.co.no opens for business after court win

The Norwegian registrant of the domain name co.no has won a court case against .no registry Norid that will allow it to finally launch as a pseudo-ccTLD, according to the company.
A Trondheim court ruled that Norid cannot revoke Elineweb’s registration of co.no for alleged policy violations, but has also ruled that the domain cannot be transferred to a third party.
Therefore, Elineweb plans to start offering third-level .co.no domain names to companies and individuals unable to register the names they want under Norid’s strict policy regime.
The company will open .co.no on a first-come, first-served basis — having already conducted sunrise and landrush periods — tomorrow at 10am Central European Time.
The full list of 70+ accredited registrars can be found here.
DI first covered the lawsuit back in October 2011.
The .co.no namespace is managed by CoDNS, a subsidiary of the registrar EuroDNS that already operates .co.nl as a pseudo-ccTLD, in partnership with Elineweb.
The two namespaces are not official ccTLDs, but they are both recognized by the Public Suffix List, which makes them behave similarly in browsers.

Microsoft, Yahoo and others involved in new dot-brand gTLD group

HSBC, Microsoft, Yahoo and jewelry maker Richemont have told ICANN they plan to form a new GNSO stakeholder group just for single-registrant gTLD registries.
The group would comprise dot-brand registries and — potentially — other types of single-user gTLD manager.
A letter (pdf) to ICANN chair Steve Crocker, signed by executives from the four companies, reads in part:

As a completely new type of contracted party, we do not have a home to represent our unique community. In addition, the existence of conflicts with other contracted parties makes it challenging for us to reside within their stakeholder group.

Combined, the companies have applied for about 30 single-registrant gTLDs, mostly corresponding to brands.
Richemont, which is applying for dot-brands including .cartier, is also applying for the keywords .jewelry and .watches as single-user spaces.
The group plans to discuss formalizing itself at the next ICANN meeting, in Toronto this October.
During the just-concluded Prague meeting, the GNSO’s existing registries stakeholder group accepted several new gTLD applicants — I believe mainly conventional registries — into the fold as observers.
How the influx of new gTLD registries will affect the GNSO’s structure was a hot topic for the Governmental Advisory Committee during the meeting too. I guess now it has some of the answers it was looking for.

ICANN gives Verisign’s .com contract the nod

ICANN’s board of directors has approved Verisign’s .com registry agreement for another six years.
In a closed meeting on Saturday, the results of which have just been published, the board decided against making any of the changes that had been suggested by the community.
There had been a small uproar over the fact that Verisign will retain the right to increase its .com registry fee by 7% in four out of the next seven years.
The new contract also rejiggers the fees Verisign pays ICANN to bring them more into line with other registry agreements. As a result, ICANN will net millions more in revenue.
Other parties had also asked for improved rights protection, such as a mandatory Uniform Rapid Suspension system, and for the current restrictions on single-character domain names to be lifted.
But the board decided that “no revisions to the proposed .COM renewal Registry Agreement are necessitated after taking into account the thoughtful and carefully considered comments received.”
The agreement will now be forward to the US government for approval. Unlike most registry contracts, the Department of Commerce has the right to review the .com deal.
The current contract expires November 30.

