Almost 15,000 trademarks registered in TMCH

The new gTLD program’s Trademark Clearinghouse has almost 15,000 trademarks registered, according to a spokesperson.
We’re told today that there’s an average of about two labels for each registered mark, and that about half of all the marks have been registered for multiple years.
The TMCH offers registrations for one, three or five years.
Trademarks in non-Latin scripts currently account for just 3% (so roughly 450) of the registrations, which may be a cause for concern given that IDNs gTLDs will be many of the first to launch Sunrise periods.
The TMCH spokesperson added that registrations of “previously abused labels”, under what we used to call the Trademark+50 policy, are currently “low” because the service was only recently launched.

Trademark Clearinghouse: early bird pricing ends tomorrow

Trademark owners take note: you have less than 24 hours to get your marks registered in the Trademark Clearinghouse if you want to take advantage of early bird discounted pricing.
A TMCH spokesperson told DI today that the early bird offer ends at 1200 UTC November 5. Its “agents” (registrars) were notified a week ago and today were given a final 24-hour grace period, she said.
This may come as something of a surprise to mark owners who haven’t been paying attention.
When the Clearinghouse went live in March, the TMCH said that the early registration offer would end when the first Sunrise period for the first new gTLD went live.
At the time, ICANN rules stated that registries would have to give 30 days notice before launching a Sunrise.
But these rules recently changed, giving registries the ability to launch immediately as long as the Sunrise runs for at least 60 days rather than the original 30.
And with dotShabaka Registry, one of the first four new gTLDs to go live, opting for the 60-day Sunrise, that means early bird pricing is ending sooner than might have been expected.
Rather than direct discounts, the early bird offer instead awards extra “status points” that can be accumulated to secure lower bulk registration prices.
Trademark owners would have to submit quite a lot of trademarks, or use an agent that is passing the discounts on to its customers, in order to qualify for the lower prices.

Search all new gTLD collision block lists

DI PRO subscribers can now see which strings appear most often in new gTLD registries’ block-lists and search for strings — such as trademarks or premium strings — that interest them.
We’ve just launched the New gTLD Collisions Database.
Currently, it indexes all 14,493 unique strings that ICANN has told the first 13 new gTLD registries to block — due to the risk of collisions with internal networks — when they launch.
By default the strings are ranked by how many gTLDs have been told to block them.
You’ll see immediately that “www” is currently blocked in all 13 registries, suggesting that it’s likely to be blocked in the vast majority of new gTLDs.
Users can also search for a string in order to see how many, and which, new gTLDs are going to have to block it.
We’re hoping that the service will prove useful to trademark owners that want to see which “freebie” blocked strings they stand to benefit from, and in which gTLDs.
For example, we can already see that 10 meaningful strings containing “nike” are to be blocked. For “facebook”, it’s four registries. For “google”, it’s currently three strings across six gTLDs.
The service will also hopefully be useful to registries that want to predict which strings ICANN may tell them to block. We’re seeing a lot of gambling terms showing up in non-gambling TLDs, for example.
Here’s a screenshot of sample output for the search “cars”.

As ICANN publishes lists for more gTLDs, the database will grow and become more useful and time-saving.
Comments, suggestions and bug reports as always to kevin@domainincite.com

Barrett launches new gTLD launch calendar

EnCirca’s Tom Barrett has launched a collaborative calendar to help spread the word about new gTLD launch dates.
Leveraging Google Apps, the service can be found at Calzone.org and is currently in a short beta open only to applicants and registries.
All new gTLD sunrise dates published by ICANN will be incorporated into the service, Barrett tells us, and the registries themselves are invited to add other useful deadlines, such as for founders programs.
Users will be able to synchronize the calendar with their own and receive alerts, he said. They’ll also be able to filter by categories of string, such as “finance” or “health”.

Two 2014 new gTLD conferences planned

Two new gTLD conferences with different focuses are planned for early 2014.
NamesCon is a new event “For Registries, Registrars and Registrants” planned by long-time domainer Richard Lau, due to be held somewhere in Las Vegas January 13 to 15.
The early line-up is looking more domainer-heavy than new gTLD conferences we’ve seen to date, which might make it a good opportunity for registries to network with investor “market makers”.
Momentum Consulting has also confirmed dates for its third Digital Marketing & gTLD Strategy Congress.
Set for March 3 to 4 at the Dream Hotel in New York, the site of the first conference earlier this year, the third event promises “real-world launch case studies timed to coincide with the anticipated delegation and launch of the initial wave of new TLDs” according to Momentum.
The Congress is a more brand-oriented event.
The first 25 people to buy tickets will apparently get full recordings of the recent London event thrown in.

