Recently in gTLDs Category

GMO Registry, which is part of the GMO Internet group, has been pushing dotShop, but it now appears that at least one other company is interested in pitching for it too..

This isn't the only new TLD project with competition and if ICANN announces tangible timelines in Cartagena you can expect to see a lot more of this..

Over the last couple of years several of the gTLD registry operators have requested contractual changes with ICANN.

In many cases the change was small enough that it fit into what is called the Registry Services Evaluation Process (RSEP), which is the case of "new services" such as Verisign's Registry Lock.

In other cases, however, the requested change is much bigger and requires that ICANN open it up to public comment.

Such was the case with the proposed "Phased Allocation Program in .JOBS". which has been open to public comment.

You can read the proposal here (PDF), but in essence it broadens the usage scenarios and the possible registrants of .jobs domains quite significantly. Under the current regime companies are restricted to registering their company name or a close derivative. Under the proposal all those restrictions are gone out the window. From a registrant perspective that may seem appealing at first, but the way that this is being pitched could lead to only a very narrow number of registrants actually gaining at any level. Ultimately, however, the only entity that stands to gain would be the registry.

If you have the time take a read over some of the comments - they are quite revealing!

ICANN's Generic Names Supporting Organisation (GNSO) has formed a working group to consider changes to the domain transfer process to enhance security and reduce hijacking.  The working group consists of registrars, aftermarket players, domainers and other members of the ICANN Community.  The group published its preliminary recommendations at the ICANN meeting in Brussels two weeks ago and the 20-day comment period has just begun.

The key areas of focus for the working group are as follows:

 a.    Whether a process for urgent return/resolution of a domain name should be
developed, as discussed within the SSAC hijacking report (http://www.icann.org/announcements/hijacking-report-12jul05.pdf; see also http://www.icann.org/correspondence/cole-to-tonkin-14mar05.htm);
b.    Whether additional provisions on undoing inappropriate transfers are needed, especially with regard to disputes between a Registrant and Admin Contact. The policy is clear that the Registrant can overrule the AC, but how this is implemented is currently at the discretion of the registrar;
c.    Whether special provisions are needed for a change of registrant near a change of registrar. The policy does not currently deal with change of registrant, which often figures in hijacking cases;
d.    Whether standards or best practices should be implemented regarding use of Registrar Lock status (e.g., when it may/may not, should/should not be applied);
e.    Whether, and if so, how best to clarify denial reason #7: A domain name was already in "lock status" provided that the Registrar provides a readily accessible and reasonable means for the Registered Name Holder to remove the lock status.

Comments by registrants, registrars and other interested parties are strongly encouraged and can be viewed at:

http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#irtp-b-initial-report

The deadline for submitting comments is 25 July.

Disclosure - I chair the working group

ICANN have published the 4th version of the DAG.

The DAG - Draft Applicant Guidebook - is like the "bible" for anyone aspiring to run a new TLD.

Unfortunately the new TLD launch cannot take place until the DAG has been finalised - a point that seems to be always just over the horizon.

The ICANN Board's statement on vertical integration at Nairobi has left pretty much everyone in an awkward position.

Either it is:

• a masterful move by the board
• or an act of madness

I'd hope it was the masterful move, as it essentially forces everyone to reach a consensus. Failure to do so will have a negative impact on both registrars and registries, as nobody can really "win' in the post-Nairobi world.

The Board's statement is still being debated, but on the face of it they are blocking any form of relationship between registries and registrars:

5. New gTLDs Implementation – Vertical Integration

Whereas, decisions about industry structure affect many aspects of the public interest – prices, service offerings, sources and uses of data, and more;

Whereas, ICANN has obtained several studies, and heard from Industry participants about the possible benefits and detriments of choices related to ownership integration or non-integration;\

Whereas, the market for new gTLDs will be dynamic, and has yet to emerge. In particular, there are concerns about how industry structure could affect consumer data protection;

Whereas, the GNSO is in an active policy development process on the issue of Vertical Integration, and the Board does not want to create an environment in which it would be difficult to later harmonize the new gTLD marketplace with the GNSO policy result; and

Whereas, it is important to establish a baseline approach to registry-registrar separation for the new gTLD process to move ahead.