Most new gTLDs could be closed shops

ICANN’s new generic top-level domain program could create almost 900 closed, single-user namespaces, according to DI PRO’s preliminary analysis.
Surveying all 1,930 new gTLD applications, we’ve found that 912 – about 47% – can be classified as “single registrant” bids, in which the registry would tightly control the second level.
Single-registrant gTLDs are exempt from the Registry Code of Conduct, which obliges registries to offer their strings equally to the full ICANN-accredited registrar channel.
The applications include those for dot-brand strings that match famous trademarks, as well as attempts by applicants such as Amazon and Google to secure generic terms for their own use.
Our definition of “single registrant” includes cases where the applicant has indicated a willingness to lightly share second-level domains with its close affiliates and partners.
It also includes applications such as those for .gov-style zones in non-US jurisdictions, where domains would be available to multiple agencies under the same government umbrella.
But it does not include gTLD applications that would merely require registrants to provide credentials, be a member, or agree to certain restrictions in order to register a domain.
Since there’s been a lot of discussion this last week about whether the single-registrant model adds value to the internet, I thought I’d try to measure the likely scale of the “problem” when it comes to eventual delegation into the DNS root zone.
How many closed registries could we see?
According to the DI PRO database, of the 912 single-registrant applications, 132 are in contention sets. There are 101 contention sets with at least one such applicant.
Some are up against regular multiple-registrant applications (both open and restricted gTLDs), whilst others are only fighting it out with other single-registrant applicants.
Let’s look at a couple of hypothetical scenarios.
Scenario One – Single-Registrant Applicants Win Everything
First, let’s assume that each and every applicant passes their evaluations, does not drop out, and there are no successful objections.
Then let’s imagine that every contention set containing at least one single-registrant bidder is won by one of those single-registrant bidders.
According to my calculations, that would eliminate 31 single-registrant applications and 226 multiple-registrant applications from the pool.
Another 264 multiple-registrant gTLD applications would be eliminated in normal contention.
That would leave us with 881 single-registrant gTLDs and 528 regular gTLDs in the root.
Scenario Two – Single-Registrant Applicants Lose Everything
Again, let’s assume that everybody passes their evaluations and there are no objections or withdrawals.
But this time let’s imagine that every single-registrant applicant in a contention set with at least one multiple-registrant bidder loses. This is the opposite of our first scenario.
According to my calculations, that would eliminate 117 single-registrant applications and 140 multiple-registrant applications.
Again, normal contention would take care of another 264 multiple-registrant applications.
That would leave us with 795 single-registrant gTLDs in the root and 614 others.
In both of these scenarios, at either extreme of the possible contention outcomes, single-registrant gTLDs are in the comfortable majority of delegated gTLDs.
Of course, there’s no telling how many applications of all types will choose to withdraw, fail their evaluations, or be objected out of the game, so the numbers could change considerably.
As another disclaimer: this is all based on our preliminary analysis of the applications, subject to a margin of error and possible changes in future as we refine our categorization algorithms.

gTLD bid reveals world’s biggest ego — Richard Li

Is this the biggest-headed person in the world?
He’s Richard Li, chairman of Hong Kong investment group PCCW, and he’s applied to ICANN for his very own gTLD, .richardli.
According to the application, which was filed by PCCW subsidiary Pacific Century Asset Management:

An important goal of the TLD is the safeguard of the intellectual property right of our Chairman’s name Richard Li.
…
To Internet users and others – Richard Li is a well-known and successful businessman in Hong Kong and internationally. The .richardli domain provides a more direct way of reaching our Chairman’s information with a better user experience as they will be able to access it directly under the .richardli domain. Internet users and others will benefit from the proper use of “.richardli” domain.

According to Wikipedia, citing Forbes, Li is one of Hong Kong’s richest people, with a net worth of $1.3 billion.
As far as I can tell, he’s the only person to apply for a gTLD in his own personal name.
His personal home page, richardli.com, does not appear to have been updated since June 2010.

ICANN may renew Verisign’s .com deal this weekend

ICANN’s board of directors is set to vote on Verisign’s .com registry agreement at a meeting in Prague this Saturday.
The meeting is scheduled for June 23, the day before ICANN 44 officially kicks off. Read the agenda here.
The contract has been controversial because it will continue to allow Verisign to raise prices by 7% in four out of the six years of its duration.
Opportunistic intellectual property interests have also called for Verisign to be obliged to follow new rights protection mechanisms such as the Uniform Rapid Suspension policy.
But I’m not predicting any big changes from the draft version of the agreement that was published in March.
If and when the ICANN board approves the contract, it will be sent off to the US Department of Commerce for, I believe, another round of public comment and eventual ratification.
If Verisign is to run into any problems with renewal, it’s in Washington DC where it’s most likely to happen.

