Rightside $NAME Q3 2016 Results, LIVE Webcast Nov 8, 4:30 pm ET

Rightside shares (NASDAQ: NAME) are DOWN 49.59% since August 1, 2014

Rightside Group Ltd.
Stock Market: Symbol | NASDAQ: NAME
Principal domain: rightside.co
Investor relations: investors.rightside.co

Domain name registrar and new gTLDs registry services provider, Rightside Group, Ltd. (NASDAQ:NAME), third quarter 2016 financial results press release:*

Rightside Group's (NAME) CEO Taryn Naidu on Q3 2016 Results - Earnings Call Transcript | SeekingAlpha.com

Third Quarter 2016 Financial Highlights
(Unless otherwise noted, all comparisons are relative to the fiscal third quarter 2015.)

• Registrar services revenue increased to $44.8 million compared to $44.0 million.
• Registry services revenue increased 26% to $3.0 million compared to $2.4 million.
• Aftermarket and other revenue was $6.3 million compared to $8.5 million and was impacted by a decline in traffic from lower margin third party syndication partners.
• Total revenue was $53.3 million compared to $54.1 million.
• Net loss was $4.4 million, compared to $3.4 million which included a $1.7 million gain on other assets.
• Adjusted EBITDA increased to $2.3 million, compared to $897,000. 

Business Highlights

• Rightside has 40 gTLDs in its portfolio and ended the quarter with approximately 546,000 registered domains. 
• Rightside's retail registrar, Name.com, grew revenue approximately 14% year-over-year.
• With approximately 16.4 million total domains under management as of September 30, 2016, including over 2.9 million domain names registered through its retail outlets, Rightside remains one of the world's largest registrars.
• In Q3, the Company successfully launched its new gTLD .GAMES, which has already generated more than 7,000 registrations and over $300,000 in cash revenue for premium domain related sales, including high-value names like free.games, math.games and racing.games.

*Q3 EPS of -$0.23 beats consensus estimate by $0.01. Revenue of $53.3M (-1.5% Y/Y) misses by $2.44M.

Conference call and LIVE audio webcast with investors and analysts will be held the same day, November 8, 2016, at 4:30 p.m. ET. Listen to webcast.

Live conference call: (844) 413-1777 (domestic) or (716) 247-5761 (international). Conference call replay available through November 13, 2016: (855) 859-2056 (domestic) or (404) 537-3406 (international). Conference ID: 1010126. Archive of webcast at investor relations link above.

Form 10-Q: Rightside (NAME) Q3 2016

Rightside's brands include eNom.com and Name.com in registrar services. Rightside's headquarters is in Kirkland, WA (USA). Rightside's 40 new gTLDs (new generic top-level domains) have a grand total of less than 600,000 domain name registrations which equals a new gTLDs' domain name registrations market share of about 2%. More info on Rightside's new gTLDs at ntldstats.com.

Tweet from ICANN57 meeting in Hyderabad, India:

#ICANN57 @mneylon: barely any demand 4 #newgTLD in developed countries. So why expect developing countries w more pressing problems 2 care?

— Samantha Dickinson (@sgdickinson) November 7, 2016

Analysis and opinion: Rightside Group ($NAME) is a $153 million market cap stock on the NASDAQ. It faces increasing headwinds from competitors in an overly-competitive domain name industry which has been flooded with hundreds of new gTLDs authorized by global DNS coordinator ICANN. ICANN and new gTLD applicants, such as Rightside, grossly overestimated end-user (domain name registrants) market demand for new gTLDs in the global domain name marketplace (see ICANN57 tweet above). Competitors have been willing to give away for free, or sell for as little as US$0.01 each, first-year new gTLD domain name registrations.

• Outlook: continued pressure on margins based on market conditions.
• Question: Going forward, when will Rightside be (GAAP) profitable?
• 52 Week High/Low: $12.85 / $7.16 (as of Nov 7, 2016)
• Q2 2016 net loss US$(2,471,000) on revenues of  $54,037,000 of which registry services (new gTLDs) only provided  US$2,932,000.

