Latest news of the domain name industry

Recent Posts

New gTLD hopefuls set aggressive targets for ICANN

Kevin Murphy, August 22, 2012, Domain Registries

ICANN should start delegating new gTLDs in the first quarter of next year as previously planned and the Governmental Advisory Committee should work faster.

That’s according to many new gTLD applicants dropping their ideas into ICANN’s apparently semi-official comment box on application “metering” over the last week or so.

ICANN wanted to know how it should queue up applications for eventual delegation, in the wake of the death of batching and digital archery.

According to information released over the past couple of weeks, it currently plans to release the results of Initial Evaluation on all 1,924 still-active applications around June or July next year, leading to the first new gTLDs going live in perhaps August.

But that’s not good enough for many applicants. Having successfully killed off batching, their goal now is to compress the single remaining batch into as short a span as possible.

The New TLD Applicant Group, a new observer group recognized by ICANN’s Registry Stakeholder Group, submitted lengthy comments.

NTAG wants Initial Evaluation on all applications done by January 2013, and for ICANN to publish the results as they trickle in rather than in one batch at the end.

The suggested deadline is based on ICANN’s recent statement that its evaluators’ processing powers could eventually ramp up to 300 applications per month. NTAG said in its comments:

Notwithstanding ICANN’s statements to the contrary, there is not a consensus within the group that initial evaluation results should be held back until all evaluations are complete; in fact, many applicants believe that initial evaluation results should be released as they become available.

That view is not universally supported. Brand-centric consultancy Fairwinds and a couple of its clients submitted comments expressing support for the publication of all Initial Evaluation results at once.

January 2013 is an extremely aggressive deadline.

Under the batching-based schedule laid out in the Applicant Guidebook, 1,924 applications would take more like 20 months, not seven, to pass through Initial Evaluation.

NTAG could not find consensus on methods for sequencing applications among its members. Separate submissions from big portfolio applicants including Donuts, Uniregistry, TLDH and Google and smaller, single-bid applicants gave some ideas, however.

Donuts, for example, hasn’t given up on a game-based solution to the sequencing problem – including, really, Rock Paper Scissors – though it seems to favor a system based on timestamping.

The company is among a few to suggest that applications could be prioritized using the least-significant digits of the timestamp they received when they were submitted to ICANN.

An application filed at 15:01:01 would therefore beat an application submitted at 14:02:02, for example.

This idea has been out there for a while, though little discussed. I have to wonder if any applicants timed their submissions accordingly, just in case.

Comments submitted by TLDH, Google and others offer a selection of methods for sequencing bids which includes timestamping as well alphabetical sorting based on the hash value of the applications.

This proposal also supports a “bucketing” approach that would give more or less equal weight to five different types of application – brand, geographic, portfolio, etc.

Uniregistry, uniquely I think, reckons it’s time to get back to random selection, which ICANN abandoned due to California lottery laws. The company said in its comments:

Random selection of applications for review should not present legal issues now, after the application window has closed. While the window was still open, random selection for batches would have given applicants an incentive to file multiple redundant applications, withdrawing all but the application that placed earliest in the random queue and creating a kind of lottery for early slots. Now that no one can file an additional application, that lottery problem is gone.

Given that the comment was drafted by a California lawyer, I can’t help but wonder whether Uniregistry might be onto something.

Many applicants are also asking the GAC to pull its socks up and work on its objections faster.

The GAC currently thinks it can file its official GAC Advice on New gTLDs in about April next year, which doesn’t fit nicely with the January 2013 evaluation deadline some are now demanding.

ICANN should urge the GAC to hold a special inter-sessional meeting to square away its objections some time between Toronto in October and Beijing in April, some commenters say.

ICANN received dozens of responses to its call for comments, and this post only touches on a few themes. A more comprehensive review will be posted on DI PRO tomorrow.

Is .city confusingly similar to .citi? UDRP says yes

Kevin Murphy, August 14, 2012, Domain Registries

In one of the more surprising twists to hit the new gTLD program, Citigroup has claimed that its proposed dot-brand gTLD, .citi, is not “confusingly similar” to the proposed generic gTLD .city.

The company appears to be trying to avoid getting into a contention set with the three commercial applicants for .city, which would likely put it into an expensive four-way auction.

It’s a surprising move because you’d expect a financial services company to want to at least try to mitigate the risk of future .city/.citi typo-based phishing attacks as much as possible.

Indeed, its .citi application states that the mission of the gTLD “is to further assist Applicant in accomplishing its mission of providing secure online banking and financial services”.

Nevertheless, the company is now arguing, in a few comments filed with ICANN today, this:

CITI and CITY are not so similar in an Internet context as to create a probability of user confusion if they are both delegated into the root zone. Thus, the .CITI application should not be placed into a contention set with the .CITY application.

The new Citigroup position is especially bewildering given that it has argued the exact opposite — and won — in at least two UDRP cases.

In the 2009 UDRP decision Citigroup Inc. v. Domain Deluxe c/o Domain Administrator, Citigroup contended that:

Respondent’s citywarrants.com domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CITIWARRANTS mark.

The panelist in the case concluded that the Y variant of the name was merely a “mistyped variation” of and “substantively identical” to the Citigroup trademark.

A similar finding appears to have been handed down in Citigroup v Yongki, over the arguably generic citycard.com, but the decision is written in Korean so I can’t be certain.