TLDH posts six-month loss

Top Level Domain Holdings has posted a loss of $2.2 million in its latest interim financial report.
The company, which is one of the largest new gTLD applicants, saw a loss of £1.4 million ($2.2m) for the six months ended April 30, on revenue that was up from £26,000 to £136,000 ($213,000).
Given that TLDH’s game plan is to make money selling domain names in many of the 92 new gTLDs it hopes to have an interest in, its profitability runway is still dependent to a large extent on ICANN’s schedule.
The revenue in its latest period came mostly from consulting services.
On the up side, the company’s balance sheet is looking much better; it had an extra £10.7 million ($16.8m) in receivables on its books as of April 30 (which appears to be its “investment” in ICANN application fees), as well as £4.3 million ($6.7m) cash.
Its interim report can be read in PDF format here.

ICANN apologizes for gTLD privacy snafu

ICANN’s top brass have sent personal apologies to the people whose home addresses were exposed when it published their new gTLD applications last week.
The organization blamed “human error” and said it is now conducting an “investigation” to figure out what went wrong.
The note, which is signed by CEO Rod Beckstrom, chairman Steve Crocker, and COO Akram Atallah, reads:

Dear [name of the affected executive],
On behalf of ICANN, we want to personally apologize for our error in exposing your postal address on the TLD Application website. This was a human error, and we have corrected it. We are conducting an internal investigation in order to learn from this mistake and to ensure that it does not happen again.
In the meantime, please be assured that the New Generic Top-level Domain Program remains on track. We are moving ahead with the screening and evaluation of applications, and returning to our shared goal of bringing competition and choice to the Internet’s domain name space.
We are committed to serving you to the very best of our ability and to ensuring the integrity of the New gTLD Program. If you have questions or concerns, please don’t hesitate to reach out to us directly.
Sincerely,
ICANN

As I blogged last week, ICANN accidentally neglected to redact the home addresses of many applicants’ named primary and secondary contacts when it published all 1,930 applications last week.
It has since removed the offending information.

The stupidest gTLD applications I’ve seen so far

Who the hell advised these guys?
Mitek USA, a maker of prefabricated building components (hinges, brackets, etc), has applied for four new generic top-level domains with the shoddiest applications I’ve seen so far.
For pretty much every question that requires any thought to answer, the company has simply replied “TLD will not be resold. Purchased for brand protection only.”
The phrase appears 13 times in each of the four applications.
The applications — for .mitek, .connectors, .sapphire (a brand) and .mii — therefore all appear to be a colossal waste of money.
With no answers to any technical questions beyond “TLD will not be resold. Purchased for brand protection only”, there’s no way they can pass the technical portion of the Initial Evaluation.
The bids, therefore, are completely useless. Even if the strings had been contended (they’re not), there’s no advantage to having a horse in the race if it’s guaranteed to fall at the first fence.
I ask again: who the hell advised these guys?

The registry back-end market numbers are in

The top five registry back-end providers account for almost 72% of all new generic top-level domain applications, according to DI’s preliminary numbers.
Neustar, Demand Media, Afilias, Verisign and ARI Registry Services take the top five spots in our new market share league table (see below).
Thirty-eight companies are listed as back-end providers (including those that plan to self-host their gTLDs) according to our initial analysis of ICANN’s 1,930 applications.
Big portfolio applicants obviously skew the numbers significantly.
All of the 101 applications naming Google as the back-end are from Google’s own subsidiaries, and Amazon’s 76 bids are responsible for Neustar’s position at the top of the table.
Likewise, more than 300 of Demand Media’s strings are associated with one client, Donuts, and 54 of Internet Systems Consortium’s 58 are from Uniregistry, the new Frank Schilling venture.
ARI (.au) is the most successful back-end from the ccTLD world, with 160 applications, followed by Minds + Machines (.fm) with 91, CentralNic (.la) with 60 and Afnic (.fr) with 17.
[table id=8 /]
The four N/A applications on the list were all filed by the same poorly advised applicant.
Some numbers differ slightly from what the respective companies announced. In some cases this could be accounted for by applicants withdrawing bids before Reveal Day.
The data above was generated semi-automatically from the DI PRO New gTLD Application Database, which matches each application to its back-end, and is preliminary in nature.
A full report will follow in due course.
UPDATE (June 19): Three applications originally assigned to KSRegistry have now been reassigned to Registry.net.
UPDATE (June 20): Four applications originally assigned to Minds + Machines have been reassigned to Neustar.