Latest news of the domain name industry

Recent Posts

ICANN terminates another registrar

Kevin Murphy, February 14, 2011, Domain Registrars

Another tiny domain name registrar has been given its marching orders by ICANN.

Best Bulk Register, which looks to have only a few hundred domains under management, will be shut down March 4, according to a letter (pdf) from ICANN’s compliance department.

The company had failed to pay over $10,000 in fees, and was not providing Whois services as required by the Registrar Accreditation Agreement, according to ICANN.

The registrar’s web site does not currently appear to resolve.

Best Bulk has until tomorrow to pick a registrar to take over its domains, or ICANN will pick one for it.

2 Comments Tagged: , ,

Dot Africa needs a registry

Kevin Murphy, February 13, 2011, Domain Registries

DotConnectAfrica, one of the organizations planning to apply to ICANN to run .africa as a new top-level domain, has put out its feelers for a technical back-end partner.

In a press release, DCA today solicited expressions of interest from registry services providers. “Presence and/or experience in developing markets” is said to be “preferred but not a must”.

I expect there will be quite a few EOIs winging their way to the company in the next few days.

The whole of Africa only has about 110 million internet users currently. But with only 11% penetration, there’s pretty good growth potential. And chances are there’s not a great deal of ccTLD lock-in yet.

The nearest equivalent existing TLD is .asia, which has about 185,000 active registrations.

That’s less than half as many as .asia had post-landrush, but still represents a nice chunk of change for a back-end provider that does not have to pony up the cash for marketing.

DCA is one of two organizations known to be pursuing a .africa bid, and easily the highest-profile of the two. The other is called Dot Africa.

As a geographical name protected by ICANN’s new TLDs Applicant Guidebook, .africa will only be awarded to an applicant with proven governmental support.

That likely means that it will be the African Union, not ICANN, that ultimately decides the winner. In this slide deck, DCA says it has support from the AU and from 20% of African governments.

2 Comments Tagged: , , , , ,

Why ICANN dropped registrar ownership rules

Kevin Murphy, February 13, 2011, Domain Registries

ICANN has quietly published a list of 10 reasons explaining why it decided to start allowing domain name registrars and registries to buy each other.

Last November, ICANN’s board of directors voted to drop so-called “vertical integration” rules that previously prevented registries owning more than a small percentage of registrars.

Now, under the forthcoming new top-level domains program, the likes of eNom and Go Daddy will be able to apply to become gTLD registries, and registries like VeriSign and Neustar will be able to apply to run their own registrar businesses.

The decision was unexpected, appeared to be a U-turn, and ICANN’s explanation was not articulated sufficiently to sate critics such as the US Department of Commerce.

So now ICANN has published a “Draft Rationale” (pdf), a 17-page document that outlines some of the thinking that went into the decision.

In a nutshell, ICANN dropped the VI rules to increase competition, to avoid antitrust lawsuits, and because the harms that could arise due to cross-ownership are best addressed by other means.

Here are the rationale’s 10 major bullet points in full:

  • None of the proposals submitted by the GNSO reflect a consensus opinion; as a result, the Board supported a model based on its own factual investigation, expert analysis, and concerns expressed by stakeholders and the community.
  • ICANN’s position and mission must be focused on creating more competition as opposed to having rules that restrict competition and innovation.
  • Rules permitting cross-ownership foster greater diversity in business models and enhance opportunities offered by new TLDs.
  • Rules prohibiting cross-ownership require more enforcement and can easily be circumvented.
  • Rules permitting cross-ownership enhance efficiencies and almost certainly will result in benefits to consumers in the form of lower prices and enhanced services.
  • Preventing cross-ownership would create more exposure to ICANN of lawsuits, including antitrust lawsuits, which are costly to defend even if ICANN believes (as it does) that it has no proper exposure in such litigation.
  • The new Code of Conduct, which is to be part of the base agreement for all new gTLDs, includes adequate protections designed to address behavior the Board wants to discourage, including abuses of data and market power. Data protection is best accomplished by data protection tools, including audits, contractual penalties such as contract termination, punitive damages, and costs of enforcement, as well as strong enforcement of rules. By contrast, market construction rules can be circumvented and cause other harms.
  • Case-by-case re-negotiation of existing contracts to reflect the new crossownership rules will permit ICANN to address the risk of abuse of market power contractually.
  • In the event ICANN has competition concerns, ICANN will have the ability to refer those concerns to relevant antitrust authorities.
  • ICANN can amend contracts to address harms that may arise as a direct or indirect result of the new cross-ownership rules.

The document still needs to be approved by the ICANN board of directors before it can be considered official.

It appeared without fanfare on the ICANN web site a little over a week ago.

Comment Tagged: , , , ,

Afilias lawyers up for TLD applicants

Kevin Murphy, February 10, 2011, Domain Registries

Registry services provider Afilias has expanded its relationship with the law firm Crowell & Moring to support prospective new top-level domain applicants.

The two companies said this morning that they have entered into a memorandum of understanding under which Crowell will provide legal and business consultation to Afilias’s new TLD clients.

Afilias, along with VeriSign and Neustar, is expected to one of the major beneficiaries of the introduction of new TLDs, due to its experience managing the technical back-end for several existing TLDs.

Here at the .nxt conference in San Francisco this week, one oft-repeated message is that applicants can smooth their TLD application with ICANN by signing up an incumbent to provide the back-end.

Crowell is one of a small number of law firms with a specialist domain name consulting arm. It is affiliated with the IP Clearinghouse, which wants to play a key role in new TLD launches.

1 Comment Tagged: , , , ,

Neustar wins .gay contract

Kevin Murphy, February 9, 2011, Domain Registries

Neustrar has signed a deal to provide back-end registry services to DotGay LLC, one of the companies hoping to apply for .gay as a new top-level domain.

There are currently two companies planning to apply for .gay that I’m aware of. The other, the Dot Gay Alliance, has chosen Minds + Machines as its back-end partner.

The positioning is quite interesting. Scott Seitz, CEO of DotGay, played up the need for more security and stability in a TLD that may find itself the target of homophobic cyber-attacks.

In a press release due out tomorrow, Seitz says:

While security is always a concern for any gTLD, the GLBT community is at a higher risk of discrimination, making system integrity a critical component in the selection of a registry partner.

Neustar, which runs .biz and several other TLDs, has more experience running high-traffic registries than M+M. However, this fact will likely not be relevant to which company wins .gay.

Under the ICANN new TLDs program, applicants have to prove themselves capable of running a registry, but contested TLD applicants are not compared against each other based on technical prowess.

It’s much more likely that the two (or more) .gay applications will live or die based on community support or, failing that, how much money they are prepared to pay at auction.

The .gay TLD is likely to also be a flashpoint for controversy due to ongoing debates about governments’ ability to block TLDs based on “morality and public order” objections.

Recent mainstream media coverage has focused on .gay as a likely test case for governmental veto powers.

6 Comments Tagged: , , , , ,