Trademark+50 costs $75 to $200 a pop

The Trademark Clearinghouse has started accepting submissions under the new “Trademark+50” service, with prices starting at about $76.
It’s now called the Abused DNL (for Domain Name Label) service.
It allows trademark owners to add up to 50 additional strings — which must have been cybersquatted according to a court or a UDRP panel — to each record they have in the TMCH.
To validate labels found in court decisions, it will cost mark owners $200 and then $1 per abused string. For UDRP cases, the validation fee is $75.
If you’re on the “advanced” (read: bulk) fee structure, the prices drop to $150 and $50 respectively.
To add a UDRP case covering 25 domains to the Abused DNL would cost $100 in the first year and $25 a year thereafter, for example.
Adding a trademark to the TMCH costs between $95 and $150 a year, depending on your fee structure.

Third Bulgarian new gTLDs conference planned

Domain Forum, the Bulgarian new gTLDs conference, will run for a third time on November 1 in Sofia.
The one-day event, which will be free to attend and conducted in English, will have a focus this year on Cyrillic internationalized domain names, according to organizers.
Much of the agenda has yet to be finalized but confirmed speakers include consultant Stephane Van Gelder, Blacknight CEO Michele Neylon and Afilias business development director Francesco Cetraro.
Organizer UNINET also hopes to have an ICANN VP keynoting.
Domain Forum will take place at the National Palace of Culture in central Sofia.

Domain Name Association opens membership

The new Domain Name Association, which hopes to represent the interests of the domain name industry as a whole, has opened its doors to new members.
The DNA formed in January, named an interim board in April, and has spent the last several months conducting outreach and establishing its corporate structure, goals and membership rules.
Membership prices range from $1,000 to $50,000, with the make-up of the final board (estimated to be fewer than 20 directors) determined by which companies pay for the more expensive membership tiers.
Paying $50,000 will guarantee you a seat on the board, for example, while paying $5,000 makes your company eligible for, but not guaranteed, one of two reserved seats.
Speaking at the Digital Marketing & gTLD Strategy Congress in London two weeks ago, interim DNA chair Adrian Kinderis made no bones about the fact that the DNA is pay-to-play; it’s “not a democracy”.
It’s a trade group in the usual sense, in other words, borrowing nothing from ICANN’s multistakeholder model.
That said, ICANN CEO Fadi Chehade encouraged its creation and ICANN seems to generally support its goal.
That goal is to represent the entire domain name industry — registrars, registries, resellers, etc. Its mission statement is pretty succinct:

Promote the interest of the domain name industry by advocating the use, adoption, and expansion of domain names as the primary tool for users to navigate the Internet.

Promoting new gTLDs is its first priority.
The DNA operates two web sites: thedna.org for its members and whatdomain.org for internet end users.

Angry gTLD applicants lay into ANA and Verisign “bullshit”

They’re as mad as hell and they’re not going to take it any more.
New gTLD applicants yesterday laid into the Association of National Advertisers and Verisign with gusto, accusing them of seeking to delay the program for commercial reasons using security as a smokescreen.
The second TLD Security Forum in Washington DC was marked by a heated public argument between applicants and their back-end providers and the ANA’s representatives at the event.
The question was, of course, name collisions: will new gTLDs cause unacceptable security risks — maybe even threatening life — when they are delegated?
ANA vice president Dan Jaffe and outside counsel Amy Mushahwar had walked into the lion’s den, to their credit, to put forth the view that enterprises may face catastrophic IT failures if new gTLDs show up in the in DNS root.
What they got instead was a predictably hostile audience and a barrage of criticism from event organizer Alex Stamos, CTO of .secure applicant Artemis Internet, and Neustar VP Jeff Neuman.
Stamos was evidently already having a Bad Day before the ANA showed up for the afternoon sessions.
During his morning presentation, he laid the blame for certain types of name collision risks squarely with the “dumb” enterprises that are configuring their internal name servers in insecure ways. He said:

Any company that is using any of these domains, they’re all screwing up. Anyone who’s admitting these collisions is making a mistake. It’s a bad mistake, it’s a common mistake, but that doesn’t make it right. They’re opening themselves up to possible horrible security flaws that have nothing to do with the new gTLD program.
…
There is a mechanism by which you can split DNS resolution in a secure manner on Windows. But unless you do that, you’re in trouble, you’re creating a security hole for yourself. So stop complaining and delaying the whole new gTLD program, because you’re dumb, honestly. These are people who are going to have a problem whether new gTLDs exist or not. Let’s be realistic about this: it’s not about security, it’s about other commercial interests.

