59,000% revenue growth at Donuts leads to Deloitte award

Deloitte has placed new gTLD registry Donuts at the top of its 2017 Technology Fast 500, a league table of the fastest-growing North American technology firms.
Donuts won by growing its revenue by 59,093% over three years.
Given that Donuts didn’t have its first revenue-generating gTLD delegated until the final quarter of 2013, the three-year judging period basically covers almost the entire period of its existence as a trading company.
The runners up were ClassPass (46,556%, founded 2013), which gives fitness junkies a centralized way to book from multiple classes, and Toast (31,250%, founded 2012), which makes point-of-sale software for restaurants.
Companies could submit themselves for consideration on the 500-strong table. They only needed 135% growth over three years to make it to the list.
The rankings are based on revenue, not profit, so it does not necessarily mean that gTLDs are a way to get rich quick.
Still, it’s impressive that something as dated as domain names could top the rankings, given the number of transformational technologies hitting the market every year.

Deloitte confirmed as first Trademark Clearinghouse provider

ICANN has signed a contract with Deloitte, making the company the first official trademark validation agent for the forthcoming new gTLDs Trademark Clearinghouse.
The news emerged in a blog post from ICANN CEO Fadi Chehade today.
The TMCH is going to use the registry-registrar model, with IBM acting as the centralized, sole-source database operator, and Deloitte acting as the first “registrar”.
Marks entered into the TMCH will be eligible for Trademark Claims notifications and, in cases where proof of use has been provided, Sunrise registrations.
Chehade confirmed that Deloitte can charge a maximum of $150 per trademark per year, with discounts available for multiple marks and multiple years.
IBM’s contract and associated fees have not yet been set, due largely to the fact that the TMCH implementation model is still the subject of debate and controversy.
ICANN has confirmed, however, that it will retain “all intellectual property rights” to data stored in the Clearinghouse, meaning it may be able to migrate the database to a different provider in future.
Chehade also confirmed that ICANN has received “multiple” responses to its Request For Information for a Uniform Rapid Suspension service provider that come in under its $500-per-case price target.

ICANN trademark tech summit confirmed for Brussels in just two weeks

ICANN has confirmed that it will hold a technical summit to discuss the forthcoming Trademark Clearinghouse in Brussels less than two weeks from now.
The two-day meeting will be held at the offices of Deloitte, which along with IBM has been contracted as the TMCH provider, from August 20 to 21.
As you might expect by now from the new gTLD program, the summit’s organization wasn’t particularly timely or well-communicated, leaving parts of the community fuming.
The meeting was demanded by registries and registrars at the Prague meeting in June — they want a chance for their technical guys to get into the nitty-gritty of the TMCH implmentation.
But confirmation that it’s actually going ahead only arrived in the last couple of days, leaving companies in the US and Asia-Pacific regions facing steep last-minute air fares or the less-ideal option of remote participation at ungodly hours.
I get the impression that the TMCH providers, which have been less than communicative with the registrars and registries they will soon be servicing, might be as much to blame as ICANN this time.
The TMCH is a repository for trademark data that new gTLD registries will be obliged to use in their sunrise and immediate post-launch periods.
While the policy argument has ostensibly been settled, many technical details that still need to be ironed out could have huge implications.
For example, if the registration process flow requires live queries to the TMCH, downtime could be devastating for registries if, as is expected, several gTLDs wind up launching simultaneously.
And if the TMCH protocols prove to be too complex and costly for registrars to implement, many may not bother, potentially leading to a bunch of damp squib gTLD launches.
So it’s important stuff. DI may even be in attendance, hotel prices and/or Belgian vagrancy laws permitting.

OpenRegistry behind 20 new gTLD apps

OpenRegistry will provide the back-end technical infrastructure for 20 new generic top-level domain applications filed by 15 clients, according to a report.
Dutch telco KPN, consultancy Deloitte and financial management firm LPL Financial are among its dot-brand clients, according to Knack.be, quoting executives.
Presumably, we’re looking at bids for .kpn and .lpl as well as .deloitte, which Deloitte confirmed earlier this month.
Its portfolio of applications also includes two cities – one is .gent for Ghent, the other is an American city – and two generic terms that have not yet been revealed.
(UPDATE: While OpenRegistry is not naming the American city, I hear through the grapevine that it might be Boston).
Its clients have a total market cap of $150 billion, according to the report.
That’s not a bad roster for the start-up, whose technical arm is known as Sensirius. The Benelux company was founded in late 2010 by former executives from EuroDNS and Belgian ccTLD manager DNS.be.
A year ago it won the contract to manage the back-end for .sx, the new ccTLD for Sint Maarten.

