Microsoft moving its cloud apps from .com to .microsoft

Microsoft is planning to move all of its Microsoft 365 apps off a multitude of .com domains and consolidate them all under .microsoft, its dot-brand gTLD.

The company says it will move Teams, Outlook, and Microsoft 365 web apps to the cloud.microsoft domain. They currently use domains such as outlook.office.com, teams.microsoft.com and microsoft365.com.

It first announced the move in April last year and this week reminded developers of apps that use its cloud platform that they need to support the new domain.

Explaining the move to the dot-brand last year, the company wrote:

Consolidating authenticated user-facing Microsoft 365 experiences onto a single domain will benefit customers in several ways. For end users, it will streamline the overall experience by reducing sign-in prompts, redirects, and delays when navigating across apps. For admins, it will drastically reduce the complexity of the allow-lists required to help your tenant stay secure while enabling users to access the apps and services they need to do their work.

Microsoft plans to launch the teams.cloud.microsoft domain in June but run the two domain schemes in parallel for a while, so as to not unnecessarily break apps in its developer ecosystem.

It’s not going to dump microsoft.com altogether, saying that it plans to use it for “non-product experiences such as marketing, support, and e-commerce.”

The cloud.microsoft domain is already one of the more visible dot-brand names out there, ranking in the top 20 most-visited, according to Majestic rankings.

Hat tip: The Register.

1 Comment Tagged: dot-brands, Microsoft, new gTLDs

ICANN 79: anonymous trolls and undercover lawyers

Transparency, an ICANN watchword since day one, was a noticeable thematic undercurrent at the community’s 79th public meeting in Puerto Rico last week.

The problem of lawyers representing unnamed clients in policy-making groups was raised in several fora, while another section of the community seems to have separately been infiltrated by the same kind of anonymous trolls that plagued ICANN during its infancy.

Governments were especially keen that the GNSO clean house by tightening up its disclosure rules, following an abortive attempt at reform at the Hamburg meeting last October, and they found allies in the Contracted Parties House, which had killed off the reform after deciding it did not go far enough.

Under the current GNSO rules of engagement, everyone who volunteers to participate in policy-making has to file a Statement of Interest, disclosing information such as their employer, community group affiliations, and so on. Among other things, volunteers are asked:

Do you believe you are participating in the GNSO policy process as a representative of any individual or entity, whether paid or unpaid? Please answer “yes” or “no.” If the answer is “yes,” please provide the name of the represented individual or entity. If professional ethical obligations prevent you from disclosing this information, please so state.

The exemption is believed to be designed primarily for American lawyers in private practice, some of whom say they may sometimes be ethically prevented from disclosing the identity of their clients.

But this creates problems for community volunteers, and for the rest of us.

For policy-makers: sometimes, in a working group, you won’t know who you’re really arguing with. The guy opposite, in the expensive suit who keeps inexplicably rubbing her nostrils, could be a mouthpiece for almost any corporation, industry association, or government.

For the rest of us: we don’t know who is really making the policies that impact how domain names are sold, managed, and regulated. Those may seem trivial issues in the grand scheme of things, but they touch on issues such as free speech, data privacy, and how much money comes out of your pocket when you buy a domain.

An attempt last year by the GNSO to update its SOI rules was shot down by the Contracted Parties House because the proposed changes kept the lawyer disclosure exemption.

The Non-Contracted Parties House gave the changes their unanimous approval.

The GNSO Council Committee for Overseeing and Implementing Continuous Improvement, which came up with the changes, looked at 351 SOIs from two recent large policy working groups and found that “a maximum of 0.03% members were making use of the exemption.”

I think that means just one person.

But the scale of the issue is irrelevant compared to the principle, according to some.

Swiss GAC rep Jorge Cancio noted during a session with the CPH last week, “even if there’s a very small number of cases where people use some exceptions for not explaining whom they are working for, even if it’s just 10 people out of 1,000 participants, this already tarnishes the whole of the system”.

Registries Stakeholder Group chair Sam Demetriou concurred: “We believe in and we are strong supporters of the multistakeholder model, but in order for a model to be multistakeholder, you need to know who those stakeholders are. It is inherent in the entire system and the definition.”