That’s of course a reference to Verisign, which is suspected of pressing the name collisions issue in order to prevent or delay competition to .com, and the ANA, which tried to get the program delayed on trademark grounds before it discovered collisions earlier this year.
Executives from Verisign, which put the ANA onto the name collision scent in the first place, apparently lacked the cojones to show up and defend the company’s position in person.
Stamos was preaching mainly to the choir at this point. The fireworks didn’t start until Jaffe and Mushahwar arrived for their panel a few hours later.
The ANA’s point of view, which they both made pretty clearly, is that there seems to be a risk that things could go badly wrong for enterprises if they’re running internal names that clash with applied-for gTLDs.
They’ve got beef with ICANN for running a “not long enough” comment period on the topic primarily during the vacation month of August, which didn’t give big companies enough time to figure out whether they’re at risk and obtain the necessary sign-off on disclosing this fact.
In short, the ANA wants more time — many more months — for its members and others to look at the issue before new gTLDs are delegated.
Mushahwar dismissed the argument that the event-free launches of .asia, .xxx and others showed that gTLD delegations don’t cause any problems, saying:

Let me admit right now: DNS collision is not new, it’s been around since the beginning of the internet… what is new is the velocity of change expected within the next year to 18 months.
I really dismiss the arguments that people are making on the public record saying we’ve dealt with this issue before, we’ve dealt with these issues, view the past TLDs as your test runs. We have never had this velocity of change happening.

The ANA seems to believe that the risk and the consequences are substantial, talking about people dying because their voice over IP fails or electricity supply gets cut off.
But other speakers weren’t buying it.
Stamos was first to the mic to challenge Mushahwar and Jaffe, saying their concerns are “mostly about IP and other commercial interests”, rather than sound technical analysis.
He pointed to letters sent to ICANN’s comment periods in support of the ANA’s position that were largely signed by IP lawyers. Security guys at these companies were not even aware of the letters, he said.

The internet is this crazy messy place where all kinds of weird things happen… if this is the mode that the internet goes forward — you have to prove everything you do has absolutely no risk of impacting anyone connected to the internet — then that’s it, we might as well call it done. We might as well freeze the internet as it is right now.
…
If you want to stall the program because you have a problem with IP rights or whatever I think that’s fine, but don’t try to grab hold of this thing and blow it up under a microscope and say “needs more study, needs more study”. For anything we do on the internet we can make that argument.
…
Any call for “we need to study every single possible impact for all several billion devices connected to the internet” is honestly kinda bullshit… it really smacks to me of lawyers coming in and telling engineers how to do their job.

Mushahwar pointed out in response that she’s a “security attorney, not an IP attorney” and that her primary concern is business continuity for large business, not trademark protection.
A few minutes later Neustar’s Neuman was equally passionate at the mic, clashing with Mushahwar more than once.
It all got a bit Fox News, with frequent crosstalk and “if you’d let me continue” and “I’ll let you finish” raising tempers. Neuman at one point accused Mushahwar of “condescending to the entire audience”.
His position, like Stamos before him, was that new gTLD applicants have looked at the same data as Interisle Consulting in its original report, and found that with the exception of .home, .corp and .mail, the risks posed by new gTLDs are minor and can be easily mitigated.
He asked the ANA to present some concrete examples of things that could go wrong.
“You guys have come to the table with a bunch of rhetoric, not supported by facts,” Neuman said.
He pointed to Neustar’s own research into the name collisions, which used the same data (more or less) as Interisle and Verisign and concluded that the risk of damaging effects is low.
The two sides of the debate were never going to come to any agreements yesterday, and they didn’t. But in many respects the ANA and applicants are on the same page.
Stamos, Neuman and others demanded examples of real-world problems that will be encountered when specific gTLDs are delegated and the ANA said basically: “Sure, but we need more time to do that”.
But more time means more delay, of course, which isn’t what the domain name industry wants to hear.

newdomains.org ticket compo winners announced

The winners of the recent DI prize draw, with three free tickets for the newdomains.org conference at stake, have been confirmed.
To enter the competition, you simply had to leave a comment on DI completing the sentence “The biggest challenge facing new gTLDs next year will be…”
I read all the submissions and found them all interesting but ultimately the comments were completely irrelevant in determining the winners, which were selected by three random numbers generated by Random.org.
The winners were:

• Colin Campbell of .CLUB Domains.
• Jeffrey Sass of .CLUB Domains.
• Phil Buckingham of DotAdvice.

It definitely looks weird that two people from the same company won tickets. Weird enough that for half a second I wondered whether justice would be better serviced if were to fix a different outcome.
But I didn’t. If it looks unjust, blame randomness. Fate’s a bitch.
Many thanks to all who entered. There were some interesting comments.