ICANN is currently processing new gTLDs, and from the 1930 applications presented in 2012 application phase, not all of them are guaranteed to go through. ICANN gave the following statistics as of January 17th 2014: 989 applicants have been invited to Contracting, 382 applicants have responded to their Contracting Information Request invitation, 301 contracts have been sent out for signature and 250 Registry Agreements have been signed
There is growing excitement from the domain clients who want to capture fresh names as soon as they are delegated and even so several developments have been made towards making the new gTLD market ready for the new gTLDs.
Among the steps is the new g-TLD Pre-registration, some companies like DotConnectAfrica have had an anticipatory pre-registration port...
Those hoping for a “big bang” of new TLDs are surely disappointed in how the rollout is taking place.
I’ve talked to a number of new top level domain name applicants who believe new TLDs need to come out with a “big bang.” A bunch of great domain options backed by big marketing budgets need to come out early on to make a big splash and give the program momentum.
It’s becoming more and more apparent that this isn’t going to happen. Instead of coming out with a bang, they’re coming out with a whimper. There are two main reasons for this.
1. The registrars aren’t ready.
Although 222 registry contracts have been signed with ICANN, and many domains are heading into sunrise, many registrars aren’t ready.
When it comes to sunrise, most registrars aren’t aren’t promoting it.
When شبكة. wen
By Stephanie Duchesneau, on business2community The applicant community is working its will on the rules for generic top-level domain (gTLD) auctions published by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). But, as always, ICANN is no pushover.
ICANN posted the new gTLD auction rules for public comment last month after community outcry over the preliminary rules during ICANN’s Public Meeting in Buenos Aires in November. The comment period for the auction rules ends on January 15, with a reply period closing February 4. Auctions are expected to begin in March.
The auctions are designed to resolve conflicts between applicants who have applied for the same gTLD or who applied for gTLDs that were thought to be too similar to coexist. ICANN identified these so-called “co
As written by Michael Berkens on thedomains.com ICANN released its 1st quarterly financial statement, as Domainincite.com, pointed out, ICANN has spent $119.2 million of its original $344.9 million program budget (which comprises application fees net of refunds).”
“As of September 30, it still had $225.7 million in cash dedicated to the program, which is accounted for separate to ICANN’s regular operating budget.”
ICANN completed the initial evaluations of (IE) of the 1930 applications in August.
One can argue that ICANN therefore has completed the heavy lifting, its work in opening the programing and processing the applications.
Objections are a separate matter which carry separate fees.
ICANN does have a $108.9 million “risk reserve”, for lawsuits and other potential legal liab
Late last month the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) took the radical step of approving nine new generic Top Level Domains (gTLDs): .bike, .clothing, .guru, .camera, .lighting, .voyage, .holdings, .equipment and .singles. These gTLDs, while available to registered companies with the appropriate trade marks, will only be released to the public in January 2014.These are part of a list of over 1400 gTLDs that will be released by ICANN in the next few years at a rate of about 10 new names every week.
Domain names were conceived in the early ARPANET days as an abstraction over computers’ numerical addresses that were difficult to remember. There are two types of Top Level Domain names (TLDs): country code TLDS (ccTLDS) such as .zw which is managed by POTRAZ and g
“ We, the undersigned, are writing to express our ever-growing concerns relating to the Community Objection process.”
Rising from the fallout from the .Sport objection 12 new gTLD applicants Radix Registry, United TLD Holdco Ltd., DotClub Domains, LLC, Top Level Design, LLC, Donuts Inc. Top Level Domain Holdings Ltd, Priver Nivel S.A. , Fegistry, LLC, Employ Media, LLC, Famous Four Media Limited, Merchant Law Group, LLP, and DOTSTRATEGY CO sent the 1st November 2013 letter below to ICANN
Dear Mr.Chalaby, Mr.Chehadé, Mr. Atallah, Ms. Willett,
We, the undersigned, are writing to express our ever-growing concerns relating to the Community Objection process
Some of our concerns in this regard have already been communicated to you in two letters, dated 22nd July 2013 and 24th Septembe
To bid in an auction each applicant will have to put up 10% of its maximum bid and if they want to bid an unlimited amount or more than $20 Million they have to put up $2 million per string. ICANN published rules for its Last Resort auction
Under the rules applicants will not be able to ‘”share” the deposit (although once concluded the money can be moved to another auction) theoretically if an applicant for a large number of applications in contention wanted the ability to bid over $20M per string they are going to have to come up with a lot of money just to bid.
Consider Uniregistry which has 41 of its applications under contention, if they wanted to bid an unlimited amount for each string they would have to come up with over $80 million just in deposits assuming all the auctions were
In a letter sent to ICANN, the Chair, ICANN Business Constituency (BC) told ICANN what we at TheDomains.com said over a year ago, that allowing new gTLD’s of plural and singular of the same term is a bad idea.
“As we move towards the launch of the first new gTLDs this year, the Business Constituency is extremely concerned about ICANN’s intention to delegate both singular and plural versions of the same string.
“We believe that allowing singular and plural versions of the same TLD string will confuse users and frustrate efforts by registrants to build awareness of new domains in new TLDs. The existence of identical second-level domains and their corresponding email addresses on nearly identical TLDs could also create vulnerability to spoofing and phishing fraud. Moreover, conflicti
In the midst of the overseeing the biggest change in the history of the Internet's global addressing system, ICANN President Fadi Chehade has inexplicably embarked on a high-stakes battle over the very future of his organization and its relationship to world governments — at the expense of the private sector's historical role in Internet governance.
Worse, Fadi's global government gambit could have serious repercussions for the future of the Internet.
Fadi is not the first ICANN president who sought to break ICANN's legacy links to the USA. But where previous ICANN leaders restrained themselves to rhetoric, Fadi is now neck-deep in a geo-political current where non-US governments are pushing for an end to the US role in assigning the IANA contract for allocating addresses and managing
Written by Brenden Kuerbis For internetgovernance.org
The reaction to last weeks announcement from the leaders of the “I* organizations” (ICANN, the RIRs, IETF, IAB, W3C and ISOC) on the future of Internet governance has been overwhelming. Judging from the 90,000+ visits to the IGP blog’s brief analysis of the situation, there is a global groundswell of interest in its implications.
We suggested last week that the USG has lost its chance to lead the transition away from its unilateral oversight of ICANN. The I* orgs, in alliance with at least one like-minded government (Brazil), have shrewdly positioned themselves to do so. However, the details about how such a transition would occur are absent. What would a newly independent ICANN look like? How would it be held accountable to its sta
Privacy & Cookies Policy
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.