M+M adds .mumbai to client roster

Minds + Machines has been named as the “exclusive registry and consulting services provider” for a .mumbai top-level domain application.
The company said that India TL Domain Pvt Ltd, which appears to be a new company, has also secured the necessary government support for its ICANN application.
According to M+M, Mumbai’s deputy mayor, Shailaja Girkar, has written to ICANN to say:

The city of Mumbai fully and exclusively supports the application of India TL Pvt Ltd for .Mumbai. We believe that this application best represents the interests and the community of the City of Mumbai and we request that ICANN approve this application.

Local government support is a requirement for city TLDs, under ICANN’s current rules. But the latest version of the Applicant Guidebook suggests it can be trumped at the national level.
M+M, owned by Top-Level Domain Holdings, is also linked to applications for .gay, .eco, .berlin and .nyc, among others. Some of these are contested by rival applicants.

RegistryPro gets new CEO

RegistryPro, the .pro top-level domain manager, has appointed Karim Jiwani as its new CEO.
Jiwani seems to have been headhunted from Afilias, where he was senior director of business development. He has over 12 years experience in the business, according to a press release.
The .pro extension is one of those TLDs it’s easy to forget exists, but its recent press releases make it appear like a bit of a dark horse, on an unprecedented growth spurt.
According to its monthly ICANN registry reports, RegistryPro saw a staggering 142% growth in registrations between January 2010 and January 2011, recently passing through the 100,000 domains mark for the first time in its seven-year history.
However, on closer inspection, this uptick was largely due to a bulk registration of over 43,000 domains made via Hostway, RegistryPro’s parent company, last June.
The growth spurt appears to be a direct result of RegistryPro’s reservation of all remaining one, two and three-letter .pro domains, which it is selling off as premium names.
All possible combinations at three characters and under works out to roughly 43,000 domains.
With the new leadership, Hostway also seems to be positioning RegistryPro as a contender in market for providing back-end registry services for new gTLDs. Its CEO, Lucas Roh, said:

Our registry is poised to grow significantly in the coming years, as the awareness continues to grow for .PRO domains and our backend registry services for other TLD’s. We wanted someone that could expertly grow the registry and take it to the next level. Karim has proven experience in the domain industry and is well respected in the community. With his knowledge and passion, he is well equipped to take the company to the next level in providing registry services to registrars and other TLD’s.”

Afilias seems to be a breeding ground for registry CEOs lately. In February, the Public Interest Registry grabbed vice president Brian Cute to head up its .org business.

One-letter domain sales not enough for .co

.CO Internet has added another high-profile customer to its roster of .co domain name registrants with the announcement today that Amazon has purchased four premium names.
Amazon has acquired a.co, k.co, z.co and cloud.co. The deal follows the allocation of t.co and x.co to Twitter and Go Daddy respectively and Overstock.com’s purchase of o.co.
While this is undoubtedly great news for .co’s visibility, it seems to me that .CO Internet is in danger of looking like a one-trick pony due to the brand’s over-reliance on high-profile short domain deals.
If Amazon throws its marketing muscle behind cloud.co, that will prove much more useful in terms of awareness-raising than the allocation of more single-character domains ever will.
It remains to be seen what Amazon plans to do with its three new short .co domains. It would be much more useful for the TLD if they are used for purposes other than URL shorteners.
There are only 36 such domains available. If people only associate .co with short Twitter links, the appeal of the TLD could be checked.
.CO Internet knows this, of course, which is why its marketing strategy from the start has been focused on gaining rank-and-file support from entrepreneurs and web developers.
Right now, I can’t help but feel that the longevity of the .co brand could benefit much more from a successful start-up or two than yet another single-character domain sale.
Prices for the Amazon domains were not disclosed. The four domains combined could feasibly have fetched a seven-figure sum, judging by the $350,000 Overstock paid for o.co.
The registry has also for some months been trying to sell off i.co, and has engaged Sedo as its broker.