See also:

• previous $NAME posts on DomainMondo.com
• Donuts Seeks to Acquire Entirety of Rightside Group, Ltd.'s "entire registry of generic top-level domains (gTLDs, also known as domain extensions) and related assets for $70 million in an all-cash deal"--June 24, 2016
• Is Rightside's Strategy Showing Results? | whizzbangsblog.com: "... Donuts, offered $70m for the suite of Rightside domain extensions [new gTLDs] back in June. In my opinion it’s a gutsy move to say no to such an offer in light of the slow growth numbers ..."
• J. Carlo Cannell Letter to Rightside Board Chairman, February 19, 2016:

"While I am a believer in new gTLDs, it is going to be many years before their revenue in any way materially approaches the revenue potential of our registrar operations. In my view, NAME’s registrar has become like a crazy aunt kept in the basement, one that you refuse to adequately clothe or feed, but who steadfastly spins straw into gold used to subsidize a stable of largely substandard new gTLDs such as .democrat, .dance, .army, .navy, and .airforce. Most of these new gTLDs are irrelevant and will never be sold in material volumes. NAME [Rightside] is holding back the growth potential of your registrar by pushing garbage extensions to a user base that quietly knows better."--J. Carlo Cannell, Rightside shareholder letter, infra, Feb 19, 2016 (emphasis added)

See also: Cannell Capital Urges $NAME Shareholders To Vote No at Annual Meeting: May 16, 2016 press release.

feedback & comments via twitter @DomainMondo
Follow @DomainMondo

DISCLAIMER

GoDaddy decision: Trademarks, Cybersquatting, Domain Name Registrants

In a story that was first reported yesterday by the Hollywood Reporter, domain name registrar, parking, and hosting provider, GoDaddy.com NYSE: GDDY, has won at the trial court level, an important and widely watched cybersquatting case. The case may be appealed. Here's the takeaway for domain name registrants--

"Towards the end of the lengthy ruling, the judge says there is a "fundamental problem" with the Academy's theory of liability under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act [ACPA]. He writes, "[I]t confuses GoDaddy’s technical capacity to filter all trademarks with AMPAS’s legal duty to police its own trademarks. At its core, AMPAS’s [Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences] ACPA claim would impose upon GoDaddy (and presumably any other company offering parking, hosting, or other basic internet services) the unprecedented duty to act as the internet’s trademark police. The ACPA did not impose such sweeping obligations."" Film Academy Loses to GoDaddy in Oscars Cybersquatting Battle - Hollywood Reporter (September 10, 2015) (emphasis, links, added)

“… every domain name registrant who registers a domain name … represents that (1) his or her domain name does not “violate ... any third party rights;” (2) the owner has no knowledge of any “infring[ment] or conflict with the legal rights of a third party or a third party’s trademark or trade name;” and (3) that the registrant’s website “conforms to all local, state, federal, and internal laws.”…” Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences vs. GoDaddy.com, Inc., et al, US District Court, C.D. Ca., Case No. CV 10-03738 AB (CWx), Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (pdf), September 10, 2015 (emphasis added)

See also on Domain Mondo: Registrant Resources:

RFC1591: "The registration of a domain name does not have any Trademark status. It is up to the requestor [registrant] to be sure he is not violating anyone else's Trademark ..." - Jon Postel, ISI (University of Southern California) March, 1994

The takeaway for Domain Name Registrants? Nothing has changed.

Follow @DomainMondo

DISCLAIMER

Effective Dates for ICANN Additional WHOIS Information Policy, Advisory

Background: ICANN’s Affirmation of Commitments requires it to “implement measures to maintain timely, unrestricted and public access to accurate and complete WHOIS information....” To do that, registrars and registries provide public access to data on registered [domain] names. Domain name registrants are required to provide accurate WHOIS contact data, and maintain its accuracy throughout the term of the registration period. (source: ICANN)

The effective date of ICANN's Additional Whois Information Policy (AWIP) and Whois advisory is 31 January 2016. ICANN has published an updated Whois advisory based on input from the community. The updated Whois advisory is intended to provide clarification for contracted parties regarding Registration Data Directory Service (RDDS) specifications of the Registry Agreement and Registrar Accreditation Agreement. RDDS specifications are also known as Whois. Registries and Registrars have until 31 January 2016 to implement the AWIP and the Whois advisory. Contracted parties will receive formal notice within the next two weeks. If you have questions or concerns, submit them to customerservice@icann.org. (source: ICANN)

2013 Registrar Accreditation Agreement: "... In responses to domain name object queries, the following fields are considered optional and should be treated as described in clarification 1: 

• Updated Date (if the domain name has not been updated since it was created)
• Registrant/Admin/Tech Organization 
• Registrant/Admin/Tech State/Province 
• Registrant/Admin/Tech Postal Code 
• Registrant/Admin/Tech Phone Ext 
• Registrant/Admin/Tech Fax 
• Registrant/Admin/Tech Fax Ext 
• Name Server"

See also:
http://whois.icann.org/en/about-whois
http://whois.icann.org/en/whats-horizonhttps://www.icann.org/resources/pages/approved-with-specs-2013-09-17-en#whois
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3912


Follow @DomainMondo

Domain Name Registrants Rights and Responsibilities

Buried on the ICANN website (URL: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/benefits-2013-09-16-en ), under the heading "Registrants' Benefits and Responsibilities" --

Domain Name Registrants' Rights:

1. Your domain name registration and any privacy/proxy services you may use in conjunction with it must be subject to a Registration Agreement with an ICANN Accredited Registrar.

