Note: you may want to read the Introduction and Part One of this series for a quick overview of the “speed-dating” process and some notes about the results presented here. Answers are from the registry operator, and don’t represent our independent evaluation.

[← CentralNIC | Full list | Directi →]

Contestant #4 - CoCCA

CoCCA (Council of Country Code Administrators) is a terrific co-operative of sixteen (and growing) country-code registries. Their open-source software can either be hosted or installed on your machines, thereby covering a range of business models, from clueless to paranoid. Just as important, they have put together a policy framework, providing their members with registration agreements, dispute resolution services, an ombudsman (think drastically reduced legal fees), ICANN liaison, and other important registry functions. Best of all, they work on a cost-plus basis, so it’s very inexpensive. I did a write-up of CoCCA when they opened up in 2006.

Leave a comment if you have an opinion or information on CoCCA’s services.

[← CentralNIC | Full list | Directi →]

Tags: CoCCA, new gTLD, new TLD, new top-level domains, Elaine Pruis, ICANN, domain registry

Note: you may want to read the Introduction and Part One of this series for a quick overview of the “speed-dating” process and some notes about the results presented here. Answers are from the registry operator, and don’t represent our independent evaluation.

[← Afilias | Full list | Cocca →]

Contestant #3 - CentralNIC

CentralNIC is a durable study in an alternate business model. They’ve been around since 1995, selling domain names under a “two-letter-code.com” taxonomy, for instance uk.com, us.com, and so on. While some have whined that this is “cheating” or “unreal,” the fact is that domain names from CentralNIC work just as well as any other, and aren’t subject to the vagaries of ICANN or ccTLD policies. They have a large network of registrars, and are proof that you can do things differently and thrive. Their site has a largely propaganda-free history of CentralNIC.

UPDATE: CentralNIC has a page devoted to its registry services.

If you have a view on CentralNIC’s service offerings, please do leave a comment.

[← Afilias | Full list | Cocca →]

Tags: CentralNIC, new gTLD, new TLD, new top-level domains, Dan Schindler, Joe Alagna, Gavin Brown, ICANN, domain registry

Note: you may want to read the Introduction and Part One of this series for a quick overview of the “speed-dating” process and some notes about the results presented here. Answers are from the registry operator, and don’t represent our independent evaluation.

[← VeriSign | Full list | CentralNIC →]

Contestant #2 - Afilias

Afilias is one of the “big three” registry operators, the other two being VeriSign and NeuStar. Afilias is owned by a consortium of registrars, including most of the large ones. It launched with the introduction of .INFO in the fall of 2001 and has continued to compete very effectively for business from new and existing TLDs. There’s a (selective) history of Afilias and some of its accomplishments on their site.

If you have a view on Afilias’ service offerings, please do leave a comment.

[← VeriSign | Full list | CentralNIC →]

Tags: Afilias, new gTLD, new TLD, new top-level domains, Steve Heflin, Karim Jiwani, ICANN, domain registry

The introduction to this series gave a quick overview of the registry providers who came to our Registry Speed Dating event at the recent ICANN meeting in Paris. Most new top-level domain applicants will want to avoid the very expensive task of building their own registry system. Instead, they’ll outsource. This series profiles the registry providers competing for that outsourced business.

Keep in mind that these registry providers had five minutes only to answer some rapid-fire questions, and what we have is a quick tabulation of the results. All of the registry providers were well-prepared and (from what they told us) have strong offerings.

Caveats: There is no single perfect registry provider. Each have different strengths and serve different markets. This guide is to help you match your needs to the right registry provider. The answers below are from the representatives of the registry providers, and not an independent evaluation. Also keep in mind that this is draft information; registries may change their policies.

Now let’s have a look at them one by one, in the order they presented to us. At the end of this series, I’ll put together a downloadable PDF which will serve as a comparison chart.

[Full List | Afilias →]

First up: VeriSign

I suspect that at least some of the registry providers will read through this series and take note of comments, so fire away.

[→ Afilias | Full List]

Tags: VeriSign, VRSN, new gTLD, new TLD, new top-level domains, Sarah Langstone, Jennifer Gore, ICANN, domain registry

Starting a new gTLD? Are you going to start your own registry, or outsource?

It’s a critical choice, because with “stability of the Internet” as the watchword of the day, you want to make double-sure that your application isn’t torpedoed on technical grounds. Unless you’re very sure of what you’re doing, it makes a lot of sense to find a partner who can pass all of ICANN’s tests.

But whom to choose? Who’s out there, and what do they offer? What prices do they charge? Will they help with your application. Do they support the business rules that you need to implement?