Trademark clearinghouse signs up 40 registrars

The ClearingHouse for Intellectual Property, CHIP, is signing up one or two domain name registrars to its system every day, according to its chief architect, attorney Bart Lieben.
Lieben tells me that 40 registrars have signed up since the IP protection service officially launched two weeks ago, and that there is strong interest among corporate-focussed registrars.
CHIP is a registry for companies’ trademark rights, designed to ease trademark protection in domain names. It’s backed by Deloitte and Lieben’s employer, the law firm Crowell & Moring.
For registrars, there’s an opportunity to offer value-added services to their corporate customers.
The company plans to offer its services to new top-level domain registries during their sunrise periods, and to existing registries and registrars on an ongoing basis.
It’s currently in use at .SO Registry, the recently relaunched Somalian registry, as well as .co.no, a third-level domain provider from Norway.

The .CO launch, by the numbers

The .co top-level domain is now live and open for general registrations, following a well-planned and self-evidently successful launch period.
The TLD is the country-code for Colombia, but it’s being sold as a generic alternative to .com by .CO Internet.
Here’s the story of the launch, explained with numbers:

27,000 – approximate number of active .com.co registrations made before the start of 2010, under the previous, much more restrictive regime (source).
5,000 – roughly how many of these .com.co registrants chose to participate in sunrise grandfathering, which would allow them to grab the equivalent .co domain before anybody else (source).
100 – number of brands on .CO Internet’s Specially Protected Marks List. These 100 companies, selected by Deloitte, had their brands placed on a registry-reserved list during the launch period.
83 – brands on the SPML who had chosen to register their .co names by the time the sunrise closed (source). Companies on the SPML who continue to decline their domain will see their brand released back into the pool.
10 – registrars initially approved to take .co registrations. Many more companies are selling the domains, but they’re all acting as resellers for these 10. More registrars will be approved in future.
225 to 335 – price in US dollars of a sunrise registration for trademark holders (source).
11,000 – approximate number of sunrise registrations
1,500 – approximate number of rejected sunrise applications (source)
27,905 – applications made during the landrush (source)
451 – landrush applicants applying for 10 or more domains
2,523 – domains receiving more than one landrush application. These domains will now be offered at auction. (source)
133 – number of countries where landrush applicants resided
350– Fortune 500 companies that have registered their trademarks under .co as of today
81,000 – the price in US dollars of the first .co domain to be auctioned, the single-letter e.co. The domain sold on Sedo to Bookmarks.com on June 10 (source)
350,000 – price in US dollars of the biggest seller to date, the single-letter o.co. The domain was sold to Overstock.com, directly by the registry, earlier this week. (source)
91,613 – registrations in the first 12 minutes of general availability, which started at 6pm UTC yesterday. (source)
216,159 – currently active registrations as of 10am UTC today, 16 hours into general availability (source)
? – number of .co domains still active July 22, 2011.

Have I missed anything? Let me know in the comments and I’ll add your data to the list.

.CO sunrise sees gaming attempts

.CO Internet has published a list of over 1,500 domains that were rejected during its two-month-long trademark-protection sunrise period for the .co namespace.
While the document does not break down the reasons why each name was rejected, it appears to list some attempts to game the system by registering non-existent trademarks or trademarks belonging to other entities.
It’s a 48-page document, compiled by Deloitte, but the range of rejected domains can be illustrated without leaving the C’s.
Names that were applied for and rejected despite being household names include the likes of circuitcity.co, compusa.co, comet.co and currys.co, all electronics retailers, and chevrolet.co.
Since these are names for which trademarks certainly do exist, I’m drawing the conclusion that the sunrise applicant was not the owner of the trademark.
There were also attempts to register personal names, such as christopher.co and courtney.co, as well as geographical terms, such as coventry.co, cleveland.co and chennai.co.
One wildly optimistic applicant even took a chance on colombia.co.
Some applicants went after the .co variants of popular .com web sites, such as chucknorrisfacts.co and collegehumor.co.
In terms of generic terms, applications were rejected for the likes of coffeehouse.co and countrymusic.co.
All of these names, and 1,500 more from the list, will be released back into the landrush period, in which anybody can attempt to register them, a few hours from now.
The recently extended landrush period ends this Friday. General availability begins next week.
Hat tip to Key-Systems, which released the list earlier today.

Which top brands turned down their .co domains?

