ICANN has increased its new gTLD revenue projections for fiscal 2016.
The organization released its draft FY17 budget over the weekend, showing that it expects its revenue from new gTLDs for the 12 months ending June 30, 2016, to come in at $27.3 million.
That’s a 13% increase — an extra $3.1 million — on what it expected when it adopted its FY16 budget last June.
The anticipated extra money comes from registry and registrar transaction fees, spurred no doubt by the crazy speculation in the Chinese market right now.
Registry transaction fees are now expected to be $2.8 million (up from the earlier prediction of $2 million) and $3 million (up from $2.3 million).
The bulk of the new gTLD revenue — $21.5 million — still comes from fixed registry fees, which do not vary with transaction volume.
For fiscal 2017, which starts July 1 this year, ICANN is predicting new gTLD revenue of $41.5 million, a 52% annual growth rate.
The FY17 proposals are open for public comment.
A US court has blocked ICANN from delegating the .africa gTLD for at least another month.
At the request of failed .africa applicant DotConnectAfrica, a California judge handed ICANN a temporary restraining order, enjoining it from “issuing” .africa.
The ruling came two days after the ICANN board of directors voted to allow .africa to be delegated to successful applicant ZACR.
The decision seems to be based on the fact that a delegation is essentially irreversible, so even if DCA were to win the lawsuit it would not be able to get its hands on the gTLD.
“Plaintiff has demonstrated that once the tGLD [sic] is issued, it will be unable to obtain those rights elsewhere,” the judge wrote (pdf).
DCA’s lawsuit, filed despite the that that it waived its right to sue under the new gTLD application agreement, basically makes the same arguments that its successful Independent Review Process made.
The court is due to hold a hearing on April 4 to decide whether ICANN can delegate .africa or will have to wait until the lawsuit is fully resolved.
The company, incidentally, appears to have changed lawyers since its original complaint against ICANN was filed. It’s now with Brown Neri & Smith, having briefly been with Brandon Schantz.
Amazon has appealed the rejection of its proposed .amazon new gTLD.
The company this week told ICANN that it has invoked the Independent Review Process, after 18 months of informal negotiations proved fruitless.
Amazon’s .amazon application was controversially rejected by ICANN in May 2014, due to advice from the Governmental Advisory Committee.
The GAC, by a consensus, had told ICANN that .amazon should be rejected.
South American nations that share the Amazonia region of the continent had said the string was “geographic” and should therefore be unavailable to the US-based company.
The word “Amazon” is not protected by ICANN’s geographic string rules, because “Amazon” is not the name of a region, and was only rejected due to governmental interference.
The GAC’s decision came only after the US, which had been preventing consensus in order to protect one of its biggest native internet companies, decided to step aside.
Amazon has been in ICANN’s Cooperative Engagement Process — an informal set of talks designed to avoid the need for too many lawyers — since July 2014.
Those talks have now ended and Amazon has told ICANN that an IRP is incoming, according to ICANN documentation published on Tuesday (pdf).
The IRP documents themselves have not yet been published by ICANN.
UPDATE: This article originally incorrectly stated that the US withdrew its objection to the GAC consensus on .amazon after the IANA transition was announced. In fact, it did so several months prior to that announcement.
Amazon has given an early hint at how it may manage its new gTLD registries.
The company seems to be planning to make its own web site the place to go to for its new gTLD domains, relegating registrars to secondary players in the sales path.
It also seems to be planning to up-sell registrants with services, possibly including hosting, before they even get to the registrar’s storefront.
Amazon has filed a Registry Services Evaluation Process request with ICANN, relating to its gTLD .moi (French for “.me”) covering a “Registration Authentication Platform”.
.moi isn’t a brand, but Amazon says it plans to verify registrant “eligibility” before allowing a registration to take place.
To date, it has not revealed what the eligibility requirements for .moi are.
Its RSEP filing says that it intends to offer registrants a suite of optional add-on “technology tools or applications” at the point of verification.