To help answer these and other questions, Jothan Frakes and I set up a “speed-dating” session during the recent ICANN meeting in Paris. Representatives of the different registry operators were introduced to TLD aspirants and those who (like me) are providing consulting services. Then we ushered them out of the room. Then we began the speed-dating: the registry operators were invited back in, one by one, and had to answer the same rapid-fire series of questions so that we could get an apples-to-apples comparison.

I’ll post up the specific results in a later post, after each of the registries has had a chance to agree that they really meant to say what they said (a.k.a. “fact-checking”). At present, we are waiting for a few stragglers to confirm.

For the moment let me introduce the players and comment on some of the aggregate data.

In addition to the well-known registries — VeriSign, Afilias, and NeuStar — 10 other registries showed up to explain their services. Some were not full-fledged registries, but offered ancillary services such as auction services (Pool.com, Moniker). Since we were looking at what a new TLD applicant might want to have as well as what they *must* have, we were inclusive in our invitations.

• Afilias
• AusRegistry
• CentralNIC
• Cocca
• Community DNS
• CORE
• Directi
• Demand Media
• Moniker/SnapNames (auction services)
• Neustar
• Pool.com (auction services)
• RegistryASP
• VeriSign

I’ll introduce each of these registry operators in more detail in later posts and present their answers to our questions, plus (if they consent) get their further comments going forward. I’ll also include URLs to any pages they have set up specifically for their new gTLD services.

For the moment, some preliminary trends emerge. First, it’s interesting to note how few ccTLD operators are throwing their hat in the ring. DENIC, the German registry operator who made a play for .NET when it was rebid a few years ago, has decided not to play. Granted, this session was put together at the last minute, so some ccTLD registries may not have heard about it, or weren’t ready to present. Also not here are alternate root operators, such as INIAC, which is not surprising given their “tin-foil-hat paranoia” about ICANN. Technically, however, they may well be capable, and they are receiving interest from potential TLD applicants.

Second, most of the registry operators are offering some kind of investment in projects they think have a good chance of succeeding. These registry operators are probably in as good a position as anyone to understand whether a new gTLD application has a possibility of succeeding, so if they decide to invest in your application that’s a pretty good vote of confidence.

Third, most will take payment however they can get it flexibly — which means either on a per-domain basis (the traditional method), or a flat fee, or a percentage of revenue, or a mix of these methods. If a registry operator wants a cut of your revenue as opposed to making you pay for every domain, that’s a good sign that they like what they see.

For some new TLDs, auctions may be very important. Moniker/SnapNames and Pool.com both offered registry auction solutions (as an add-on to actual registry operations), and Moniker’s solution provides live auctions at domainer events and other venues. Live auctions have been very effective for .mobi and may be critical for getting buy-in from the ever-important domainer customer base.

Finally, with a couple of notable exceptions, these are all outsourced solutions. Only a couple of operators will sell you (in one case, give you) software that you can set up on your own servers and administer yourself. For security-minded TLDs, this will be a big differentiator.

Much more detail to come after our contestants have finished deciding that they really meant what they said…

Tags: new TLD, new gTLD, registry operator, ICANN, new gTLD application, Afilias, AusRegistry, CentralNIC, Cocca, Community DNS, CORE, Directi, Demand Media, Moniker, Neustar, Pool.com, RegistryASP, SnapNames, VeriSign, INAIC, DENIC, speed dating

Like it or not, intellectual property protections are a part of life if you plan to start a new TLD. Designing a clear, simple, and appropriately-priced Sunrise period can make the difference between smooth sailing and disaster. A smooth Sunrise will make your Landrush launch that much simpler; mismanage it, and you’ll have a lot of bad publicity and suspicion right at the start of your new venture.

The Sunrise Period is a special period prior to the general launch of a registry where trademark owners can claim names that are the same or similar to their trademarks. Typically, only trademarks that have been around for a while (usually a year to eighteen months) qualify, in order to prevent people from rushing out to register them for the sole purpose of getting a domain name during Sunrise.

Trademark owners nurse a suspicion that registries are started in order to get them to pay (again!) for names they own anyway. Most people who have started a registry will tell you that the revenues don’t even begin to cover the costs, although they can bring in revenue right at the beginning of your operations, when it’s needed most. Not only do you have to design systems to handle Sunrise names, you have to make sure to communicate your policies to the intellectual property community.

Although owners of large numbers of trademarks are usually wealthy companies, many are very price-sensitive, because they often feel that new gTLDs are a legal form of extortion. In other words, it’s not the money, it’s the principle. Therefore, if you can justify your pricing as a function of your costs, you will go a long way toward alleviating any hostility you may encounter. Remember also that your price is going to determine volume: many trademark holders will not register all their brand names, just the important ones. If you are able to convince them that your price is fair, they may go deeper into their list.