Resolved (2010.03.12.17), within the context of the new gTLD process, there will be strict separation of entities offering registry services and those acting as registrars. No co-ownership will be allowed.

Resolved (2010.03.12.18), if a policy becomes available from the GNSO, and approved by the Board prior to the launch of the new gTLD program, that policy will be considered by the Board for adoption as part of the New gTLD Program.

The second last line includes an incredibly vague reference to "registry services" without offering any definition. So is providing DNS to a registry covered? What about if I buy shares in a company that already owns shares in another company? Where do you draw the line?

The last sentence is the "opening", but based on the interactions on the mailing list so far I'd suspect that there will be a lot of squabbling ..

Hopefully, however, there will be some progress, as it is now an issue of importance to a lot of parties

This morning the ICANN board is meeting in Nairobi

On the menu this morning are a number of topics, but only a couple of them are attracting any serious attention. One of them, EOI (Expressions of Interest), was hoped, by some, to be a way to move the new TLD project forward.

The board looks set to completely reject the EOI concept this morning.

At present board members are giving their thoughts on why they are doing this (or not doing it .. )

The ICANN meeting in Nairobi starts officially next Monday. However, as is normally the case, by the time Monday rolls around people will already have been working since Saturday morning (if not earlier).

All ICANN meetings seem to be surrounded by some bit of controversy and excitement, but the Nairobi meeting is possibly more dramatic than many others. The last attempt to hold a meeting in Nairobi failed, with ICANN opting to hold the meeting near LA's airport, LAX, instead. This time round there was quite a bit of controversy and tension surrounding the meeting's location.

The end result of the tension, security worries and everything else is that quite a large number of people who would normally attend the meeting will be staying at home.

Others will be travelling to Reston, VA, where Neustar has organised a US offsite location. Though with the time difference between VA and Nairobi anyone in attendance will end up working through the night!

So what's on the agenda?

New TLDs - this time round the focus will be on "EOI" - the concept of "expressions of interest" that was mooted at the last meeting in Seoul.

DNS SEC will be on the agenda again, but getting excited about it is far from easy - sorry!

IPv4 depletion will probably get a look in, but it's still a "hard sell". Until ISPs "buy in" and start deploying v6 on their public networks it's going to be nigh on impossible to make any tangible or meaningful movement in this area.

IDN ccTLDs. You can expect updates from the various countries that have applied using the "fast track". There might be more applications from other countries, as the meeting will have attracted its usual media circus.

But the real "hot potato" for ICANN is going to be .xxx

Following on from the recent decision which found that ICANN had "dropped the ball", the ICANN board will be voting on the Friday of the public meeting.

In reality you can expect to see board members being canvassed / briefed / harassed by interested parties pretty much all week. How will they vote?

Will the US government try to intervene?

If ICANN do move ahead with .xxx, will that have any impact on new TLDs?

If ICANN's board doesn't move ahead with .xxx this time round there is little or no chance that Stuart Lawley and ICM Registry are going to throw in the towel.

To start with they've no reason to. They have just won a legal battle that shows that ICANN was in the wrong. Sure, it may not be "binding", but any decision that so much as casts a doubt on ICANN's processes and procedures is a "win" for ICM - and rightly so.

So how would ICANN fare if ICM were to pursue this through to the next level?

ICANN stakeholders probably don't want to see their money being poured down a legal drain .. I know I don't ..

Afilias, which runs .info and provides registry services to a lot of other domains, has acquired the .mobi registry operator - mTLD Ltd.

The acquisition was officially announced on February 11th 2010, with both Afilias and mTLD releasing press releases etc., as well as a message to pass on to any registrants who might be concerned by the acquisition.

Is this good news or bad news?

I'd suspect that it's good news. It's certainly not bad!

It will be interesting to see what, if any, changes Afilias will bring to the .mobi namespace.

