Donuts, an ARI Registry Services subsdiary and CORE this morning became the first new gTLD applicants to sign registry contracts with ICANN.
The ceremonial signing took place live on stage at the opening ceremony of ICANN 47, the week-long public meeting in Durban, South Africa.
ARI CEO Adrian Kinderis signed on behalf of شبكة. applicant International Domain Registry. The string is Arabic for “.web” and transliterates as “.shabaka”. It is 3 in the program’s evaluation queue.
In an ARI press release, Go Daddy CEO Blake Irving confirmed that Go Daddy will carry .shabaka.
Donuts CEO Paul Stahura signed for .游戏, the Chinese-language “.games”, which had prioritization number 40.
It was not immediately clear which contracts Iliya Bazlyankov, chair of CORE’s executive committee, signed. CORE has applied for three internationalized domain name gTLDs with high priority numbers.
(UPDATE: Bazlyankov has been in touch to say: “We signed the .сайт (site) and .онлайн (online) contracts which had numbers 6 and 9 in the priority”.)
Representatives of Go Daddy, MarkMonitor, Momentous, Mailclub and African registrar Kheweul.com also joined ICANN CEO Fadi Chehade on stage to sign the 2013 Registrar Accreditation Agreement.
The event marks the beginning of the contract signing phase of the new gTLD program, an important milestone.
For applicants without outstanding objections, contention or Governmental Advisory Committee advice, signing a contract means only pre-delegation testing and the final transition to delegation remains.
ICANN has just published this week’s batch of new gTLD Initial Evaluation results, revealing 86 passing scores and two applications that must go to Extended Evaluation.
The .ged bid, which is intended to represent General Educational Development, was filed by a joint venture of the American Council on Education and the big publisher Pearson.
It’s the first example of an application to receive passing scores on both its financial and technical questions but to still require Extended Evaluation anyway.
The applicant had proposed a registry service related to internationalized domain names that gave the evaluation panels reason to believe a deeper evaluation was needed.
Uniquely so far, Extended Evaluation is likely to cost this applicant more money, due to the cost of a Registry Services Evaluation Panel.
Boston Consulting Group applied for .bcg as a dot-brand and failed because it scored a zero on its “Financial Statements” question, as most other IE failures have to date.
This weeks passing scores belong to these applications:
.redstone .institute .website .airtel .bestbuy .education .charity .shouji .alstom .multichoice .reit .bible .holiday .deutschepost .chrysler .terra .cam .inc .farm .cars .florist .financial .bet .design .cafe .sale .lundbeck .latino .iveco .inc .dodge .security .global .food .tradershotels .design .bond .zappos .rwe .commbank .landrover .house .cars .blog .fish .amazon .adult .wine .group .property .free .living .maserati .beauty .amsterdam .foodnetwork .broker .design .sucks .fans .tushu .discount .glass .fashion .search .school .linde .off .office .miami .trust .red .boats .immo .repair .dstv .claims .iinet .soccer .inc .mail .toshiba .law .love .suzuki .africa
There are now 730 applications still in Initial Evaluation. So far 1,092 have passed and 13 have failed.
A current, important debate in internet governance and operation of the multi-stakeholder model asks: when do the bottom-up policy-making volunteers let go and when do the staff policy implementers take over?
Drawing that line to the satisfaction of everyone seems impossible. That is because there is no bright line — the development and implementation of policy is a task requiring the constant attention and cooperation of policy makers and implementation teams.
Is an ICANN action a policy position? Or is it a mere implementation detail? Labels almost never work, especially one-word labels. Since when are ICANN issues black or white?
We’ve stopped discussing the issues, it is easier to discuss the labels: is it “policy” or “implementation”?
The multi-stakeholder model depends on communication, consideration and collaboration
ICANN has a rich history of its stakeholders butting heads with the Board and both butting heads with the staff: long lines at microphones, speaking in hyperbole, and wringing of hands that the multi-stakeholder model has failed. ICANN also has a rich history of staff-stakeholder collaboration in the formulation of policy and in the implementation of policy.
The initial Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy was little more than a framework. Then a team of ICANN staff and TLD registry operators met over a period of months and developed the implementation model. It really didn’t matter where the policy making ended and the implementation started. There was a resolve that there should be an easy-to-follow way for registrants to transfer names and there was teamwork to get that accomplished.
There are parallels in the “real” world. In 1990, the United States enacted the American with Disabilities Act (ADA). The ADA itself was little more than a framework also: American employers should make “reasonable accommodation” for those with a “disability.” What was a reasonable accommodation? And what qualified as a disability?