Be prepared to answer the “what if” questions that lawyers love. “What if” our trademark is owned by a holding company we set up in the Bahamas? “What if” our trademark is a design mark, and not a word mark? “What if” we have a common law trademark instead of a registered trademark? And so on, and so forth. There’s no way that you’re going to answer all these questions in advance, so you need to reach out to the intellectual property community and be prepared to set up seminars, conference calls, and other ways of keeping your lines of communication open.

Don’t forget that corporate registrants are likely to be substantial participants in your Landrush period as well. Johnson & Johnson, for example, may own the trademark “Pampers,” but they might also want to register “diapers,” “nappies,” and other generic words that go along with their brand, but which are not eligible for the Sunrise period. So it’s a good idea to keep these customers happy.

Some costs to keep in mind: you will want to have someone, probably an intellectual property law firm with expertise in these matters, validate the Sunrise applications to make sure that the applicants have followed the rules. Their trademarks should be valid, the jurisdiction in which they got them should conform to your rules, and so on. You may also want to hire someone to help you identify the legal issues as you put together your Sunrise plan. Depending on your TLD, you might well be looking at over $100K in costs. If you write to me, I will be glad to put you in touch with some good people I know.

Finally, doing the Sunrise correctly can save you a lot of money in legal fees later. Both .INFO and .BIZ had to substantially rework their Sunrise periods after the fact, at tremendous cost. .INFO didn’t screen trademarks, and (surprise!) got lots of bogus registrations, which they had to later invalidate. .BIZ was found by the courts to have conducted an illegal lottery, and they too had to re-do their Sunrise allocations.

The Intellectual Property Constituency at ICANN has put together a very useful booklet that describes the Sunrise periods (they call them “pre-launch Rights Protection Mechanisms”) of previous TLDs in some detail. You can download a copy of “The Perfect Sunrise” (PDF). If you are designing a Sunrise period, you would be very well served to study this in some detail.

Dealing with trademarks is a vexing problem throughout the life of a top-level domain registry. Despite ICANN’s Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), an arbitration process that handles domain name intellectual property squabbles, trademark owners intermittently attempt to insist that registries and registrars have a duty to proactively police the namespace for trademark violations. Putting together a Sunrise period that acknowledges the rights of trademark owners and provides them with a simple application process at a reasonable cost will set the tone for your future dealings with them. Whether or not you agree with trademark protections, they are a fact of life for a registry, and you can save yourself a lot of trouble down the road by doing your Sunrise period right.

Tags: new gTLD, new TLD, Sunrise, Sunrise period, IPC, ICANN IPC, intellectual property constituency, UDRP, uniform dispute resolution policy, pre-launch Rights Protection Mechanisms, .INFO, .BIZ

This promises to be very entertaining.

On the one side, Time Warner and Verizon (historically, one of the most rabid defenders of the divine right of trademarks) are moving fast to emulate domainers with an inexhaustible supply of useless sitefinder-like parked pages. If they’re your ISP, any time you misspell a URL, up come the highly-annoying ads.

On the other side, some domainers are displaying a new-found appreciation of intellectual property. A guest-post screed by “Seb” (no last name, some habits die hard) on the The Domains, is threatening a class-action suit against ICANN if they allow new top-level domains, on the grounds that it might hurt the investments made by domainers in .com names.

I quote:

Now ICANN wants to dilute the value of our intellectual property assets by allowing anyone to create a whole registry squatting on our domain names…. We’re not interested. I’ll sue ICANN for every new registry proposal that moves the left of any of our domains to the right of the dot (mydomain.com / .mydomain) on the ground of dilution of our intellectual property assets. I encourage everyone to do so.

Most trademark owners and domainers are smart enough to know that there are advantages to new gTLDs, which may (if there enough of them) even remove some of the problems created by scarce Internet real estate. But there are some who, having made their fortunes based on artificial and fragile laws, regulations, and market conditions, can be relied upon to go right over the edge.

I had posted earlier that there was no place for domainers in ICANN’s broken constituency structure, but now I’m thinking there’s room in the Intellectual Property Constituency. Or, since one distinguishing feature of domainer meetings is an outrageous entry fee, they could join the other three members of the Business Constituency.

In either case, I want a ringside seat. And some popcorn.

