Latest news of the domain name industry

Recent Posts

.shopping ruled confusingly similar to .shop

Kevin Murphy, October 17, 2013, Domain Registries

An International Centre for Dispute Resolution panelist has ruled that .shop and .shopping are too confusingly similar to coexist on the internet.

The panelist was Robert Nau, the same guy who ruled that .通販 and .shop are confusingly similar.

Again, the objector is .shop applicant Commercial Connect, which filed String Confusion Objections against almost every new gTLD application related to buying stuff online.

The defendant in this case was Donuts, via subsidiary Sea Tigers LLC.

Here’s the key part of the decision:

the concurrent use of “shopping”, the participle, and the root word “shop”, in gTLD strings will result in probable confusion by the average, reasonable Internet user, because the two strings have sufficient similarity in sound, meaning, look and feel. The average Internet user would not be able to differentiate between the two strings, and in the absence of some other external information (such as an index or guidebook) would have to guess which of the two strings contains the information the user is looking to view.

The adopters of the applicable standard of review for string confusion hypothetically could have allowed an unlimited number of top level domain names using the same root, and simply differentiate them by numbers, e.g., <.shop1>, <.shop2>, <.shop3>, etc., or other modifiers, including pluralization, or other similar variations of a root word, or other modifiers before or after the root word. While that might allow for increased competition, as argued by Applicant, it would only lead to a greater level of confusion and uncertainty among average, reasonable Internet users. Accordingly, the Applicant’s argument that the concurrent use of a root word and its participle version in a string increases competition is not persuasive in this context, and is rejected.

So far, Commercial Connect has lost 15 of the 21 SCOs it filed, against strings as weird as .supply and .shopyourway. Four cases remain open.

There are nine applicants for .shop, including Commercial Connect. Uniregistry has also applied for .shopping, but did not receive an objection.

Name collision block-lists to be published this week

Kevin Murphy, October 17, 2013, Domain Registries

ICANN will begin to publish the lists of domains that new gTLD registries must block at launch as early as this week, according to an updated name collisions plan released last night.

Registries that have already signed contracts with ICANN will be given their block-lists “before the end of this week”, ICANN said.

Registries that were not able to sign contracts because they’d been given an “uncalculated risk” categorization will now be invited, in priority order, to contracting.

The base Registry Agreement itself has been updated — unilaterally — to include provisions requiring registries to block second-level names deemed risky when they are delegated.

For each contracted gTLD, ICANN will provide what it’s calling a SLD Collision Occurrence Assessment, which will outline the steps registries need to take to mitigate their own collision risk.

It is also expected to contain a list of SLDs that have been seen on the Day In The Life Of The Internet data sets, collected from root server operators over 48-hour periods between 2006 and 2013.

Using previous years’ DITL data is news to me, and could potentially greatly expand the number of SLDs — already expected to be in the thousands in many cases — that registries are obliged to block.

“Most” new gTLD applicants are expected to be eligible for what ICANN calls an “alternative path to delegation”, in which the registry simply blocks the SLDs on an ICANN-provided list, gets delegated, and deals with the SLD Collision Occurrence Assessment at a later date.

Here’s how ICANN described the timetable for this:

For Registry Operators with executed registry agreements the Assessments and SLD lists will be posted to the specific TLD’s registry agreement page on the ICANN website. The first of these will be available before the end of this week.

In the coming weeks ICANN will post the alternative path eligibility assessments and SLD lists for all applied-for gTLDs.

In other words, if you haven’t already signed a contract there’s not yet a firm date on when you’ll find out how many — and which — names you’re expected to block, or even if you’re eligible for the alternative delegation path.

Trademark+50 costs $75 to $200 a pop

Kevin Murphy, October 15, 2013, Domain Services

The Trademark Clearinghouse has started accepting submissions under the new “Trademark+50” service, with prices starting at about $76.

It’s now called the Abused DNL (for Domain Name Label) service.

It allows trademark owners to add up to 50 additional strings — which must have been cybersquatted according to a court or a UDRP panel — to each record they have in the TMCH.

To validate labels found in court decisions, it will cost mark owners $200 and then $1 per abused string. For UDRP cases, the validation fee is $75.

If you’re on the “advanced” (read: bulk) fee structure, the prices drop to $150 and $50 respectively.

To add a UDRP case covering 25 domains to the Abused DNL would cost $100 in the first year and $25 a year thereafter, for example.

Adding a trademark to the TMCH costs between $95 and $150 a year, depending on your fee structure.

Second dot-brand gets ICANN contract

Kevin Murphy, October 15, 2013, Domain Registries

CITIC Group has signed a new gTLD Registry Agreement with ICANN, the second dot-brand to do so.

The Chinese financial services giant signed on the dotted line for .中信, the Chinese-script version of its company name.

The company has also applied for .citic, but that application is a little further down ICANN’s processing queue.

A little over two weeks ago, Samsung became the first dot-brand to enter into an ICANN registry contract.

CITIC becomes the 58th new gTLD with a contract, though 613 have been invited to contracting.

UPDATE: Oops! Thanks to the reader who alerted me to the fact that .中信 is actually the third dot-brand with a contract. The gTLD .otsuka (which is a Japanese pharmaceuticals company and not, as I thought, a geographic region) was in fact the second. I regret the error.

What does Neelie Kroes know about multistakeholderism?

Kevin Murphy, October 15, 2013, Domain Policy

European Commission vice president Neelie Kroes wants “your ideas on how the Internet should be governed and what Europe’s role should be.”

In a survey launched last week, Kroes, who has special responsibility for the “digital agenda” in Europe, criticized ICANN’s “multi-stakeholder” process.

She solicited suggestions on how governments should be treated within ICANN, and asked “How can a move from unilateral to multilateral accountability be realised?”

Kroes said on her blog (link in original):

we also must have a clearer view of what we mean when we speak of “multi-stakeholder processes”. I worry that without a clear definition, everyone will claim that their decision processes are inclusive and transparent, when in practice they are not – as was shown recently, when the Governmental Advisory Committee of ICANN pressed on regardless – in spite of the EU’s legitimate concerns on new domain names.

Let’s parse this.

On the one hand, Kroes is stating that ICANN’s process is not “inclusive and transparent”.

On the other, she’s linking to her own demands for special privileges for the European Commission in the debate over whether wine producers need special protections in the new gTLDs .wine and .vin.

I reported on Kroes letter a month ago.

As the letter and the public record makes plain, the GAC had originally asked ICANN for more time in order to consider whether the .wine protections were warranted.

In the end, the GAC was unable to reach a consensus on the matter and advised ICANN accordingly.

With no GAC consensus, ICANN has no mandate to act.

But Kroes wants ICANN to delay the .wine and .vin applications anyway, based on little more than the European Commission’s unilateral demands.

Is her definition of a “multi-stakeholder” process one in which individual governments get to override the consensus of dozens of governments? It certainly looks that way.

And it wouldn’t be the first time Kroes has tried to usurp the multi-stakeholder process in order to get what she wants.

Back in June 2011, she called for ICANN to be reformed because she didn’t like the fact that ICANN did not accept all the GAC’s advice when it approved the new gTLD program.

A month earlier, she privately wrote to the US Department of Commerce — which controls the DNS root server — to ask that it refuse to delegate the recently approved .xxx gTLD.

That would have been an unprecedented and worrying move by Commerce, and naturally it declined.

But the fact that Kroes even asked makes me wonder how serious she is about “multistakeholderism”.

It’s a newish term, poorly defined, but reason dictates that it means you can’t always get what you want.

Kroes blog post is available here. More information about her call for comments can be found here.