Don’t rush to defensively register .xxx domains

Trademark owners trying to figure out how to protect their brands in the .xxx top-level domain should wait for ICM Registry to reveal its full suite of anti-cybersquatting measures before deciding whether to defensively register a large portfolio of domains.
With registrar prices for sunrise trademark blocks currently hovering around the $300 mark, an especially aggressive enforcement strategy could rack up six-figure bills for large brand holders.
But it may turn out to be more cost-effective to use ICM’s post-launch enforcement mechanisms to fight cybersquatting.
So far, all we’ve seen from ICM is a white paper, prepared by its partner IPRota, that outlines the policies that will be in place during the pre-launch sunrise period.
But the company plans to have some of the most Draconian post-launch IP rights protections mechanisms of any new TLD to date.
If, as a registrant, you think the Uniform Rapid Suspension policy ICANN plans to enforce on new TLDs is tough, you’ll likely have a bigger problem with Rapid Takedown.
Rapid Takedown is expected to be modeled on the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. It will use UDRP experts, but will only take 48 hours to suspend a domain name. ICM has described it like this:

Rapid Takedown
Analysis of UDRP disputes indicates that the majority of UDRP cases involve obvious variants of well-known trademarks. ICM Registry does not believe that the clearest cases of abusive domain registration require the expense and time involved in traditional UDRP filings. Accordingly, ICM Registry will institute a rapid takedown procedure in which a response team of independent experts (qualified UDRP panelists) will be retained to make determinations within 48 hours of receipt of a short and simple statement of a claim involving a well-known or otherwise inherently distinctive mark and a domain name for which no conceivable good faith basis exists. Such determinations will result in an immediate termination of resolution of the domain name, but will not prejudice either party’s election to pursue another dispute mechanism. The claim requirements will be modeled after the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

It remains to be seen how much this will cost complainants (assuming there is a cost), and there are other unanswered questions such as the duration of the suspension, the ability of the complaint to have the domain transferred and the registrant’s right of appeal.
But it’s clear that trademark holders will very likely have cheaper options than UDRP, which can cost as much as $1,500 for a single domain name.
In addition, ICM plans to permanently ban cybersquatters that are “found to have repeatedly engaged in abusive registration”. Abusers will lose their .xxx portfolios, even their non-infringing domains, and will not be able to register any more.
Combined with Rapid Takedown, and the high price of .xxx domains ($75 a year minimum so far), this will likely make cybersquatting a much less attractive proposition in .xxx than .com.
Trademark holders should wait for their full range of options to be revealed before panicking about high sunrise fees.
It may turn out to be more cost-effective to block just a few primary brands, and leave enforcement of other brands to post-launch mechanisms.

Trademark lobby makes final new gTLD demands

With ICANN’s latest and potentially last call for comment on its new top-level domains program just hours away from closing, the arguments are shaping up along familiar lines.
Trademark protection is unsurprisingly still center stage, with loud calls for the Applicant Guidebook’s rights protection mechanisms to be amended more favorably to brand owners
Meanwhile, many of those strongly in favor of the new gTLD program launching soon have submitted more subdued, concise comments, merely urging ICANN to get a move on.
While there are still some fringe opinions, many within the intellectual property community are on the same page when it comes to rights protection mechanisms.
URS
The Uniform Rapid Suspension policy, which enables trademark holders to relatively quickly shut down obvious cases of cybersquatting, comes in for particular attention.
In the latest draft of the URS, as well as its sister policy, the Trademark Clearinghouse, brand owners have to present “proof of use” for the trademarks which they want to enforce.
The International Trademark Association, the Intellectual Property Constituency and others want this provision eliminated, saying it is inconsistent with many national trademark laws.
The also want the burden of proof lowered from the “clear and convincing evidence” standard, and want to expand the “loser pays” model, to provide an economic disincentive to cybersquatting.
In the latest version of the Applicant Guidebook, ICANN introduced a system whereby a cybersquatter has to pay the cost of a URS they lose, but only if the case comprises over 25 domains.
INTA, the IPC and others want this reduced to something like five domains, on the grounds that 25 is too high a bar and may actually encourage larger-scale squatting.
IP Claims
They also want the Clearinghouse’s IP Claims service, which serves a warning to registrants when they try to register potentially infringing domains, expanded beyond exact-match strings.
Currently, you’ll receive a warning about possible infringement if you try to register lego.tld or foxnews.tld, but not if you try to register legostarwars.tld or foxnewssucks.tld.
Many commenters want this changed to also include brand+keyword domains (fairly easy to implement in software, I imagine), or even typos (not nearly so easy).
This makes sense if you assume that cybersquatting patterns in new TLDs mirror those in .com, where brand+keyword squatting comprise the majority of UDRP cases.
But if you look at the about 100 UDRP cases to be filed so far in .co, it seems that brand-only cybersquatting is clearly the order of the day.
Depending on how this was implemented, it could also create a “chilling effect” whereby IP Claims notices are sent to legitimate registrants.
It seems likely that with a brand+keyword approach, if someone tried to register legourmetchef.tld, they could wind up with a notice that the domain infringes the Lego trademark.
The trademark lobby also wants this IP Claims service extended beyond the first 60 days of a new TLD’s life, on the grounds that the cybersquatting risk does not disappear after a TLD launches.
According to submissions from existing TLD registries and potential applicants, this could add to the costs of running a TLD, increasing prices for registrants.
GAC
Most of these demands are not new. But in many cases, the IP lobby now has the support of the ICANN Governmental Advisory Committee.
The GAC and ICANN are due to meet by teleconference this Friday, ostensibly for their “final” consultation before ICANN approves the Guidebook a little over a month from now.
But with the US and Europe now strategically aligned, it seems likely that ICANN will find itself under more pressure than ever before to concede to the demands of trademark holders.