Tags: The Domains, Seb, Intellectual Property Constituency, Business Constituency, new TLDs, new gTLDs, ICANN, trademarks, Verizon, Time Warner

AFNIC, the French registration authority, has seven “colonial” ccTLDs that they keep dark and non-functional (see the full list below, extracted from an AFNIC document). At least four of these seven functioned at one point before being shut down under pressure from France. Their absence from the active Internet effectively denies their inhabitants any separate identity.

Then, in September 2007, the ISO-3166-1 list, from which the ccTLD codes are drawn, was shuffled around, adding two new potential French ccTLDs, .BL (St. Bartholomew) and .MF (St. Martin - French side) [link to PDF]. These two are for the moment also dark, bringing the dark total to nine. (Reunion, the tenth, does have registration activity.)

There are some very good people at AFNIC, but I’m not a fan of French ccTLD policies, as I made clear as a panelist at the recent ICANN session on new TLDs, as well as in previous posts.

During the discussion, I made the point that new gTLDs are an experiment, and that in order for an experiment to be valid, there must be room for failure. Bertrand de la Chapelle, the GAC representative from France, in the audience, stood up and said:

And you really believe it is the best service we can make to the security and stability of the Internet to allow the framework to have some that fail, some that don’t fail? I don’t believe so.

I have seen every form of outrage at ICANN, especially from the GAC, so I should not have been surprised. But I admit, this made my blood boil.

The French colonial ccTLDs are failures, by definition. They don’t work at all. Four of them (GF, .MQ, .GP, and .PM) were wrested from local operators and then turned off. In some form or another, they are all officially part of France “outre-mer” (overseas France).

The status of the native people of French overseas territories is unclear, but their rights are clearly inferior to those of French citizens on the mainland. For example, France does its nuclear testing there, and reserves the right to continue atmospheric nuclear tests. And while the European French can travel there, the residents may not be allowed to travel freely: “…les Territoires d’Outre Mer ne font pas partie du Territoire européen de la République française. Aussi le Traité de Rôme et le Traité de Maastricht ainsi que le principe de libre circulation qui en découle ne sont pas applicables.” So while a claim that these territories are “France” may be true from the point of view of military control, the population lack just a few of the rights that the mainland French enjoy. Just a few itty-bitty little rights, like self-determination.

Skepticism, therefore, may not be unwarranted in response to claims that these ccTLDs are administered for the benefit of the local Internet community, as per RFC 1591, the founding document concerning the responsibilities of TLD operators, or even according to IPC 1, ICANN’s early attempt to supplant RFC 1591.

But good news! In an apparent about-face, AFNIC has started an consultative session, which is considering under which conditions (if any) the ccTLDs of these territories may be started up. I can only speculate on their intentions. The consultation is “open,” meaning that anyone can give their opinion. The deadline for comments, unfortunately, was June 24, and I found out only the day before the deadline, in the middle of the ICANN session, that it existed.

Voilà the goal of the consultation:

L’objectif de cette consultation est de recueillir l’avis de l’ensemble des acteurs de la communauté Internet afin de contribuer à définir les modalités de gestion des domaines internet concernés par l’article L.45 du code des postes et des télécommunications (CPCE) et par son décret d’application 2007-162 :
« .fr » France ;
« .gf » Guyane Française ; « .gp » Guadeloupe ; « .mq » Martinique, « .re » Réunion
« .pm » Saint Pierre et Miquelon ; « .wf » Wallis et Futuna ; « .yt » Mayotte ;
« .tf » Terres Australes et Antarctiques Françaises ;
ainsi que les futurs domaines « .bl » Saint Barthelemy et « .mf » Saint Martin.

[Quick translation - The goal of this consultation is to collect the advice of Internet participants in order to contribute to defining the manner of managing Internet domains etc. etc. ]

I’ve spent more time than my high-two-figure salary can justify poking around the AFNIC and other related sites, but I never before came across this. Why not? Here’s the URL in full:

http://www.telecom.gouv.fr/rubriques-menu/organisation-du-secteur/
textes-reglementaires/consultations-appels-candidatures/
consultations-ouvertes/modalites-gestion-du-domaine-
internet–dot-fr-extensions-outre-mer-1652.html

Clearly the French telecoms department does not like type-in traffic. Significantly, it’s not on the AFNIC site, nor can I find a link there.

So it appears that for the first time the French authorities are considering opening these seven-plus-two ccTLDs. (It would not be accurate to say that the TLDs had not been considered before at all, since at least four were shut down, with no consultation whatever.) Even a well-hidden consultative process, though very late and of uncertain consequence, is to be applauded. Their action may spur the U.S. (.UM) and Norwegian (.BV, .SJ) authorities to follow suit and allow their captive ccTLDs to open up as well.