Crucially, that’s before they get bounced to their registrar of choice to actually register the name.
Amazon is basically putting its up-sell pitch into the sales path before registrars get to do the same.
The RSEP explains it like this:
After the customer selects the Technology Tools of interest and/or ancillary products or services (if any), the customer will select its registrar of choice from among the complete list of .MOI-accredited registrars and be directed to that registrar’s site to permit that registrar to collect the required registrant information for the domain name registration, and to submit payment for the selected .MOI domain name. Upon completion of these steps, the registrar, through the normal EPP processes, shall transmit the required registration information to the Registry and the .MOI domain name shall be registered. A customer that first visits a .MOI-accredited registrar’s website will be directed to the Registry’s .MOI website to undergo the process noted above. After pre-registration policy verification, those customers will be transitioned back to the originating registrar’s site.
The RSEP does not explain what the “technology tools” are, but I’d be very surprised if they did not include for example web hosting, a staple higher-margin registrar product.
It’s not entirely clear what, if any, consultations Amazon has had with registrars regarding its proposals. The RSEP language is evasive:
Amazon Registry reached out to several registrars to have general discussions about their experience with pre-registration policy verification and how that experience (including customer experience) could be improved. Any consultations that may have occurred regarding the Technology Tools and the ancillary products and services would have occurred subject to a Mutual Non-Disclosure Agreement and cannot be disclosed.
Currently, the RSEP only covers .moi. Amazon would have to file additional RSEPs if it wanted the new service applied to its 32-TLD-strong portfolio, which includes the likes of .book, .song and .tunes.
ICANN has already made a preliminary determination that the RSEP “does not raise significant competition, security or stability issues”.
As usual, there’s a public comment period, which ends April 14.
Registrars are upset with fTLD Registry Services for trying to impose new rules on selling .bank domains that they say are “unreasonable”.
The Registrar Stakeholder Group formally relayed its concerns about a proposed revision of the .bank Registry-Registrar Agreement to ICANN at the weekend.
A key sticking point is fTLD’s demand that each registrar selling .bank domains have a dedicated .bank-branded web page.
Some registrars are not happy about this, saying it will “require extensive changes to the normal operation of the registrar.”
“Registrars should not be required to establish or maintain a “branded webpage” for any extension in order to offer said extension to its clients,” they told ICANN.
i gather that registrars without a full retail presence, such as corporate registrars that sell mainly offline, have a problem with this.
There’s also a slippery slope argument — if every gTLD required a branded web page, registrars would have hundreds of new storefronts to develop and maintain.
fTLD also wants registrars to more closely align their sales practices with its own, by submitting all registration requests from a single client in a single day via a bulk registration form, rather than live, or pay an extra $125 per-name fee.
This is to cut down on duplicate verification work at the registry, but registrars say it would put a “severe operational strain” on them.
There’s also a worry about a proposed change that would make registrars police the .bank namespace.
The new RRA says: “Registrar shall not enable, contribute to or willing aid any third party in violating Registry Operator’s standards, policies, procedures, or practices, and shall notify Registry Operator immediately upon becoming aware of any such violation.”
But registrars say this “will create a high liability risk for registrars” due to the possibility of accidentally overlooking abuse reports they receive.
The registrars’ complaints have been submitted to ICANN, which will have to decide whether fTLD is allowed to impose its new RRA or not.
The RrSG’s submission is not unanimously backed, however. One niche-specializing registrar, EnCirca, expressed strong support for the changes.
In a letter also sent to ICANN, it said that none of the proposed changes are “burdensome”, writing:
EnCirca fully supports the .BANK Registry’s efforts to ensure potential registrants are fully informed by Registrars of their obligations and limitations for .BANK. This helps avoid confusion and mis‐use by registrants, which can cause a loss of trust in the Registry’s stated mission and commitments to the banking community.
fTLD says the proposed changes would bring the .bank RRA in line with the RRA for .insurance, which it also operates.
The .insurance contract has already been signed by several registrars, it told ICANN.