The GAC’s position is that everyone participating in policy-making needs to be up-front about their interests, in accordance with global norms. In a session with the GNSO Council, UK rep and vice-chair Nigel Hickson urged the GNSO to sort out the SOI issue before ICANN meets again, set for Kigali this June, because ministers will be present, wanting answers.

Separately at ICANN 79 last week, there was a parallel debate going on about whether a group affiliated with ICANN should force its members to even file SOIs at all.

The Universal Acceptance Steering Group isn’t technically an ICANN body — a Supporting Organization or Advisory Committee — but it is funded and supported by ICANN and carries out ICANN work. It’s been around since 2015 but so far hasn’t required members to submit SOIs.

As anyone who attended or remotely lurked on the ICANN 79 Public Forum last week will know, the UASG came in for a lot of criticism, mostly from remote participants, some of whom have managed to pull off the near-miraculously impressive achievement of having a non-existent Google footprint.

I’m not of course suggesting that some of the people in the Public Forum chat room were trolls using pseudonyms, but… actually, yes, that is what I am suggesting.

These participants had beef with the UASG for imposing a new strict SOI requirement — rules coming into force right now give participants a few months to file their SOIs or get kicked off the UASG mailing list — and suggested UASG leadership had broken with ICANN rules by unilaterally imposing the requirement.

Said mailing list is notable for being lightly used, but with occasional traffic spikes, usually during discussions of anything related to elections or UASG leadership, from participants using free webmail addresses and often what appear to be joke names (Yisrael Memshelet, really?).

Sometimes, these participants have helped steer the mailing list discussion, and at least one question from an aforementioned Google-resistant remote participant was read out at last week’s Public Forum and responded to (kinda) by a board member. ICANN received so many remote UASG questions during the Public Forum that it said it would provide a consolidated written response after the meeting.

It seems ICANN is suffering from twin related transparency problems right now — lawyers who don’t want to reveal their clients, and trolls who don’t want to reveal their identities — neither of which is ideal for its legitimacy.

Comment Tagged: gac, gnso, ICANN, sois, transparency, uasg

ICANN scores win in single-letter .com lawsuit

A Los Angeles court has handed ICANN a victory in a lawsuit filed against it by a domainer who thinks he has the rights to register all the remaining single-character .com domains.

Bryan Tallman of VerandaGlobal.com sued ICANN back in August, claiming the Org was breaking the law by refusing to allow him to register domains such as 1.com and A.com.

He already owns the matching domains in Verisign’s Chinese, Japanese and Hebrew .com IDNs, such as A.קום (A.xn--9dbq2a) and 1.コム (1.xn--tckwe), and says previous Verisign statements mean this gives him the right to the equivalents in vanilla .com.

These domains would very likely be worth tens of millions of dollars apiece. Verisign has held almost all single-character domain names in registry-reserved status since the 1990s. A few, notably Elon Musk’s x.com, pre-date the reservation.

Tallman claimed unfair competition, breach of contract, negligence and fraud and sought a declaratory judgement stating that ICANN be forced to transfer to him all of the 10 digits and all 23 of the remaining unregistered letters in .com, along with some matching .net names.

Pretty outlandish stuff, based on some pretty flimsy arguments.

ICANN filed a demurrer last year, objecting to the suit and asking the Superior Court of California in LA to throw it out, and the judge mostly agreed. In a February ruling (pdf), published recently by ICANN, he threw out all seven of Tallman’s claims.

Tallman was given permission to re-state and re-file five of the claims within 30 days, but his demand for a declaratory judgement was ruled out completely as being irreparably broken.

1 Comment Tagged: ICANN, lawsuit, scdn, single-character, verandaglobal

Cosmetics brand terminates its gTLD

Brazilian cosmetics maker Natura has become the latest new gTLD operator to tell ICANN to terminate its dot-brand contract.

The company said it is “no longer interested” in operating .natura, and ICANN has agreed to end the Registry Agreement.

Natura was not using the domain beyond the mandatory nic.natura, but my records show that it did start experimenting with usage about five years ago.