How to protect your trademark in .xxx

ICM Registry today revealed the details of its policies for trademark holders that want to defensively register or block their .xxx domain names.
The company plans to kick off its sunrise period in early September. It will last 30 days, and will be followed a few weeks later by a 14-day landrush.
The date for general availability has not been set in stone, but is likely to be in early December.
Two sunrise periods will run concurrently. Sunrise A is for the adult entertainment industry, those who want to actually set up porn sites at .xxx domains. Sunrise B is for everyone else.
ICM is trying something new with .xxx, in response to non-porn brands that are worried about cybersquatting and also don’t want to actually own a .xxx domain name.
Under Sunrise B, non-porn trademark owners can pay a one-time fee to have their brand essentially turned off in .xxx.
These domains will all resolve to a standard placeholder page, informing visitors that the domain has been blocked.
Because the domains resolve, they will usually not be picked up by any ISP system whereby non-existent domains show advertisements instead of an error message.
The fees we’ve seen so far from registrars for this service range from $299 to $648, but ICM seems to think $200 to $300 is more realistic.
The blocks are expected to last forever, but because ICM’s registry agreement with ICANN only lasts for 10 years, it can only guarantee the blocks for that amount of time.
So while it looks like a $30 to $65 annual fee, over the lifetime of the TLD it may well steadily approach a negligible sum, if you’re thinking super-long-term.
To qualify for Sunrise B, you need a nationally registered trademark for the exact string you want to block. To use an example, Lego could block lego.xxx, but not legoporn.xxx.
ICM is currently planning a post-launch block service for brands that emerge in future, but it probably won’t have the flat one-time pricing structure, due to the registry’s own annual per-domain fees.
If you’re in the porn business, Sunrise A allows you to claim your brand if you have a trademark that is registered with a national effect.
It will also enable the “grandfathering” of porn sites in other TLDs that do not have a registered trademark. If you own example.com or example.co.uk, you’d qualify for example.xxx.
Lego could, for example, register legoporn.xxx using Sunrise A, because it already owns legoporn.com, but only if it actually intended to publish Lego-based pornography.
If it were to register legoporn.xxx in this way, and use it for non-porn purposes, it would be at risk of losing the domain under ICM’s planned Charter Eligibility Dispute Resolution Policy (CEDRP).
In the event that a Sunrise A applicant and a Sunrise B applicant both apply for the same string, the Sunrise A (porn) applicant will be given the option to withdraw their application.
If they don’t withdraw, they will be able to register the domain, trumping their non-porn rival.
Two Sunrise A applicants gunning for the same .xxx domain will have to fight it out at auction.
It’s probably worth mentioning, because many cybersquatters seem to think it’s a .com-only deal, that the UDRP does of course also apply to .xxx domain names.
If you own, for example, the string “virgin” in another TLD, and use it for a porn site, you will actually be able to use it in Sunrise A to secure virgin.xxx, but you risk losing it to Virgin in a UDRP.
If you’ve “pre-registered” a domain with ICM already, it doesn’t seem that you’ll have any notable advantages during sunrise or landrush.
The registry plans to email these pre-registrants soon with instructions. More info on the new ICM site: XXXempt.com.
The sunrise policies were devised by IPRota.

What happened to ICANN’s .net millions?