You can read the official announcement here

Related articles by Zemanta

• Afilias Limited Acquires .Mobi Domain Registry And Expands Market Leadership (prweb.com)
• Good News For Mobi (blacknight.com)
• Domain Name Wire " News " Afilias Aquires DotMobi - The Domain ... (domainmacher.com)
• Irish domain name company buys `.mobi' suffix (seattletimes.nwsource.com)

In an interesting move several members of the ICANN community formed an "informal" Working Group to discuss the concept of "expressions of interest" in new TLDs. This all happened very quickly, which is more or less the opposite to how most ICANN related activities progress.

Earlier this evening the group submitted its report / paper to ICANN

The report, which runs to about 11 pages, is concise and seems to have covered most of the areas of interest. What's also interesting to note is that the people involved came from a variety of areas and probably give a reasonably good cross-section of the ICANN community.

If you have a few minutes the document is definitely worth reading and is a nice example of how a group of people can get things done quickly and efficiently when needed.

Now if only the rest of the ICANN processes were this quick to reach consensus!

(Maybe pigs flying is more likely!)

Ah the joy of it all.

First we had the quite public squabbling over .eco that I mentioned recently, now it looks like we're going to have a full on "food fight".

If nothing else the new TLD process is going to be great fun for anyone who likes a bit of word play!

So what's happening this time?

Remember Wolfgang Puck joining forces with Minds and Machines to launch .food? Well it obviously wasn't exactly a marriage made in heaven and if the filings are anything to go by "too many cooks spoil the broth".

In the last few days lawyers representing the Pucks sent a nastygram to Minds and Machines, Top Level Domain Holdings and Fred Krueger. In the letter Puck claimed that M + M were in breach of contract, however this is strongly opposed by M + M.

Of course if it was just a simple matter of a contract dispute it wouldn't be that colourful, but with celebrity chefs and new TLDs in the mix there's a lot more to it.

The Minds and Machines' filing goes into great detail, not only refuting any and all claims being made by Puck, but also going on the offensive. According to Minds and Machines Puck's wife caused them no end of trouble, insulting clients, potential clients and business partners.

To quote a couple of choice slices:

"For example, Gelila publicly and personally insulted an agent for
professional football player Dhani Jones, with whom Minds+Machines was working in
connection with <.LOVE>.
55. Gelila also publicly insulted an associate of Shaquille O'Neal, with whom
Minds+Machines had been working in connection with <.BASKETBALL>. Gelila
publicly attacked Shaquille O'Neal by claiming that Mr. O'Neal is "not a brand. He may
be rich, but he's not a brand like Wolfgang Puck Worldwide."
56. During the ICANN meeting in Sydney, Australia, Gelila Puck shouted
within earshot of dozens of ICANN participants, that Minds+Machines should not
proceed with its application for <.ZULU>, which had already been approved by the King
of the Zulu nation with assistance of the daughter of the President of the Republic of
South Africa."

It also appears as if Mrs Puck likes to have certain creature comforts, but doesn't seem to want to pay for them:

Gelila Puck also spent Minds+Machines' money without permission,
costing it a substantial amount of money. For example, Gelila Puck flew two of Wolfgang Puck's sous chefs to Sydney to prepare food for the <.FOOD> launch party.
Also for the <.FOOD> launch party, Gelila Puck booked the most expensive hotel suite
in Sydney when Minds+Machines had already arranged for more reasonable, but still
luxurious, venue.

The document also talks of how Mrs Puck also interfered in the day to day business of Minds and Machines!

So what now?

The new TLDs haven't even launched, yet we've already had two public spats, while others are continuing in other circles (some of the exchanges surrounding the registrar - registry split are beginning to move into areas that are bordering on legal actions).

We can be pretty sure that the .food fight is just one of many to come. Maybe someone could launch a reality TV show? It might be better entertainment than Big Brother!

More coverage over here (who got the story from here) and it's now taking the celebrity angle over here.

Update: Here's the actual filing from Minds and Machines:
puck.pdf