A handful of domains, including global.natura, app.natura and innovationchallenge.natura were active and resolved to full-content web sites, but these were all shut off at the end of 2023.

The move comes at a time when Natura has been in a cost-cutting drive, divesting various assets and de-listing itself from the New York Stock Exchange.

The string “natura” is a dictionary word in some languages, meaning “nature” in Italian for example, so it could feasibly be applied for in future new gTLD program rounds.

Comment Tagged: .natura, dot-brands, ICANN, termination

Up to 70 jobs on the line at Nominet as .uk regs dwindle

Nominet plans to lay off as many as 70 employees to cut costs, and is preparing for a .uk price increase, after years of dwindling domain registrations and the loss of a major government contract.

CEO Paul Fletcher told members yesterday that it won’t be providing the UK government with its Protective DNS recursive DNS service, PDNS, after its contract ends later this year. He implied that the government has selected a cheaper competitor to replace it, without giving details.

The deal was with the UK National Cyber Security Centre, and saw Nominet resolve half a trillion DNS queries a year for central government and other public services.

Nominet had been banking on this “cyber” business to bolster revenue in the face of “static or reduced demand for domains”, but the contract loss means some serious belt-tightening is in order, Fletcher indicated.

In its last financial year, Nominet said its cyber business had revenue of £12.6 million but had a loss of £2.4 million

“The changes that we are proposing to give us a sustainable cost base mean that up to 70 of our current roles could be made redundant,” he told members in an email. “While this would be partially offset by some redeployment opportunities, our overall headcount will reduce.”

He added that members should expect the price of .uk domains to increase in future, without giving a timetable.

“Our pricing will remain at current level of £3.90 until at least the end of the year, extending the freeze in place since 2021,” he wrote, but added that lower volume means “prices cannot be held at the level set in January 2020 indefinitely.”

Nominet had 10,688,932 .uk domains under management at the end of January, down from 11,045,559 a year earlier (a loss of almost a thousand domains a day) and its 2019 peak of 13,348,378.

Fletcher also delivered the news that one of its longest-serving staffers, registry managing director Eleanor Bradley, will leave the company later this year.

Finally, he said the company has successfully challenged a default court judgment (pdf) ordering it to repay a member’s subscription fees, a ruling that had been put forward as proof that Nominet has been breaking the law by charging membership fees for the last quarter-century.

Fletcher said the judgment came because Nominet had no idea it had been sued, adding: “On 31 January, we successfully applied to have the default judgment set aside in the County Court, having made every effort to avoid unnecessary, costly and time-consuming court proceedings. This ruling, which the claimant is appealing, allows us to defend the original claim.”

The lawsuit came as part of a campaign operated at WeightedVoting.uk that seeks to prove Nominet’s membership and voting structure is illegal.

Comment Tagged: .uk, nominet, pricing

Governments back down on new gTLD next round delay

ICANN’s Governmental Advisory Committee has decided not to force the Org to pay for a independent cost/benefit analysis of the new gTLD program, removing the potential for timeline friction ahead of the planned 2026 next-round launch.

In its latest communique, published following the ICANN 79 meeting in Puerto Rico last week, the GAC has essentially told ICANN that it broke its bylaws by not following eight-year-old GAC advice, but meh, whatever, just don’t do it again.

As I reported last week, governments had grown concerned that ICANN had not delivered the “objective and independent analysis of costs and benefits” of the new gTLD program that the GAC had asked for in 2016. Such an analysis was supposed to be a prerequisite for the next round going ahead.

What ICANN had delivered instead was a relatively hastily prepared summary of the next round’s policy recommendations, Org’s analysis of these recommendations, and the community-led review of competition, consumer protection and trust issues, the CCT review.

The Puerto Rico communique says that this response “cannot be considered to constitute a cost-benefit analysis, nor to be objective and independent” but that the GAC does not wish to throw up a road-block to the next round going ahead on schedule. It reads:

The GAC recognizes that the Community (with involvement of the GAC) is taking forward the next round of new gTLDs and has set a corresponding timeline. The GAC, therefore, believes that conducting further analysis at this stage would not serve the intended purpose.