Questions have been raised about how ICANN accounts for the millions of dollars it receives in fees from .net domain name registrations.
The current .net registry agreement between ICANN and VeriSign was signed in June 2005. It’s currently up for renewal.
Both the 2005 and 2011 versions of the deal call for VeriSign to pay ICANN $0.75 for every .net registration, renewal and transfer.
Unlike .com and other TLDs, the .net contract specifies three special uses for these fees (with my emphasis):

ICANN intends to apply this fee to purposes including:
(a) a special restricted fund for developing country Internet communities to enable further participation in the ICANN mission by developing country stakeholders,
(b) a special restricted fund to enhance and facilitate the security and stability of the DNS, and
(c) general operating funds to support ICANN’s mission to ensure the stable and secure operation of the DNS.

However, almost six years after the agreement was executed, it seems that these two “special restricted funds” have never actually been created.
ICANN’s senior vice president of stakeholder relations Kurt Pritz said:

To set up distinctive organizations or accounting schemes to track this would have been expensive, complex and would have served no real value. Rather — it was intended that the ICANN budget always include spending on these important areas — which it clearly does.

He said that ICANN has spent money on, for example, its Fellowships Program, which pays to fly in delegates from developing nations to its thrice-yearly policy meetings.
He added that ICANN has also paid out for security-related projects such as “signing the root zone and implementing DNSSEC, participating in cross-industry security exercises, growing the SSR organization, conducting studies for new gTLDs”.
These initiatives combined tally up to an expenditure “in excess of the amounts received” from .net, he said.
It seems that while ICANN has in fact been spending plenty of cash on the projects called for by these “special restricted funds”, the money has not been accounted for in that way.
Interestingly, when the .net contract was signed in 2005, ICANN seemed to anticipate that the developing world fund would not be used to pay for internal ICANN activities.
ICANN’s 2005-2006 budget, which was approved a month after the .net deal, reads, with my emphasis:

A portion of the fees paid by the operator of the .NET registry will become part of a special restricted fund for developing country Internet communities to enable further participation in the ICANN mission by developing country stakeholders. These monies are intended to fund outside entities as opposed to ICANN staff efforts.

That budget allocated $1.1 million to this “Developing Country Internet Community Project”, but the line item had disappeared by time the following year’s budget was prepared.
Phil Corwin from the Internet Commerce Association estimates that the $0.75 fees added up to $6.8 million in 2010 alone, and he’s wondering how the money was spent.
“We believe that ICANN should disclose to the community through a transparent accounting exactly how these restricted funds have actually been utilized in the past several years,” Corwin wrote.
He points out that the contract seems to clearly separate the two special projects from “general operating funds”, which strongly suggests they would be accounted for separately.
Given that .net fees have been lumped in with general working capital for the last six years, it seems strange that the current proposed .net registry agreement still calls for the two special restricted funds.
The oddity has come to the attention of the ICA and others recently because the new proposed .net contract would allow VeriSign for the first time to offer differential pricing to registrars in the developing world.
The agreement allows VeriSign to “provide training, technical support, marketing or incentive programs based on the unique needs of registrars located in such geographies to such registrars”, and specifically waives pricing controls for such programs.
It seems probable that this amendment was made possible due to the .net contract’s existing references to developing world projects.
Corwin said ICA has nothing against such programs, but is wary that existing .net registrants may wind up subsidizing registrants in the developing world.

VeriSign settles CFIT lawsuit for free

VeriSign has settled its five-year-old antitrust lawsuit with the Coalition For ICANN Transparency. What’s more, it’s done so without having to sign a big check.
The company has just released a statement to the markets:

Under the terms of the Agreement, no payment will be made and the parties immediately will file a dismissal with prejudice of all claims in the litigation. Further, the parties executed mutual releases from all claims now and in the future related to the litigation.
CFIT voluntarily agreed to dismiss its claims in their entirety with prejudice in view of recent developments in the case, including the Amended Opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the subsequent orders of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division dismissing the claims regarding .Net and for disgorgement, and VeriSign’s motion for summary judgment.

