11 April 2012

And what it says about the organization that it didn't

Last week ICANN approved its "digital archery" plan for splitting up new gTLD applicants into batches.

With between 1,000 and 1,500 applications expected, the batching process is going to be incredibly important, especially since, as one commentator has pointed out with some frustration, ICANN has given no indication of the time gap between batch processing.

If we take the assumption that it will be six months between batches (likely since ICANN has already agreed it will not add more than 1,000 extensions per year) - that means if you are in the third batch, your competitors will have a 12-month headstart. And that could mean the difference between success and failure.

1 April 2012

Filthy with cash from incoming new gTLD applications, ICANN is secretly working on a new “penthouse-level domains” project.

The program, detailed in leaked emails [pdf] between senior ICANN executives, will open up the space to the right of the final, overlooked dot in a fully-qualified domain name.

The new “pLD” project will allow brand owners, for example, to apply to run a domain name to the right of their newly acquired dot-brand gTLD, creating new marketing opportunities. Penthouse-level domains are believed to be the brainchild of outgoing CEO Rod Beckstrom.

I figured I may as well torpedo the whole joint on my way out,” he said, stuffing ICANN’s air-conditioning system with three-day-old sushi.

Officially, ICANN expects the program to be warmly welcomed by the trademark community. “The most common complaint we hear from dot-brand gTLD applicants is that they have no idea what to put at the second level,” said ICANN spin doctor Brad White.


1 April 2012

ICANN has formally approved a process for deciding which applications for new Internet extensions will be given priority.

The "digital archery" approach was approved at a special Board meeting last week with details released late Friday. It follows the approach outlined by ICANN staff a fortnight ago at the organization's meeting in Costa Rica - where it was met with significant criticism.

File, sorry, fire when ready

If there are "significantly more" than 500 applications for new gTLDs, ICANN will break applications into batches of 500. It is widely expected there will be between 1,000 and 1,500 applications, and consequently three different groups of applications.

31 March 2012
Premium content

The following presentation was given at a special session on Rights Protection Mechanisms at ICANN's Costa Rica meeting on 14 March 2012. See a full summary of that session. (Download slides)


  • Background on new rights protection mechanisms
  • Trademark Clearinghouse
  • URS


  • New gTLD Program founded in GNSO policy recommendations
  • GNSO Recommendation 3: Strings must not infringe the existing legal rights of others that are recognized or enforceable under generally accepted and internationally recognized principles of law.

Development of the RPMs

Rights Protections Mechanisms

New requirements

  • At start-up:
30 March 2012

KURT PRITZ: Good morning, everybody. Can we take seats? Thank you for giving some of your valuable time to come to this session on the progress made in the implementation of rights protection mechanisms. We hope it's informative. You'll have the ability to ask questions at the end. It will describe work that's occurred in preparation for the launch of the new gTLDs and the implementation of the rights protection mechanisms and the work that's going to occur. Specifically, we're going to discuss the implementation of the Trademark Clearinghouse, which includes a trademark validation service and also database administration service and provides Sunrise and IP claim services for new registries; the Uniform Rapid Suspension system, which is a rapid take-down process. And, finally, we're starting with esoteric acronyms that almost exceed the ICANN limit for letter number. But Post-Delegation Dispute Resolution Process, which is a remedy for those seeking a remedy directly against new registries rather than individual registrants that's operated under very careful standards.

30 March 2012

NADIA SOKOLOVA: Hello, everybody. We are going to give it another minute and then we will start.

KURT PRITZ: Welcome, everybody, to this session on universal acceptance of TLDs. I think it's going to be a very informative, important, and interesting session.

But for those of you that remember, back when we launched the sTLD round, the trial round of TLDs in 2003 and 2004, there were very specific questions at that time pertaining to the acceptance of TLDs.

People came to public forums at ICANN meetings and said some TLDs, domain names using some TLDs do not resolve in browsers. Some browsers screen out addresses as right or wrong, and many of the longer TLDs just don't resolve ore-mail doesn't work. ICANN should undertake some effort in that regard. And some effort was undertaken. ICANN was a lot smaller; did not have any significant communications wherewithal. Nonetheless, we embarked on certain efforts that are going to described by this panel today.

29 March 2012
Premium content

Domain name system overseer ICANN will create a two-tier Internet later this year with thousands of new Internet extensions required to follow different contractual obligations than the existing 21 "generic top-level domains" or gTLDs.

Under the terms of a new contract for the Internet's largest registry - dot-com - published this week for public comment, current owner Verisign will not be obliged to follow many of the new provisions created for new gTLDs.

As operator of the dot-com registry, for example, it will not have to abide by the new trademark protections included in the new gTLD process: the Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS), Post-Delegation Dispute Resolution Process (PDDRP), and Trademark Clearinghouse (TC).

It will also not be contractually affected by the radical market shift that ICANN has decided upon where suppliers of domain names (registrars) and operators of Internet extensions (registries) will no longer have to be entire separate entities.

Since the dot-com contract acts as the forerunner of any changes to the other existing registry contracts, it is extremely unlikely that the contractual changes developed over six years for new gTLDs will be applied to any existing extensions.

28 March 2012

Glen de Saint Géry: GNSO Secretariat, should I do the roll call?

Stéphane van Gelder: Yes, please.

Glen de Saint Géry: Jeff Neuman?

Jeff Neuman: Present.

Glen de Saint Géry: And you have the proxy vote for Ching Chiao who is absent.

Jeff Neuman: Yes.

Glen de Saint Géry: Jonathan Robinson?

Jonathan Robinson: Present.

Glen de Saint Géry: Mason Cole?

Mason Cole: Here.

Glen de Saint Géry: Yoav Keren?

Yoav Keren: Yes.

Glen de Saint Géry: Stephane Van Gelder?

Stephane Van Gelder: Yes.

Glen de Saint Géry: Thomas Rickert?

Thomas Rickert: Yes.

Glen de Saint Géry: John Berard?

John Berard: I am here.

Glen de Saint Géry: Zahid Jamil?

Zahid Jamil: Here.

Glen de Saint Géry: Brian Winterfeldt?

27 March 2012

The following model for evaluating how valid a domain name's registrant details are likely to be was presented by the UK's Serious Organized Crime Agency (SOCA) to a session on Whois validation at ICANN Costa Rica (March 2012).

During that meeting - which .Nxt has summarized in full - the 'Five C's' model was highlighted by GoDaddy's James Bladel as "the most helpful five minutes I've seen on this whole topic in two years."

Score: one point
per box
26 March 2012

The following list of possible ways to verify "Whois data" i.e. the information provided when someone registers a domain name, was published at ICANN's Costa Rica meeting in March 2012 in relation to ongoing negotiations over the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) - the key contract that defines how domains are registered.

Potential Steps for Verification of Whois Data

DRAFT for discussion purposes

Summary: Listed below are various steps that have been identified a possible mechanisms to achieve the verification of Whois data as requested in the Law Enforcement Recommendations. This list is not intended to be comprehensive, but to help guide conversation on where the line should be drawn in potential verification/accuracy processes.

  1. All required fields are complete and are not obviously missing information (e.g., telephone numbers, zip codes, etc. contain data).
  2. Email addresses are in the proper format (RFC 5322).
  3. Telephone / fax numbers (if provided) are in the proper format (ITU-T E.123 international notation).
Syndicate content