A small Israeli registrar has had its registrar accreditation suspended by ICANN.
Black Ice domains, which has a few thousand .com and .net domains under management, failed to comply with an ICANN audit and was overdue on its fees by over $5,000, according to the ICANN notice (pdf).
It won’t be allowed to sell gTLD domains or accept inbound transfers from December 19 to March 18, and may be terminated if it fails to come back into compliance.
The registrar is the fourth to have its accreditation suspended by ICANN in 2014. The organization has terminated a further seven registrars, down on the 11 terminated in the whole of 2013.
The process of removing the US government from management of the DNS root system took a significant step forward today, with the publication of a community proposal for a transition.
The Cross Community Working Group, which convened itself earlier this year, has published a proposal to replace the US with a new contracting company and a bunch of committees.
The DNS community has been tasked with coming up with a way to transition stewardship of the IANA functions from the US National Telecommunications and Information administration, which said in March this year that it intends to relinquish its historic, but largely symbolic, Damoclean role.
After discussions which by any measure of ICANN policy-making have been forcibly swift, the 119-member CWG has now presented two broad options.
The first, a description of which forms the bulk of its report, would see ICANN overseen by a new, lightweight non-profit company managed by multi-stakeholder committees.
The other, which doesn’t get much airplay in the document, would see ICANN simply take over the NTIA’s responsibilities entirely. Accountability would be provided by enhanced accountability processes within the existing ICANN structure.
Under the primary proposal, the CWG was keen to avoid creating something ICANN-like to oversee ICANN, due to the complexity and cost, but it also decided that ICANN remains the best place to house the IANA function for the foreseeable future.
It’s proposed a new company, known currently as “Contract Co”, that would be replace the NTIA as the party that contracts with ICANN to run IANA. It would have “little or no staff”.
The contract itself would be developed and overseen by a Multistakeholder Review Team, comprising people drawn from each area of the ICANN community.
The precise make-up of this MRT is still open to discussion and will be, I suspect, the subject of some pretty fierce debate as the various competing interest groups wrestle to have themselves with the strongest possible representation.
Like the NTIA, the MRT would have the power to pick another entity to run IANA in future, should ICANN screw up.
A new Customer Standing Panel would comprise executives from gTLD and ccTLD registries — the “customers” of IANA’s naming functions — and would have the job of relaying the concerns of registries to the MRT, keeping ICANN accountable to its primary users.
Finally, there’d be an Independent Appeals Panel. Any IANA decision — presumably including the delegation or redelegation of a TLD — could be appealed to this IAP. This function would very probably be outsourced on a case-by-case basis to an existing arbitration body.
Is this worrying? Arbitration panels handling new gTLD disputes haven’t exactly inspired confidence in their ability to provide consistent — or even rational — decisions over the last year or so. Should the last word on what goes into or stays out of the DNS root really go to the same folk who think .通販 and .shop are too confusingly similar to coexist on the internet?
There doesn’t appear to be anything massively surprising in the proposal. When ICANN or its community try to solve a problem the answer is usually a new committee, and the ideas of MRTs, CSPs and IAPs do seem to mirror existing structures to an extent.
The whole thing can be downloaded and read over here.
There’s a December 22 deadline for comment. It will be submitted to the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group by the end of January, with a view to getting a final proposal to the US government next summer in time for the hoped-for September 30 handover date.
Luxury goods company Richemont has withdrawn two of its original 14 new gTLD applications.
The company, which has been a vocal supporter of dot-brand gTLDs, pulled its bids for .netaporter and .mrporter this week.
Mr Porter and Net A Porter are fashion retail web sites for men and women respectively.
It’s not clear why these two bids have been withdrawn — the company isn’t commenting — but it’s certainly not a signal that Richemont is abandoning the new gTLD program completely.
The company has already entered into ICANN contracts for six dot-brands including .cartier, .montblanc and .chloe.
It has another five applications — four generics and one brand — that are still active: .手表 (“.watches”), .珠宝 (.jewelry), .watches, .jewelry and .jlc.
It has previously withdrawn an application for .love.
Could you tolerate an eight-day ICANN meeting?
Could you get all your work done in just four days?
Would you be happy to wait up to nine months between Public Forums?
Do you want to see more regional dancing during ICANN opening ceremonies?
These are question you’re going to have to start asking yourself, because come 2016 ICANN meetings are in for a big change.
Recommendations adopted wholesale by the ICANN board last week would scrap the three six-day meetings schedule and replace it with one six-day meeting at the start of the year, one four-day meeting in the middle and one eight-day meeting towards the end.
The first of the year would be formatted pretty much the same as all meetings are currently.
The second, however, would scrap formalities such as the opening ceremony, as well as the Public Forum and public board meeting. Instead, the focus would be on policy development work within and between advisory committees and supporting organizations.
The final meeting of the year, the AGM, would add two extra days to the regular schedule for outreach sessions and SO/AC policy-making. There would be two Public Forum sessions, one immediately after the opening ceremony on day three, the other on day six as usual.
As this would be the official outreach “event” of the year, the opening ceremony would usually have some display of local culture, such as music or dance. That was once a staple of ICANN meetings, but we haven’t seen much of it the last couple of years.
The third meeting of the year would be “would have a focus on showcasing ICANN’s work to a broader global audience”, according to the report. It would have an anticipated attendance of over 2,000 people and would therefore likely be held in a large hub city.
The smaller (it is anticipated) second meeting, with its reduced focus on formality and outreach, would (contrarily) be able to visit cities with smaller facilities, perhaps in parts of the world ICANN has not been able to visit before, the report says.
To be honest, I’m not really sure whether what’s been adopted will be any better than what’s in place today.
I’m pretty certain of one effect, however: if bombshells are dropped shortly after the first meeting of the year, you’re looking at somewhere between seven and nine months before you’ll be able to stand at a mic and yell at the ICANN board about it in public.
With hundreds of thousands of currently blocked new gTLD domain names about to hit the market, many without premium pricing, some domain investors have been wondering where they can get hold of the lists of soon-to-be available names.
Fortunately, ICANN freely publishes several lists that could prove useful.
As we’ve been reporting this week, names that were previously reserved by new gTLD registries due to name collisions have started to become unblocked, as mandatory 90-day “controlled interruption” phases start to expire.
By definition, a name collision domain has received traffic in the past.
A CSV file containing a list of all domain names currently subject to CI can be downloaded from ICANN here.
Be warned, it’s a 68MB file with millions and millions of lines — your spreadsheet software may not be able to open it. It also changes regularly, so it could get bigger as more new gTLDs begin their CI programs.
The file shows the TLD, the second-level string, the date it went into CI and the number of days it has remained in that status. When the last number hits 90, the block is due to be lifted.
A second CSV file contains all the domains that have completed CI. Find it here. It’s currently almost 7MB, but it’s going to get a lot bigger rather quickly as domains move from one list to the other.
That file shows the TLD, the SLD, the date CI started and the day it ended.
Every domain name in that list is no longer subject to a mandatory ICANN block, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that the registry has unblocked it in practice. Some registries are planning to keep hold of the newly available domains and release them in batches at a later date.
Some gTLDs have chosen to wildcard their zones rather than implement a CI response on each individual name collision. In those cases, individual domain names will not show up in the current collisions file. Instead, you’ll see an asterisk.
In those cases, you can find a list of all of each gTLD’s name collisions in separate CSV files accompanying each TLD’s ICANN contract. The contracts can be found here. Click through to the TLD you’re interested in and download the “List of SLDs to Block” file.
Note that there’s a lot of absolute garbage domains in these files. The name collisions program ain’t pretty.