The GAC encourages the Board to ensure that GAC advice, which the Board has accepted, is effectively implemented and its implementation is communicated to the GAC.

GAC chair Nicolas Caballero of Paraguay summarized it as the committee telling the ICANN board “we’re not aiming by no means at stopping the next round or anything like that, but that we want to be taken seriously”.

The original draft of the communique, drafted by Denmark, the US, the UK and Switzerland delegations, also contained text noting that the analysis ICANN provided was written by staff or community stakeholders, who were neither independent nor objective, but this was removed during a drafting session last week after objections from Iran, whose rep said it sounded too critical of the multistakeholder process.

It seems ICANN, and others who stand to make a lot of money from the new gTLD program, have dodged a bullet here, with the GAC essentially backing away and backing down from its potentially delay-causing previous demands.

Comment Tagged: gac, ICANN, icann 79, new gTLDs, next round

Private auctions could be banned in new gTLD next round

ICANN is “sympathetic” to the view that private auctions between competing new gTLD applicants are a Bad Thing that should be discouraged in the next application round.

Director Alan Barrett told the GNSO Council at ICANN 79 today that the board of directors, following Governmental Advisory Committee advice, has hired a consultant and is looking at ways to design an ICANN-run “last resort” auction in a way that “disincentivizes” the use of private auctions.

In the 2012 round, many contention sets were settled with private auctions, with tens of millions of dollars changing hands. Losing auctions was a real money-spinner for several portfolio applicants. When ICANN conducted the auctions, ICANN got the money.

Last June, the GAC advised ICANN to “ban or strongly disincentivize private monetary means of resolution of contention sets, including private auctions”, and Barrett said ICANN is considering how to fulfill that advice.

“We don’t know the answers yet, but what I can say is that we are looking at it and we are sympathetic to the idea of disincentivizing private auctions,” Barrett said.

He added that ICANN is looking at how it might discourage competing applicants from settling their contention sets using joint ventures “in a bad faith kind of way”.

“There’s the risk that applicants might use a joint venture in a bad faith kind of way, as a way of transferring money from one applicant to another, in much the same way as private actions could have done,” he said. “We want to figure out a way of allowing good-faith joint ventures.”

My sense is that whatever ICANN comes up with will have to have a substantial carrot component, or an equally big stick. The domain industry can be incredibly devious at times, and if there’s a way to make a big chunk of change filing unsuccessful new gTLD applications, somebody will figure it out.

6 Comments Tagged: auctions, ICANN, new gTLDs

ICANN meeting venue “insensitive and hurtful”

ICANN has taken some criticism over the decision to host its flagship Universal Acceptance 2024 meeting in Serbia.

An individual named Dmitry Noskov has written to ICANN to complain that the Universal Acceptance Steering Group will hold its “Keystone” meeting — the main event of the UA Day series of meetings around the world — later this month in Belgrade. He wrote (pdf):

Given the current global tension in the region due to ongoing conflict and the close cultural and historical ties between Serbia and Russia, which have led to diplomatic and trade actions by several countries against Russia, I am concerned about the implications of holding the event in Belgrade. It is crucial to consider the potential perception of insensitivity or hurtfulness to global sentiments, especially to those affected by the conflict.

Unlike most of Europe, Serbia has maintained a somewhat neutral stance on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and there is reportedly large popular support for Russia, and a large Russian population, in the country. Russia and Serbia are old allies.

ICANN has taken a generally pro-Ukraine stance. It donated $1 million to relief efforts in 2022 after the war started. It also lobbied against the Russian nomination for ITU secretary-general. Russia’s ccTLD registry cut off its ICANN funding last year.

CEO Sally Costerton replied (pdf) to Noskov to say that the choice of Belgrade as the keystone UA Day event for 2024 was made by the UASG.

The UA Day event in Belgrade is being hosted by local ccTLD registry RNIDS, which runs .rs and the Cyrillic equivalent .срб.

1 Comment Tagged: ICANN, rnids, russia, uasg, ukraine, war

GoDaddy to start selling graphic.design domains

In an unusual diversification into third-level domains, GoDaddy Registry seems to be planning to sell names under .graphic.design.