On the face of it, this looks like a huge win for VeriSign, which has been facing questions about the CFIT suit from analysts on pretty much every earnings call since it was filed.
The original complaint alleged that VeriSign and ICANN broke competition law with their .com and .net registry agreements, which allow the company to raise prices every year.
Had CFIT won, it would have put a serious cramp on VeriSign’s business.
In February, a California judge dismissed the case, saying that CFIT’s membership did not having standing to sue. CFIT was given leave to amend its complaint, however, but that does not seem to have been enough to save its case.
According to a Securities and Exchange Commission filing, CFIT’s members were: iRegistry, Name Administration, Linkz Internet Services, World Association for Domain Name Developers, Targeted Traffic Domains, Bret Fausett, Howard Neu and Frank Schilling.

ICANN gets Boing-Boinged over URS

Boing-Boing editor Cory Doctorow caused a storm in a teacup yesterday, after he urged his legions of readers to complain to ICANN about copyright-based domain name seizures and the abolition of Whois privacy services in .net.
Neither change has actually been proposed.
The vast majority of the comments filed on VeriSign’s .net contract renewal now appear to have been sent by Boing-Boing readers, echoing Doctorow’s concerns.
Doctorow wrote: “Among the IPC’s demands are that .NET domains should be subject to suspension on copyright complaints and that anonymous or privacy-shielded .NET domains should be abolished.”
Neither assertion is accurate.
Nobody has proposed abolishing Whois privacy services. Nobody has proposed allowing VeriSign to seize domain names due to copyright infringement complaints.
What has happened is that ICANN’s Intellectual Property Constituency has asked ICANN to make the Uniform Rapid Suspension policy part of VeriSign’s .net contract.
URS is a variation of the long-standing UDRP cybersquatting complaints procedure.
It was created for the ICANN new gTLD Program and is intended to be cheaper and quicker for trademark holders than UDRP, designed to handle clear-cut cases.
While the URS, unlike UDRP, has a number of safeguards against abusive complaints – including an appeals mechanism and penalties for repeat reverse-hijacking trolls.
But the domainer community is against its introduction in .net because it has not yet been finalized – it could still be changed radically before ICANN approves it – and it is currently completely untested.
The IPC also asked ICANN and VeriSign to transition .net to a “thick” Whois, whereby all Whois data is stored at the registry rather than with individual registrars, and to create mechanisms for anybody to report fake Whois data to registrars.
Not even the IPC wants Whois privacy services abolished – chair Steve Metalitz noted during the Congressional hearing on new gTLDs last week that such services do often have legitimate uses.

ICANN tries to dodge .jobs legal fees

“Please don’t sue us!”
That’s the message some are taking away from the latest round of published correspondence between lawyers representing ICANN and .jobs registry Employ Media.
Employ Media last week said it will take ICANN to the International Chamber of Commerce, after they failed to resolve their dispute over the company’s controversial Universe.jobs venture.
Now ICANN has asked the registry’s executives to return to the negotiating table, apparently to reduce the risk of having to spend millions of dollars on lawyering.
In a letter (pdf) to Employ Media’s attorneys, ICANN outside counsel Eric Enson of Jones Day said that ICANN wishes to avoid “costly legal fees associated with arbitration or litigation”:

I again request a meeting among the business persons involved in this matter to discuss potential resolutions before spending more of ICANN’s funding on unnecessary litigation.

The latest round of published correspondence, like the last one, and the one before that, seems to contain a fair bit of legal posturing, with both sides accusing the other of conducting negotiations in “bad faith” for various reasons.
Filing the arbitration notice with the ICC might turn out to be a smart move by Employ Media, knowing how risk-averse and cash-conscious ICANN is.
ICANN is still smarting from the last time it headed to arbitration, for its Independent Review Panel over ICM Registry’s .xxx top-level domain.
ICANN lost that case in February 2010, and had to cover the panel’s almost $500,000 in costs, as well as its own legal fees. The overall price tag is believed to have comfortably made it into seven figures.
But that may well turn out to be small beer compared to the price of losing arbitration against the .jobs registry.
Unlike the IRP, in which both parties pay their own lawyers no matter who wins, Employ Media’s contract states that the losing party in arbitration must pay the legal fees of the winner.
To go up against .jobs at the ICC and lose could hit ICANN’s coffers harder than the .xxx dispute, in other words. That’s not to say it would lose, but with matters as complex as this there is that risk.
It’s worth noting that Employ Media’s lead attorney has form when it comes to reaching into ICANN’s pockets – Crowell & Moring’s Arif Ali also represented ICM Registry in the .xxx IRP case.