all of its marketing activities.