• You are entitled to review this Registration Agreement at any time, and download a copy for your records.

2. You are entitled to accurate and accessible information about:

• The identity of your ICANN Accredited Registrar;
• The identity of any proxy or privacy service provider affiliated with your Registrar;
• Your Registrar's terms and conditions, including pricing information, applicable to domain name registrations;
• The terms and conditions, including pricing information, applicable to any privacy services offered by your Registrar;
• The customer support services offered by your Registrar and the privacy services provider, and how to access them;
• How to raise concerns and resolve disputes with your Registrar and any privacy services offered by them; and
• Instructions that explain your Registrar's processes for registering, managing, transferring, renewing, and restoring your domain name registrations, including through any proxy or privacy services made available by your Registrar.

3. You shall not be subject to false advertising or deceptive practices by your Registrar or though any proxy or privacy services made available by your Registrar. This includes deceptive notices, hidden fees, and any practices that are illegal under the consumer protection law of your residence.

Domain Name Registrants' Responsibilities:

1. You must comply with the terms and conditions posted by your Registrar, including applicable policies from your Registrar, the Registry and ICANN.
2. You must review your Registrar's current Registration Agreement, along with any updates.
3. You will assume sole responsibility for the registration and use of your domain name.
4. You must provide accurate information for publication in directories such as WHOIS, and promptly update this to reflect any changes.
5. You must respond to inquiries from your Registrar within fifteen (15) days, and keep your Registrar account data current. If you choose to have your domain name registration renew automatically, you must also keep your payment information current.

(source: ICANN, emphasis added)

Follow @DomainMondo

ICANN Exists for Itself and Insiders, to Exploit Domain Name Registrants

(Note: This is a follow-on to yesterday's ICANN FY15 Budget, New gTLD Domain Names #FAIL)

The first thing one should know and understand about ICANN is that ICANN is lacking in integrity--ICANN even lies about itself--

Resources - ICANN: ICANN "is a not-for-profit partnership of people from all over the world" -- this statement about ICANN on ICANN's website is FALSE. ICANN is not a partnership. ICANN is a California non-profit corporation with no membership, no partners, no stockholders, nothing, other than a Board of Directors which owes its fiduciary duties to the corporation, not  to a "partnership of people from all over the world." There is no legal "ownership" or "membership" or "governance" or "oversight" of ICANN by any "global internet community," or "multistakeholders," or any other concoction of the phrase "not-for-profit partnership of people from all over the world." 

ICANN, the California non-profit corporation, was formed at the instance of the U.S. government, to essentially be responsible for three things:

a) the technical coordination necessary for operation of the internet--the IANA functions--which are executed by Verisign (on a no-fee contract), the global technical community (people who do not work for ICANN), and a small staff of not more than 10 people employed by ICANN who perform mostly "clerk" functions;

b) policy-making regarding the domain name system (DNS); and

c) governance of domain name registry operators, registrars, and registrants.

At a typical ICANN meeting, you will find (besides ICANN staff, officers, and directors) people who largely fall into one of the following categories: a) the technical (IANA functions) community; b) the domain name industry--which dominates and has largely captured ICANN--registry operators, registrars, service providers, and their attorneys, lobbyists, et al, many of whom are trying "to game the system" for their own profit-making ends so they can exploit domain name registrants, financially and otherwise; and small contingents of c) government representatives; d) members of civil society/academia; and e) business and trademark "stakeholders."

ICANN's failure to have, within its organizational structure, equal and identifiable representation for the interests of domain name registrants has been disastrous--just look at the failure of ICANN to govern the outrageous conduct of new gTLD registry operators enabled by ICANN in its new registry and registrar agreements--see, e.g., For Domain Name Registrants, ICANN Is Useless and ICANN Fails to Prohibit Warehousing OR Speculation in Domain Names by new gTLD Registry Operators and Registrars and ICANN, New gTLD Domain Name Renewal Fees, Price Gouging. The whole organizational structure of ICANN, and its registrar and registry agreements, enable, intentionally or not, the exploitation (financially and otherwise) of domain name registrants by, primarily, the domain name industry, and secondarily, by ICANN itself as a recipient of fees collected from the registrants, directly and indirectly, by registrars and registry operators ("follow the money"). Furthermore, ICANN has failed to prevent the loss of domain names by UDRP abuses, or domain name thefts, or provide swift remedies for recovery of stolen domains, which ICANN could very easily do if it really cared about domain name registrants.

