Latest news of the domain name industry

Recent Posts

Cars gTLD launch clears $1 million in EAP

Kevin Murphy, January 20, 2016, Domain Registries

There was a small turn-out for the premium launch of .cars, .car and .auto gTLDs, but the registry says it cleared over $1 million in revenue.

The three gTLDs are run by Cars Registry, a venture between Uniregistry and XYZ.com.

They all finished their pricey Early Access Periods yesterday and are due to enter general availability today.

The EAP started January 12 with prices of $45,000 per domain. In GA, they won’t cost you less than $2,000.

While zone files show almost no new domains appearing between January 12 and today — three or four per domain at most — Uniregistry CEO Frank Schilling said EAP was a “success”.

“More than 100 dealers and brands took advantage of sunrise and EAP,” he said.

It appears there are a few dozen domains not appearing in zone files yet.

The three gTLDs combined have brought in over $1 million during EAP, Schilling said.

.cars domains to start at $45,000, retail for $2,500

Kevin Murphy, October 29, 2015, Domain Registries

Cars Registry has set pricing for .car, .cars and .auto domains at crazy-high levels.

If you want to buy a domain in any of the three gTLDs on day one, it will cost you a whopping $45,000.

If you buy one during regular general availability, it’s likely to set you back $2,500.

The registry, a partnership of Uniregistry and XYZ.com, has set its registry fee at $2,000, according to an email sent to registrars this week.

That’s a buck higher than .sucks, one of the most expensive new gTLDs to launch to date.

The sunrise fee will be $3,000 — made up of the regular $2,000 fee plus an added $1,000. Again, that’s higher than .sucks.

The Early Access Period — which, as reported yesterday, has replaced the more usual landrush — will run for nine days with prices ranging from $45,000 to $5,000.

Compared to the usual models of XYZ.com and Uniregistry, which tend towards the mass-market, these prices are colossal.

I wonder how much the pricing was influenced by the fact that the registry has the car-related gTLD market almost entirely sewn up.

Its only potential competitor is .autos, which has been delegated for almost 18 months but has yet to even reveal its launch plans and probably isn’t going to be available to the mass market anyway.

Sunrise for all three gTLDS is due to start December 9, ending January 12. EAP will begin that day, and GA will start January 20.

XYZ and Uniregistry acquire .car from Google, launch joint venture

XYZ.com and Uniregistry have launched a joint venture to operate a trio of car-related new gTLDs, after acquiring .car from Google.

Cars Registry Ltd is a new company. It will launch .cars, .car and .auto later this year.

Uniregistry won .cars and .auto at auction last year. Google was the only applicant for .car.

It signed its ICANN contract in January but transferred it to Cars Registry a little under a month ago.

The newly formed venture plans to launch all three TLDs simultaneously in the fourth quarter this year.

.car is currently in pre-delegation testing. The other two are already in the root.

Cars Registry does not have the the car-related domain space completely sewn up, however.

Dominion Enterprises runs .autos, albeit with a plan to launch the TLD with restrictions that may well mean it does not directly compete with the other three TLDs.

Launch details for .cars, .car and .auto have not yet been released.

Judging by the gTLDs’ web site, they will run on the Uniregistry back-end.

Uniregistry wins .cars gTLD

Kevin Murphy, October 8, 2014, Domain Registries

Uniregistry has won the .cars new gTLD at auction.

Donuts withdrew its competing application for the string this week. Third candidate DERCars’ application is still showing as active on ICANN’s web site.

However, Uniregistry CEO Frank Schilling confirmed to DI that his company has won the contention set.

The automobile-related gTLD space is quite congested and, one might argue, confusing.

Uniregistry’s .cars will compete with Google, which has an uncontested application for the singular .car, and DERCars which stood uncontested for the now-delegated .autos.

Uniregistry previously won the four-way fight for .auto at auction but has yet to contract with ICANN.

ICANN reveals gTLD objections appeals process

Kevin Murphy, February 12, 2014, Domain Policy

Two new gTLD applicants would get the opportunity to formally appeal String Confusion Objection decisions that went against them, under plans laid out by ICANN today.

DERCars and United TLD (Rightside), which lost SCOs for their .cars and .cam applications respectively, would be the only parties able to appeal “inconsistent” objection rulings.

DERCars was told that its .cars was too similar to Google’s .car, forcing the two bids into a contention set. But Google lost similar SCO cases against two other .cars applicants.

Likewise, Rightside’s .cam application was killed off by a Verisign SCO that stated .cam and .com were too similar, despite two other .cam applicants prevailing in virtually identical cases.

Now ICANN plans to give both losing applicants the right to appeal these decisions to a three-person panel of “Last Resort” operated by the International Centre for Dispute Resolution.

ICDR was the body overseeing the original SCO process too.

Notably, ICANN’s new plan would not give Verisign and Google the right to appeal the two .cars/.cam cases they lost.

Only the applicant for the application that was objected to in the underlying SCO and lost (“Losing Applicant”) would have the option of whether to have the Expert Determination from that SCO reviewed.

There seems to be a presumption by ICANN already that what you might call the “minority” decision — ie, the one decision that disagreed with the other two — was the inconsistent one.

I wonder if that’s fair on Verisign.

Verisign lost two .cam SCO cases but won one, and only the one it won is open for appeal. But the two cases it lost were both decided by the same ICDR panelist, Murray Lorne Smith, on the same grounds. The decisions on .cam were really more 50-50 than they look.

According to the ICANN plan, there are two ways an appeal could go: the panel could decide that the original ruling should be reversed, or not. The standard of the review is:

Could the Expert Panel have reasonably come to the decision reached on the underlying SCO through an appropriate application of the standard of review as set forth in the Applicant Guidebook and procedural rules?

The appeals panelists would basically be asked to decide whether the original panelists are competent or not.

If the rulings were not reversed, the inconsistency would remain in place, making the contention sets for .car, .cars and .cam stay rather confusing.

ICANN said it would pay the appeals panel’s costs.

The plan (pdf) is now open for public comment.

  • Page 1 of 2
  • 1
  • 2
  • >