Latest news of the domain name industry

Recent Posts

Eight more gTLDs get Chinese licenses

Kevin Murphy, October 12, 2017, Domain Registries

Radix and MMX have had four new gTLDs each approved for use in China.

MMX has had .work, .law, .beer and .购物 (Chinese for “shopping”) approved by the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology.

Radix gained approval for .fun, .online, .store and .tech.

The approvals mean that Chinese customers of Chinese registrars will be able to actually use domains in these TLDs rather than just registering them and leaving them barren.

It also means the respective registries have to apply more stringent controls on Chinese registrants.

They’re the first new gTLDs to get the nod from MIIT since April.

Only a couple dozen Latin-script new gTLDs have been given regulatory approval to operate fully in China.

MMX’s biggest success story to date, .vip, is almost entirely beholden to the Chinese market. Before today, it was also the only gTLD in its portfolio to pass the MIIT test.

The company said in a statement it has another four strings going through the approval process.

Radix already had .site on sale in China with government approval.

Double-charging claims as registries ramp up new gTLD refund demands

Kevin Murphy, October 10, 2017, Domain Registries

Registry operators have stepped up demands for ICANN to dip into its $100 million new gTLD cash pile to temporarily lower their “burdensome” accreditation fees.

A new missive from the Registries Stakeholder Group to ICANN this week also introduces a remarkable claim that ICANN may have “double charged” new gTLD applications to the tune of potentially about $6 million.

The RySG wants ICANN to reduce the quarterly fixed fees new gTLD registries must pay by 75% from the current $6,250, for a year, at a cost to ICANN of $16.87 million.

ICANN still has roughly $96 million in leftover money from the $185,000 per-TLD application fees paid in 2012, roughly a third of which had been earmarked for unexpected expenses.

When Global Domains Division president Akram Atallah refused this request in August, he listed some of the previously unexpected items ICANN has had to pay for related to the program, one of which was “implementation of the Trademark Clearinghouse”.

But in last week’s letter (pdf), the RySG points out that each registry was already billed an additional $5,000 fee specifically to set up the TMCH.

Your letter states that registry operators knew about the fee structure from the start and implies that changes of circumstance should be irrelevant. The TMCH charge, however, was not detailed in the applicant guidebook. ICANN added it on its own after all applications were accepted and without community input. Therefore, ICANN is very much in a position to refund registry operators for this overcharge, and we request that ICANN do so. Essentially, you would be refunding the amounts we paid with our own application fees, which should have been used to set up the TMCH in the first place.

These additional fees could have easily topped $6 million, given that there are over 1,200 live new gTLDs.

Was this a case of double-charging, as the RySG says?

My gut feeling is that Atallah probably just forgot about the extra TMCH fee and misspoke in his August letter. The alternative would be a significant accounting balls-up that would need rectifying.

RySG has asked ICANN for a “detailed accounting” of its new gTLD program expenses to date. If produced, that could clear up any confusion.

Group chair Paul Diaz, who signed the letter, has also asked for a meeting with Atallah at the Abu Dhabi public meeting later this month, to discuss the issue.

The letter also accuses ICANN of costing applicants lost revenue by introducing policies such as the ban on two-letter domains, increased trademark protections, and other government-requested restrictions that were introduced after application fees had already been paid.

The tone of the letter is polite, but seems to mask an underlying resentment among registries that ICANN has not been giving them a fair chance to grow their businesses.

UPDATE: This story was updated October 12 to correct the estimate of the total amount of TMCH setup fees collected.

Who should have rights to direct .au names?

Kevin Murphy, October 10, 2017, Domain Registries

Australian ccTLD registry auDA wants to know what you think about its plans to open up .au to direct second-level domain registrations.

It’s no longer a question of if the change should happen, but how it should be implemented.

A public consultation launched yesterday poses a series of questions about issues such as grandfathering, trademark rights and banning certain strings from registration.

It’s already been decided that existing third-level .au registrants should get first dibs on the matching second-level, but auDA has yet to decide what the eligibility cut-off date should be and for how long the names should be reserved before being released for registration by others.

The cut-off date is important because auDA has already seen some data suggesting possible domain investor gaming.

There were 193,645 strings that were registered as third-level domains in two zones at April 18, 2016, when the direct registration policy was announced, but that had risen to 255,909 as of September 1 this year.

That could be indicative of speculators obtaining low-value domains in .net.au or .org.au in the hope of beating the matching .com.au registrant to the possibly more valuable direct second-level .au domain.

If the April 2016 date is used, up to 14% of .au registrations will be subject to competing claims. The data shows that 90% of the conflicts are between .net.au and .com.au domains.

auDA has declined to draw any conclusions about gaming, however, saying that many of the conflicts could be defensive registrations made by the same registrant.

Where there are conflicts, a number of solutions have been posed. Among them: the longest continuous registration, priority for .com.au registrants, auction or lottery.

The consultation paper spends little time discussing the rights of trademark owners, something submissions from the IP lobby will no doubt seek to rectify.

Many of the questions auDA is posing are similar to those posed by the likes of .uk’s Nominet in previous ccTLD consultations.

There’s an additional wrinkle in the .au system as many state government and educational entities are required to register fourth-level names. So auDA wants to know what kind of rights these guys should have too.

The consultation is open until November 10 and all the relevant information can be found here.

Nine registries fighting for .au contract

Kevin Murphy, October 4, 2017, Domain Registries

Nine domain name companies are battling it out for the right to run Australia’s .au ccTLD.

That’s according to auDA, the .au registry, providing an update on the latest stage of its “registry transformation” project today.

A decision on which company to select could be made as soon as a month from now, though the process does seem to be running a week behind schedule due to contenders asking for more time to write their tenders.

One company that will certainly have applied for the job is incumbent Neustar, which has been running .au for the last 15 years (through its relatively AusRegistry acquisition).

Having earlier indicated that it was looking for somebody to build an in-house registry, auDA later clarified (or U-turned) that it wanted to stick with an outsourced back-end provider.

The apparent decision to bring the service in-house came in for some criticism from some auDA members, which waned when it emerged outsourcing was the only solution on the table.

There are about 3.1 million .au domains today, and the back-end gets roughly $5 a year (USD) per name.

In harsh tones, ccNSO rejects NomCom appointee

Kevin Murphy, October 2, 2017, Domain Registries

ICANN’s Country Code Names Supporting Organization has rejected the appointment to its Council of a Canadian registry director.

Saying NomCom ignored long-standing guidance to avoid appointing registry employees, the ccNSO Council has said the recent naming of Marita Moll to the role is “unacceptable”.

Moll will have to choose between sitting on the Council and being a director of .ca registry CIRA, the Council said in a letter to NomCom and the ICANN board.

Three of the Council’s 18 voting members are selected by NomCom. The rest are elected from ccTLD registries, three from each of ICANN’s five geographic regions.

To maintain balance, and promote independent views, the Council told NomCom most recently back in 2012 that it should refrain from appointing people connected to ccTLD registries.

The new Council letter (pdf) reads:

Council’s view (none dissenting) is that your Committee’s proposed selection directly contravenes this requirement, notwithstanding the clear and explicit assurance we received in 2012 from the then Chair of Nominating Committee that the Committee would be “avoiding any member already belonging to the ccTLD management participating in the ccNSO”.

The situation is exacerbated by the fact that CIRA already has representation on the Council in the form of CEO Byron Holland.

The letter concludes that the conflict is “irreconcilable” and the appointment “unacceptable”.

As the ccNSO does not appear to have refusal powers on NomCom appointees, it will presumably be up to Moll to decline the appointment.