The company filed a request with the Public Suffix List yesterday, asking for the domain to be included on the list, so it will be recognized around the internet as a space where third-level names are registerable.

“GoDaddy Registry will be opening graphic.design to individual registrations, through a global network of authorised Registrars, similar to a standard open gTLD,” the request states.

“This inclusion in the PSL is to ensure the correct operation of the zone as an open TLD, such that providers including website, email and Certificate Authorities recognise the individual ownership of the registered domains within the graphic.design DNS zone,” it says.

The request goes on to say the company expects “5,000 to 10,000+” domains to be registered there.

The PSL is used widely by software such as browsers to determine ownership of domains for security purposes, allowing them to recognize, for example, that example1.graphic.design and example2.graphic.design are two different sites with potentially two different owners.

Registries launching third-level spaces is unusual but not unheard of. It happens much more often in the ccTLD space, where some countries have a baffling number of third-level options. In the gTLD space, the trend if anything is in the opposite direction, with third-levels being de-emphasized in favor of second-levels.

GoDaddy acquired .design from Top Level Design in 2021, a part of its massive expansion in the registry business. It’s not doing badly as new gTLDs go, with about 119,000 domains under management at the last count.

2 Comments Tagged: .design, godaddy, graphic.design, new gTLDs

GAC spinning up new gTLD curveball at ICANN 79?

ICANN’s Governmental Advisory Committee had a habit of throwing delaying curveballs before and during the 2012 new gTLD application round, and it might be planning a repeat performance before the upcoming 2026 round.

The GAC today assembled at ICANN 79 in Puerto Rico to discuss the latest developments in planning for the next round, and a major concern emerged around ICANN’s response to its request for a cost/benefit analysis.

The GAC had first asked for such an analysis at the Helsinki meeting in 2016, but after the ICANN 78 Hamburg meeting last October noted that it had still not received one.

At ICANN 56, the GAC had asked that an “objective and independent analysis of costs and benefits… drawing on experience with and outcomes from the recent round” should be a prerequisite for a next round going ahead.

After its Hamburg reminder, ICANN threw together a summary (pdf) of three existing documents that it presumably hoped would check that box and shush the GAC or give the GAC an excuse to shush itself.

The documents were the report of the Competition and Consumer Trust Review Team, the Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group Final Report (which created the policy recommendations for the next round) and ICANN’s Operational Design Assessment of SubPro (which talked about how ICANN would implement those recommendations).

It was a pretty flimsy response, and GACers weren’t buying it, pointing out today that the three documents in question were all produced by the ICANN community or ICANN staff and couldn’t really be said to be “objective and independent”. Nor could they be said to amount to an “analysis of costs and benefits”.

“I had the pleasure to read through the report, and see whether it’s a cost/benefit analysis, and whether it’s an objective and independent analysis,” the GAC rep from Denmark said. “And I must say that my answer or reply to those questions would be no, and a big no.”

Other GAC members in Europe and North America seemed to agree that either the cost/benefit analysis they had asked for still hadn’t been delivered and that perhaps it wouldn’t be great for the GAC’s credibility if it didn’t press the issue.

The UK rep, who was chairing the session, observed that GAC members’ higher-uppers in government, such as ministers, sometimes ask what economic impact gTLD expansion might have and that an answer might be useful.

The contrarian opinion came, as it so often does, from Iran, whose rep suggested that a cost/benefit analysis might be pointless and maybe the GAC should just put the issue to bed.

What happens if the analysis shows the costs outweigh the benefits, he asked, should ICANN just scrap the next application round and 13 years of policy work?

It seems a request for ICANN to pay for an independent cost/benefit analysis of the new gTLD program could make its way into the GAC’s formal advice-delivering communique later in the week, potentially throwing friction into the roll-out of the next round.

In my opinion, there is no real answer to the question of whether the new gTLD program is a net benefit.

Beyond the billions of dollars of economic activity that will be created, whether it’s beneficial is purely a subjective opinion, and paying a bunch of overpriced consultants to wave their hands in the air for a year before spitting out the 300-page PDF equivalent of a Gallic Shrug probably won’t provide any meaningful clarity.

Comment Tagged: gac, ICANN, new gTLDs, next round