Latest news of the domain name industry

Recent Posts

Van Couvering takes over M+M parent

Kevin Murphy, November 9, 2010, Domain Registries

Antony Van Couvering, chief executive of new top-level domains hopeful Minds + Machines, has taken over as CEO of its parent company, Top Level Domain Holdings.

He replaces Fred Krueger, who remains as chairman, according to StockMarketWire.com.

Casper von Veltheim, head of the German operation, will also become director of European operations.

The changes are related to the recent announcement of a timetable for the introduction of new TLDs, according to Krueger.

M+M plans to apply for a number of TLDs, including .gay, and provides consulting and back-end services to other TLD applicants.

1 Comment Tagged: , , ,

Correction: Arab League calls for ICANN recognition

Kevin Murphy, November 9, 2010, Domain Policy

Back in September, I reported that the League of Arab States had asked ICANN to officially recognize the Arab region, in a letter from its secretary-general, Amre Moussa.

A significant part of the article relied upon the assumption that the League was asking for such recognition to be reflected in ICANN’s bylaws, which would grant the region more power in ICANN.

That assumption was incorrect.

I’ve learned recently that the letter in fact referred purely to a request for recognition of the region in ICANN’s new top-level domain Applicant Guidebook, and not the bylaws.

The League, in fact, was only seeking protection for geographic terms from the Arab region, largely due to a local plan to apply for “.arab” as a TLD. I have confirmed this with ICANN.

Recently, ICANN chief executive Rod Beckstrom wrote to Moussa in reply (pdf) to report that ICANN’s board has voted to expand the geographical regions list in the Guidebook such that it will now include the Arab region, as requested.

While I have not received any complaints, it’s very clear to me that the original article was shoddy reporting, and worthy of a correction.

It seemed easier to delete the original post rather than do a messy edit job on it, but I’m sure you’ll be able to find a copy in a cache somewhere if you’re particularly interested.

Comment

Serbia’s Cyrillic domain approved

Kevin Murphy, November 8, 2010, Domain Registries

Serbia has moved one step closed to having a localized version of its country-code top-level domain added to the DNS root, after ICANN approved its choice of string.

According to the Serbian National Register of Internet Domain Names (RNIDS), which manages .rs, ICANN has told it the Cyrillic string .срб has been approved (Serbian PDF).

The ccTLD would become the second Cyrillic namespace to be approved, after the Russian Federation, under ICANN’s internationalized domain name fast-track process.

Wikipedia tells me that Serbian is the only European language to use both Latin and Cyrillic characters, but that nowadays Cyrillic is the only official script.

I believe the Latin transliteration of the approved string is .”srb”.

RNIDS said it expects to start accepting registrations in the second half of 2011, following public consultations.

Comment Tagged: , , , ,

New TLD firms to ICANN: “Get on with it”

Kevin Murphy, November 8, 2010, Domain Registries

A number of prospective domain name registries have called on ICANN to shorten the window for its first round of new top-level domain applications.

While we now know that ICANN is working towards a May 30, 2011 opening date for applications, its recently published timeline does not specify how long the application period will last.

However, last month’s draft document “Delegation Rate Scenarios For New gTLDs” (pdf) states that the window of opportunity for TLD applicants will last 90 days.

Now, many of the companies and organizations that have been waiting the longest to apply have asked ICANN to narrow that period to 30 days.

Jon Nevett, president of Domain Dimensions, in a comment on the delegation rate report, wrote:

In prior presentations and discussions with ICANN staff, a 30-day application window had been discussed. I’m not sure how the 30 days turned into a 90-day window in this report. Tacking a 90-day window on after a four-month communications period does not make sense and is extremely unfair to applicants.

After the publication of the final Applicant Guidebook (AGB), ICANN plans to conduct a four-month outreach and marketing effort before accepting applications. The current draft AGB predicts an eight-month processing period for the very simplest applications.

Nevett, and others that subsequently echoed his views, believe that the longer window punishes companies that have invested resources in new TLD applications over the last few years.

There have already been a number of delays to the program’s launch, which was originally scheduled to kick off in 2009, and then mid-2010.

Nevett wrote:

Let’s stop punishing applicants by sucking them dry of all of their working capital by creating a seven-month communications/application period followed by a minimum eight-month review period piled on the years that they already have been waiting. We could do better.

His views were supported in separate comments by commercial operators including of Minds + Machines and .MUSIC, along with geo-TLD efforts including dotBERLIN and dotAfrica.

While the comment period has seen no opposing views, one criticism previously offered by opponents of the new TLD program is that it will unfairly benefit “insiders” – those people who participate regularly in ICANN for their own business purposes.

1 Comment Tagged: , , , , , , , ,

Will the new TLD guidebook provide answers?

Kevin Murphy, November 8, 2010, Domain Registries

ICANN is due to publish an Applicant Guidebook for new top-level domain registries tomorrow, and there are still big question marks over its contents.

Judging from a preliminary report from the ICANN board’s most-recent official meeting, some key decisions may not have yet been taken.

Perhaps the biggest unresolved issue is whether to permit the “vertical integration” of registry and registrar functions.

Which way ICANN swings on this problem will determine which companies are eligible to apply for new TLDs, how their business models will be structured, and how realistic “.brand” TLDs will be.

The ICANN community failed to reach consensus on this issue, largely due to differing business interests and a few consumer protection concerns.

But it looks like the ICANN board did not even discuss the matter at its October 28 meeting. The preliminary report has this to say:

2. Vertical Integration

In the interests of time, the Chair adjourned this item of discussion to a later date.

That “later date” may have been last Thursday and Friday, when the board held its rescheduled “retreat”, which is not designated as an official meeting.

On “Rec6”, previously known as the “morality and public order” objections process, the board passed no resolution October 28, but seems to have endorsed further discussions with the community.

The preliminary report states:

The Board discussed staff presentation and, in conformance with staff recommendation, directed staff to provide a briefing paper to the working group and to coordinate a call with the working group to further discuss the issues.

If the Rec6 working group mailing list and the GNSO calendar are any guides, that meeting has not yet been called (at least not publically).

The report also addresses geographic domains and issues that need to be taken into account given what ICANN’s Affirmation of Commitments with the US government says about new TLDs.

The Board agreed that staff provide a paper on geographic names to the GAC, the Chair of the GAC would check on the scope of issues still requiring discussion, and then the Chairs of the GAC and the Board would discuss the process for resolution to move this issue forward prior to Cartagena.

The Board discussed a paper regarding the adherence to the conditions set out in the Affirmation of Commitments in launching New gTLDs, and the need for identifying objective metrics to measure ICANN’s performance. The Board asked staff to consider what known performance indicators for the New gTLD program may be, what the adequacy scale is for measuring, and try to set that out for future conversation.

With all this in mind, it seems to me that while we may have a timeline for the launch of the new TLD program, there’s still much more to do than merely cross t’s and dot i’s.

Can we expect more placeholder text in tomorrow’s Applicant Guidebook?

Comment Tagged: , , , , , ,