The company’s current view, which I’m going to go out on a limb on and characterize as expedient, is that ICANN has delegated multiple ccTLDs that have only one character of variation in the past (it hasn’t — the ccTLDs it cites all pre-date ICANN) without causing confusion.

It also states in its comments that the meaning and proposed usage of the two strings is “very different” (which one commenter has already suggested is historically dubious).

So what’s going on here?

Is Citigroup really willing to risk potential phishing problems down the line to save a few measly bucks today? On the face of it, it looks that way.

If it is put in a contention set with the three .city applicants, it could wind up at auction against Donuts ($100m funding), TLD Registry Ltd (apparently backed by the Vision+ fund) and Directi.

Will Citigroup’s gambit pay off?

That’s down to a) the String Similarity Panel and b) whether any of the .city applicants tries to force the company into the contention set via a String Confusion Objection, which seems unlikely.

More than half of new gTLD apps have comments

Kevin Murphy, August 14, 2012, Domain Registries

Over half of ICANN’s 1,930 new generic top-level domain applications have received comments, two days after the original deadline for having them considered expired.

There are 6,176 comments right now, according to the ICANN web site, and the DI PRO database tells me that they’ve been filed against 1,043 distinct applications covering 649 unique strings.

It looks like .sex is in the lead, with 275 comments — I’m guessing all negative — followed by its ICM Registry stablemates .porn (245) and .adult (254), due to the Morality in Media campaign.

The controversial dot-brand bid for .patagonia, which matches a region of Latin America, has been objected to 205 times.

Some that you might expect to have created more controversy — such as .gay (86) and .islam (21) — are so far not generating as many comments as you might expect.

Donuts has received the most comments out of the portfolio applicants, as you might expect with its 307 applications, with 685 to date.

Famous Four Media’s applications have attracted 416 and Top Level Domain Holdings 399.

Despite applying for .sexy, Uniregistry has a relatively modest 64 comments. That’s largely due to it managing to avoid being whacked by as many duplicate trademark-related comments as its rivals.

There have been 1,385 unique commenters (trusting everybody is being forthright about their identity) with as many as 486 affiliations (including “self” and variants thereof).

Big hotel chains pick a side in .hotel gTLD fight

Kevin Murphy, August 11, 2012, Domain Registries

Many of the world’s major hotel chains say they plan to object to every .hotel new gTLD application but one.

A coalition of many recognizable hotel brands, led by InterContinental, has filed comments against six of the seven .hotel applications, as well as the applications for .hotels, .hoteis and .hoteles.

They say they want the Independent Objector to object to these applications on community grounds. Failing that, they’ll file their own official Community Objections.

The comments (PRO) were filed by the Hotel Consumer Protection Coalition, which appears to be one of those ad hoc organizations that exists purely to send letters to ICANN.

HCPC encourages the Independent Evaluator to submit a formal Community Objection if necessary. (Guidebook, Sec. 3.2.5.) Failing either of these occurrences, HCPC will seriously consider filing a Community Objection of its own – unless, of course, Applicant voluntarily withdraws its application.

The coalition’s members include the Choice Hotels, InterContinental, Hilton, Hyatt, Marriott, Starwood and Wyndham hotel chains. Together, they say they have over 25,000 hotels in over 100 countries.

The lucky recipient of the coalition’s tacit support is HOTEL Top-Level-Domain, the Luxembourg-based applicant managed by Johannes Lenz-Hawliczek and Katrin Ohlmer, which is using Afilias as its back-end.

It’s one of only two .hotel applicants flagged in the DI PRO database as planning to use a “restricted” business model. Only hotels, hotel chains and hotel associations will be able to register.

The other applicant with planned restrictions is a subsidiary of Directi, though its application suggests that any eligibility requirements would only be enforced post-registration.

HOTEL Top-Level Domain is also the only applicant that appears to be pursuing a single gTLD. All but one of the others are portfolio applicants of various ambitions.

Top Level Domain Holdings, Donuts, Famous Four Media and Fegistry all plan “open” business models for .hotel, while Despegar Online is planning a single-registrant space.

The Hotel Consumer Protection Coalition’s support for HOTEL Top-Level Domain is conditional, however. The company has apparently had to agree to explicitly exclude:

“any entity other than a hotel, hotel chain, or organization or association that is not formed or controlled by individual hotels or hotel chains”

It’s also agreed to “immediately suspend” any “clear violations”, such as cases of cybersquatting, when notified by coalition members, and to include its members’ brands on a Globally Protected Hotel Marks List.

The support has apparently been granted extremely reluctantly. InterContinental explicitly does not support the new gTLD program, and Marriott has previously said it thinks .hotel is pointless.

I can’t imagine a .hotel supported by companies that have no plans to use it being particularly successful.

Did Google withdraw three new gTLD applications?

Kevin Murphy, August 10, 2012, Domain Registries

Is Google behind the three new gTLD applications that have already been withdrawn?

ICANN senior veep Kurt Pritz revealed yesterday that three applications were already on the scrap heap, long before they’ve been evaluated, but he didn’t say which ones.

After a helpful nudge from a DI commenter, my best guess now is that they’re Google’s applications for .and, .are and .est.

As I blogged here and reported here over a month ago, these three strings are all protected geographic names, under ICANN’s rules.

They’re the ISO 3166-1 alpha-3 codes for the United Arab Emirates, Estonia and Andorra, which would be classified as country names and therefore banned by the Applicant Guidebook.

Many thanks to Silvia for the reminder.