Over a period of many years, those questions have been answered through a series of many court cases and regulations. But in 1990 employers were trying to figure that out.
At the time, we worked on developing clear criteria that would let our employees know what was covered by the ADA. After failing at that, we developed an approach to treat employees as you would your brother-in-law. You are deferential to your brother-in-law (because you have to face your sister) but not totally deferential (after all, he is making love to her). You just treat him better than the letter of the law requires.
So when your employee comes up to you and asks for better lighting at his workstation, you don’t try to parse whether you are required to accommodate near-sighted employees. You say, this is my brother-in-law, and I will listen to his request and carefully consider it.
This is how a public participation model works. The stakeholders are not strangers to one another and the model only works if there is mutual trust and respect.
If someone says, “I want to be heard,” she is generally listened to. (That doesn’t mean discussion is never ending. If that same person wants to be heard again, and says the same thing without change, she will be disregarded. If she continually repeats the same demand and content, she will be shunned.)
Policy versus Implementation should be Policy and Implementation
Take the example currently debated. There is a new gTLD policy element (approved in 2009) that states:
Strings must not infringe the existing legal rights of others that are recognized or enforceable under generally accepted and internationally recognized principles of law.
How does one implement that? The implementation of trademark rights protection mechanisms were developed after years of community/staff consultation, “implementability” studies, draft positions, memoranda describing potential solutions and the reasoning behind them, debate, and discussion.
When things were apparently settled, new parties joined the ICANN discussion — they were welcomed as were their opinions. ICANN was richer because there were new participants in the model. New implementation models were written. Finally, there was an indication the discussion was spent. The work was “said and done.”
Then, apparently, not all was said-and-done. After the gTLD program was launched, there were new suggestions and participants. ICANN decided to entertain those ideas. After a round of community feedback, a subset of the new suggestions was recommended by ICANN for inclusion into the implementation plan for new gTLDs.
ICANN’s policy makers, the GNSO, weighed in, agreeing with many of the conclusions but picking one of the recommendations and saying, “we’d like to talk a bit more about this one because we don’t fully understand its implications and effects.” (Unfortunately, the GNSO didn’t say exactly that, it sounded more to me like, “this item is policy and therefore it cannot be implemented without our consensus opinion.”)
Now, if my brother-in-law says he wants to talk about something some more, even if he doesn’t give a good reason, I am ready to indulge him. But ICANN did not indulge the GNSO. Now, we are in a policy versus implementation discussion: what work is the province of policy makers, and the province of implementers? The GNSO is considering ICANN Bylaw changes to ensure they are heeded.
Bylaw changes are not the lynchpin to multi-stakeholder model success. Putting rules in place for how and when to listen never work. There will always be exceptions. (Another whole piece can be written on how the rules governing communications between ICANN and its Governmental Advisory Committee have failed to facilitate the success of the multi-stakeholder model.)
Processes and procedures (as they are currently described in the Bylaws) are important. We must have clear rules for creation of consensus policy, with timelines and borders to ensure that issues are addressed and rights are respected.
But the operation of the multi-stakeholder model is more complicated than following those processes. The success of the model depends on the mutual trust and respect of the participants, and the ability to actively listen and to understand what is meant, even if that is not exactly what is said.
Rather than create new rules or discuss how one side can prevent the other from abusing its position, the volunteers, staff and Board should look inwardly to improve its own listening and communicating.
You’re my brother-in-law. I am ready (more than ready) to disagree with you, but first I am going to listen to what you have to say.
This is a guest post written by Kurt Pritz, ICANN’s former chief strategy officer. He is currently an independent consultant working with new gTLD applicants and others.
Donuts has prevailed in the first big dust-up between a portfolio gTLD applicant and a dot-brand hopeful.
The World Intellectual Property Organization today published its decision (pdf) in the Legal Rights Objection filed by a clothing retailer called Express over the .express gTLD.
The ruling could have a big impact on future rounds of the new gTLD program, possibly giving rise to an influx of defensive, generic-word dot-brand applications.
Both Express and Donuts have applied for .express. They’re the only two applicants for the string.
Express runs about 600 stores in the US and elsewhere and has had a trademark on its name since 1979. Donuts, as with all of its 307 original applications, wants to run .express as an open gTLD.