I can’t help but wonder, however, about the September 2007 flurry of activity on the part of the ISO, which concerned French territories exclusively. Apart from the two new ccTLDs, various French territories were shuffled from one ISO code to another. The charitable view is that France wants to contribute more money to ICANN, and therefore has contrived to add two new TLDs, that they might thereby receive two additional invoices, thus adding to their contributions while remaining nearly anonymous, and that in so doing they might escape any insinuation that their actions were less than purely charitable. That’s possible…. Or, a cynic might say that they just want two more votes on the CCNSO. Or it may have nothing at all to do with domain names.

Whatever the reason, my congratulations to the French authorities for taking some baby steps, at last.

But in the future I hope to be spared speeches about the dangers of allowing TLDs to fail.

Note: the flags above are, in order, the unofficial flags of Martinique, St. Pierre and Miquelon, French Polynesia, Mayotte, and Guadeloupe. Officially, there is only one flag, the tricolor of France.

Tags: ICANN, AFNIC, Bernard de la Chapelle, new gTLDs, new TLDs, GAC, Government Advisory Committee, French Polynesia, French Guyana, Mayotte, St. Martin, St. Pierre and Miquelon, St. Bartholomew, French Southern Territories, Wallis and Futuna, Bouvet Island, Svalbard and Jan Mayen, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands, .PF, .GF, .YT, .MF, .PM, .BL, .TF, .WF, .BV, .SJ, .UM, ISO-3166, RFC 1591, ICANN ICP1

Yesterday, hundreds of sweaty ICANN attendees put on their best clothes and braved the crush of the rush hour metro on a very hot day to crush together for the ICANN gala at the overwrought Hotel de Ville (city hall) in Paris.

Most of them missed an interesting announcement.

I arrived an hour late, but even so food and drink were not yet served (not even water), and everyone was in desperate need of provisioning. The dull roar of heat-induced complaining drowned out the dignitaries making speeches at the far end of the hall.

Anyone who has been to an ICANN meeting knows that it’s free to attend, and all the events are free as well. If you’re smart, you can get free food and booze most evenings, as well as nibbles during the coffee breaks (which makes up for the hotel bar prices: 12 Euros for two small bottles of Perrier, for example). ICANN is right to always profusely thank the hosts for footing the bill, and the Paris meeting, sponsored by AFNIC (the French registration authority) and the Mairie de Paris (city of Paris), among others, did a very good job for the most part.

So it seems the height of ingratitude to jabber while various luminaries, barely audible, heaped fulsome praise on one another. But jabber they did, and most probably missed the announcement that the mayor’s office was supporting the launch of .PARIS, headed by Sebastian Bachollet of ISOC France, which will have technical assistance from AFNIC. (AFNIC’s position on TLDs under its sway is baffling, but more on that in a later article.)

The inhabitants of Paris consider themselves a breed apart from the other denizens of France, and in this Parisians exactly resemble New Yorkers, Berliners, Londoners, and other citizens of their country’s most prominent city. And, to my mind, that’s the key to success for a geographically-based TLD — a feeling for the place (or language, or cultural identity) that makes people want to proudly display their affinity, and which will result in domain names that are actually used on the web, and not just filled up with annoying parking pages.

Congratulations .PARIS. We will see many more…

Note: If you are reading this in an RSS reader, it might not format very well. Best viewed on the blog site.

This post could be subtitled: “The Wisdom of Elites.” I polled some people I know in the domain field (plus Andrew Goodman, who wondered what the hell I was going on about). I asked them a simple question:

“For the record, how many new TLD applications do you think there’ll be?”

Only two people shot back the very funny “42.”

Most of these people know the domain name world very well, but from different perspectives. Journalists, registrars, intellectual property attorneys, domainers, registry operators, TLD aspirants, entrepreneurs, domain aftermarket auctioneers, civil society activists. And only one woman — a reflection of the state of the domain industry, and that the clever ones avoid me…

Most answers coagulate around 100 - 150, but they are counterbalanced by very pessimistic estimates on the one hand, and mega-prophecies on the only. Many refused to name a number. The “crystal ball is cloudy,” as David Maher says.

The comments are great; they are at least as valuable as the estimateswild-ass guesses about the number of applications. Did Bill Mushkin really say that? (Yes.)

We can all expect to remain baffled about what the price will be for a while, since ICANN has said that price will depend on the number of applications. But, as my refused-to-be-named source says, the number of applications will correlate strongly to price. And so the push-me-pull-you chases its own head.

Here then are the results, in no particular order:

Thanks to everyone who agreed to be martyred for this post. Want to throw your hat in the ring? Comment away…