Latest news of the domain name industry

Recent Posts

100 .sexy names reserved by Uniregistry

Kevin Murphy, February 21, 2014, 09:08:38 (UTC), Domain Registries
If you’re thinking about trying to bag these names when Uniregistry takes .sexy into general availability next week, you’re out of luck — they’re among almost 100 registry-reserved names.
Under ICANN’s standard Registry Agreement, new gTLD registries are allowed to register up to 100 names to themselves “necessary for the operation or promotion of the TLD”.
To date, not many registries appear to have taken advantage of this contractual allowance, but .sexy is one of them.
Uniregistry has mostly reserved fairly standard operational names such as,, and so on, but there are a few interesting choices that hint at possible future services.
Do and hint at moves into the secondary market? Could be the destination of a future advertising campaign? What are we going to see at and
Here are the names Uniregisty seems to have reserved:,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, and

Of particular note:, with which Uniregistry seems to acknowledge the declining standards of grammar among the internet-using public, and, which seems to be registered and resolving despite appearing on .sexy’s list of must-block name collisions.

Tagged: , , ,

Comments (12)

  1. Richard Funden says: could be correct if used the same way as “your public interest registry”.
    Only of they actually took it to mean you’re sexy will I weep tears of sadness…

    • Kevin Murphy says:

      Fair point.

    • John Berryhill says:

      As these names are for promotional use by the registry, yes, you are correct. The intended meaning is the second-person possessive – as in finding and registering “your” .sexy name, and is grammatically proper.

      • Kevin Murphy says:

        Okay, I admit it, I just wanted an excuse to link to my hilariously pedantic grammar sting site.
        (Actually, it was a genuine misunderstanding)

  2. Jordyn A. Buchanan says:

    One point of clarification on the article: registries can reserve arbitrarily large numbers of names, not just 100. The list of 100 is special because the registry is allowed to actually make use of them without the use of a registrar, including before the end of Sunrise.

    • Kevin Murphy says:

      I’m not saying you’re wrong Jordyn, but I will say that you’re definitely the person who seems most insistent about this particular contractual interpretation.

      • Michael Palage says:

        I would tend to agree with Jordyn’s interpretation. In fact I think this “unlimited” reservation is probably the mechanism by which Donut’s has implemented their DMPL service. The beauty of course Donuts makes money for reserving a name from allocation (potentially multiple times) and does not have to pay ICANN or any verification agents. Unlike ICM that had to pay a third party verification agent, TMCH has done all the work for them. Hats off to Paul, Jon and the rest of the Donuts team.
        While I have strong personal reservations about a company paying money to block a name it does not want registered, the value it offers to a TM owner makes it hard to say no. The price point they have offered the service is less than the cost of a single UDRP proceeding (filing & attorney fees). Not intended to be an endorsement of the service, but just a factual statement about the economics.
        Best regards,

      • Jordyn A. Buchanan says:

        I’m insistent partly because it’s a common point of confusion, and partly because I’m right. 🙂
        The language in the RA is fairly straightforward on this. Section 2.6 of the agreement proper says “Registry Operator may at any time establish or modify policies concerning Registry Operator’s ability to reserve…or block additional character strings within the TLD at its discretion” and Spec 5, Section 3.3 says “Registry Operator may withhold from registration or allocate to Registry Operator names…in accordance with Section 2.6 of the Agreement. Such names may not be activated in the DNS, but may be released for registration to another person or entity at Registry Operator’s discretion.”
        There’s NO limitation on the number of names that can be reserved through this mechanism. Names on this reserved list are inactive and cannot be used by anyone, but the registry may at any time and at its discretion release them for registration by third parties. If names are reserved through Sunrise and then subsequently released for registration, there’s a separate provision in the RPM Requirements saying that Claims would apply to them.
        The 100 names is a different list, defined in Spec 5, Section 3.2. This list is also established by the registry, but can be added directly to the DNS by the registry without the use of a registrar (which means it can be done before, e.g., Sunrise so that a registry can have a site such as sunrise.TLD or launch.TLD that gives information about it pre-launch).

  3. Acro says:

    Curious: Is this in compliance with the T&Cs regarding the use of zone files?

  4. Reg says:

    Nooooooooooo! I’ll just have to look elsewhere for my ::sniffle:: perfect domain name.
    In other news, I completely in support of grammatical pedantry.

    • John Berryhill says:

      “I completely in support of grammatical pedantry.”
      In Russia, grammar correct you.

      • Reg says:

        I think it’s a rule written somewhere that, where you comment on someone’s grammar, you will make a grammar error. ::hangs head in shame::

Add Your Comment