Express argued in its LRO that a Donuts-run .express would severely damage its brand, saying:
Should applicants for new TLDs be able to operate unrestricted TLDs represented by generic words which are also extremely well known brands, billions of dollars of goodwill will be wiped out in a TLD heartbeat.
Donuts, in its response, pointed out that there are thousands of uses of the word “express” in trademarks and other contexts, and even produced a survey that it said showed only 8% of fashionistas even associate the word with the brand.
The WIPO panelist, after what appears to have been something of a crisis moment of wondering what the hell ICANN was thinking when it designed the LRO, sided with Donuts. He said:
The Panel ultimately decides that the trademark owner (Complainant) should not be able to prevent adoption by the applicant (Respondent) of the applied-for gTLD <.express> in the particular context presented here. While Complainant certainly owns rights in the EXPRESS trademark for use in connection with apparel and fashion accessories, and while that trademark is reasonably well known among a relevant segment of consumers in the United States, there are so many common usages of the term “express” that it is not reasonable to foreclose its use by Respondent as a gTLD.
He follows up with a few sentences that should give owners of dictionary-word trademarks reason to be worried.
The Panel recognizes that, should Respondent successfully secure the gTLD, Complainant may be required to address potential Internet user confusion in the commercial marketplace for its products based on the registration (or attempted registration) of certain second level domains. However, Complainant faces this risk because it adopted a common word in the English language for its trademark. Moreover, Complainant has applied for the identical <.express> string as a gTLD in competition with Respondent. Ultimately, the parties may well end up in an auction contest for the gTLD. This is not Complainant’s last chance to secure its trademark as a gTLD.
In other words, Express can either pay ICANN or Donuts a bunch of cash at auction to get its dot-brand, or it can let Donuts win and spend a bunch of cash on defensive registrations and UDRP/URS complaints. Not a great result for Express either way.
The panelist takes 10 pages of his 26-page decision to explain his deliberations, but it basically boils down to this: Express’ trademark is too generic to give the company exclusivity over the word.
It’s hard to disagree with his reasoning.
If subsequent LROs go the same way, and I suspect they will, then it will quickly become clear that the only way to guarantee nobody else gets your dictionary-word brand as a gTLD will be to apply for it yourself and fight it all the way to auction.
The Internet Architecture Board believes dotless domain names would be “inherently harmful to Internet security.”
The IAB, the oversight committee which is to internet technical standards what ICANN is to domain names, weighed into the debate with an article apparently published yesterday.
In it, the committee states that over time dotless domains have evolved to be used only on local networks, rather than the internet, and that to start delegating them at the top level of the DNS would be dangerous:
most users entering single-label names want them to be resolved in a local context, and they do not expect a single name to refer to a TLD. The behavior is specified within a succession of standards track documents developed over several decades, and is now implemented by hundreds of millions of Internet hosts.
By attempting to change expected behavior, dotless domains introduce potential security vulnerabilities. These include causing traffic intended for local services to be directed onto the global Internet (and vice-versa), which can enable a number of attacks, including theft of credentials and cookies, cross-site scripting attacks, etc. As a result, the deployment of dotless domains has the potential to cause significant harm to the security of the Internet
The article also says (if I understand correctly) that it’s okay for browsers to interpret words entered into address bars without dots as local resources and/or search terms rather than domain names.
It’s pretty unequivocal that dotless domains would be Bad.
The article was written because there’s currently a lot of talk about new gTLD applicants — such as Google, Donuts and Uniregistry — asking ICANN to allow them to run their TLDs without dots.
There’s a ban in the Applicant Guidebook on the “apex A records” that would be required to make dotless TLDs work, but it’s been suggested that applicants could apply to have the ban lifted on a case by case basis.
More recently, ICANN’s Security and Stability Advisory Committee has stated almost as unequivocally as the IAB that dotless domains should not be allowed.
But for some reason ICANN recently commissioned a security company to look into the issue.
This seems to have made some people, such as the At Large Advisory Committee, worried that ICANN is looking for some wiggle room to give its new gTLD paymasters what they want.
Alternatively, ICANN may just be looking for a second opinion to wave in the faces of new gTLD registries when it tells them to take a hike. It was quite vague about its motives.
It’s not just a technical issue, of course. Dotless TLDs would shake up the web search market in a big way, and not necessarily for the better.
Donuts CEO Paul Stahura today published an article on CircleID that makes the case that it is the browser makers, specifically Microsoft, that are implementing DNS all wrong, and that they’re objecting to dotless domains for competitive reasons. The IAB apparently disagrees, but it’s an interesting counterpoint nevertheless.