Playboy, Pepsi and Pizza Hut are among 17 of the world’s top 100 brands that did not use the .co sunrise period to register their trademarks as .co domain names.
This is effectively the first empirical data we have to judge the demand for a Globally Protected Marks List along the lines of that which ICANN was toying with for its new TLD program.
.CO Internet, the registry operator behind the newly liberalized Colombian top-level domain, chose to implement a Specially Protected Marks List as one of several IP-protection mechanisms.
The list, maintained by Deloitte, comprises the 100 trademarks thought to be the most valuable, and the most rigorously defended, on the internet.
All of these marks, which include some generic dictionary words, are classified as registry reserved and will be impossible to register unless you are the trademark owner.
Yet 83 of the companies on the list chose to register their names in the .co sunrise anyway.
This may show that famous brands are more interested in owning a name that resolves, rather than merely defensively registering in order to keep their marks out of the hands of cybersquatters.
I can only speculate as to why these 83 chose to participate in the sunrise.
Two obvious reasons are the need to establish a Colombian presence on the internet, and the desire to capture any typo traffic from people miskeying “.com”.
For both these reasons, the data is probably not a reliable indicator of how these companies would act during a generic TLD sunrise.
Of the 100 marks on the Deloitte list, these are the 17 that have so far chosen not to acquire their domains:

Accenture, Accor, Armani, Blackberry, BMW, Carrefour, Dell, Fedex, Ferrari, General Electric, Nivea, Pedigree, Pepsi, Pizza Hut, Playboy, Prada, Reebok, Sanyo, SAP, Sheraton, Tiffany and Total.

Because these are registry-reserved names, there’s no danger of cybersquatters picking them up when .co goes to general availability in a little under 11 days.
UPDATE 2010-07-13: See the comment from .CO Internet below. It seems the SPM list is not as useful for brand holders as I had thought.

Four of the top 100 brands have insecure domain names

Some of the world’s most famous global brands have domain names that are still vulnerable to the Kaminsky exploit and could be hijacked by others.
Earlier today, I ran all of the brands on Deloitte’s list of the top 100 brands through a vulnerability testing tool provided by IANA.
The results show that four of these brands – all household names – have domains classed as “highly vulnerable” to the Kaminsky exploit.
If the IANA test is reliable, this means that false data could be injected into their name servers, potentially redirecting users to a web site belonging to the attacker.
Another eight brands had domains that the IANA tool reported might be “vulnerable” to attacks, but which had measures in place to mitigate the risk.
The Kaminsky bug has been public for almost two years. It’s a cache poisoning attack in which a recursive name server is tricked into providing false data about a domain.
It becomes particularly scary when a domain’s authoritative name servers also have their recursive functions turned on. A successful attack could redirect all traffic to a compromised domain to a server managed by the attacker.
The surest way to avoid vulnerability is to turn off recursion. IANA says: “Authoritative name servers should never be configured to provide recursive name service.”
Alternatively, a method known as source port randomization can make the risk of being compromised by the Kaminsky exploit so small it’s barely a threat at all.
The IANA tool reports that four of the top 100 brands have at least one “highly vulnerable” authoritative name server that has recursion enabled and no source port randomization.
The other eight “vulnerable” domains were identified as running on at least one authoritative server that had recursion turned on and source port randomization enabled.
I’m not an expert, but I don’t believe this second category of companies has a great deal to worry about in terms of Kaminsky.
I picked the Deloitte brand list for this experiment because it is the list of brands Deloitte believes require the most trademark protection under ICANN’s new TLD process.
.CO Internet is already using the list during its sunrise period for the .co domain.
Michele Neylon of Blacknight has found some more vulnerable servers over here.

Deloitte brand list encourages UDRP claims

The number of UDRP claims a company files will help it qualify for a list of 100 brands that qualify for special protection in new gTLD launches.
Deloitte’s new brand list, expected to be published within a week, was created in response to ICANN’s call for a “globally protected marks list” or GPML, that new gTLDs can use in their sunrise periods.
The number of times a brand has been subject to a UDRP complaint is one of four criteria Deloitte is using for inclusion on the list.
.CO Internet, manager of the newly relaunched .co ccTLD, is already using the list in its sunrise period, referring to it as a “Specially Protected Marks” list.
Deloitte is more cautious, pointing out that while it was designed to fulfil some of the objectives of the ICANN GPML, it is not “the” GPML.
The company says: “the list published by Deloitte specifically intends to provide a fair view on which brands stand out in the safeguarding and enforcement of rights in the context of domain names.”
To make it onto the list, brands are assessed on these criteria: the web site’s ranking, the number of trademarks registered worldwide, whether the brand has participated in a previous sunrise, and how often the brand is cybersquatted.
For this last criterion: “Deloitte has reviewed in particular how many times a certain trademark has been invoked in the context of domain name dispute resolution proceedings, in particular in UDRP.”