Protection of the public interest and domain name registrants from abusive ICANN practices and policies and registry and registrar malfeasance, to some degree, used to be provided by way of US government oversight, which unfortunately, has pretty much been AWOL in recent years, although as recently as two years ago, the US government essentially found ICANN to be unfit:

"The Commerce Department said it had canceled a request for proposals to run the so-called Internet Assigned Numbers Authority [IANA] because none of the bids [including ICANN's] met its requirements: “the need for structural separation of policy-making from implementation, a robust companywide conflict of interest policy, provisions reflecting heightened respect for local country laws and a series of consultation and reporting requirements to increase transparency and accountability to the international community.” (emphasis added; source: NYTimes.com)

Right now, ICANN presumably has benefit of a "government contractor" immunity because it operates via a contract granted it by the US government. Once that contract is gone (September 2015?), will domain name registrants be able to resort to class actions and other litigation under U.S. federal and California state laws, against ICANN and its "contractors"--the registry operators and registrars? If so, besides being a windfall for class action law firms and the U.S.plaintiffs' bar, it may be a way to give domain name registrants some protection and remedies now lacking. Recommended reading: ICANN and Antitrust by A. Michael Froomkin and Mark A. Lemley (pdf).

Final note: It does not appear that any oversight of ICANN nor other effective means of redress will emerge from the current "ICANN-convened-and-controlled" IANA Transition or Enhancing ICANN Accountability processes, as a means for domain name registrants to seek effective redress for wrongful actions or omissions of ICANN or its registry operators and registrars.


Follow @DomainMondo

Verisign Ad Campaign, Lame, Creepy Videos

Make Your Idea Official | Cake in a Club - YouTube:

"It's official: Internet domain-name company Verisign has launched one crazy (and at times creepy) campaign. Which of the four videos [playlist of videos above] from FCB Chicago is the most self-consciously bizarre? You've got the giant yellow smiley-fish tormenting a late-night bus rider; a cabbage in a convertible chasing a dude in an alley; a leggy frosted cake that dumps her date for a dance-floor suitor; and an oversize flirty bee in a bar with, um, pollination on hizzz mind. The wacky work, themed "Make your idea official" and using the #InternetOfficial hashtag, touts Verisign's .com and .net registration service. (What else, after all, could an anthropomorphized disco dancin' dessert treat be advertising?)..." source: Adweek

When I see the above, I wonder who at Verisign approved these ads? Really! These are supposed to motivate serious people to spend their hard-earned money (hopefully after doing the necessary "due diligence") and register .COM and .NET domain names? Sorry, but domain name registration is not a trivial process, as these ads suggest, nor are domain name registrants trivial people.

Verisign would have been a lot better off producing ads by having film crews on-site at last week's TRAFFIC Conference in Miami Beach interviewing real domain name registrants, investors and developers, who are the lifeblood of the domain name industry and are its (including ICANN's) raison d'être. These ads trivialize the domain name industry, registrants, and Verisign's brands.

-- John Poole, Editor, Domain Mondo

Follow @DomainMondo

ICANN 51, Money, Sponsors, Conflicts of Interest, Multistakeholderism

ICANN Sponsorship Opportunities | Meetings: "... Your company will receive unsurpassed recognition by our attendees as a Diamond level sponsor, with continuous brand exposure during the week of the meeting and beyond..."

screenshot of  ICANN 51 sponsors (source: icann.org)

How would you feel if your national legislative assembly (e.g., Congress, Parliament, etc.) was commercially "sponsored" by the very same corporations seeking favorable treatment, favorable outcomes, and special prerogatives, rights, and privileges from that very same "governing body"--see any problem with that, any conflicts of interest?

This is SOP (standard operating procedure) in the wonderful world of multi-stakeholder governance of the global Internet DNS as practiced within ICANN where the lobbyists are the legislators [see screenshot at left--ICANN 51 "sponsors" as indicated on the ICANN 51 website].  In this case a picture is worth a thousand words.

Granted, that for all practical purposes, ICANN is often little more than a glorified Industry Trade Association organized for promotion of the Domain Name Industry which dominates its decision-making structure and its Board of Directors (ICANN has no membership--just a self-selected, and otherwise unaccountable, Board of Directors).

Domain Mondo hopes everyone is enjoying ICANN 51--especially the sponsors--and that everyone in LA is getting their money's worth!

Of course, you will never hear ICANN acknowledge at one of its public meetings how much the Domain Name Registrants' fees support ICANN as a percentage of its operating budget--heck, Domain Name Registrants don't even have a seat at the table! (Don't go looking for a Domain Name Registrants Interest Group at ICANN--it doesn't exist!). And look at the ICANN Budget Revenues (pdf)--there is no information as to how much of the income shown as sourced from Registry/Registrars is actually paid by domain name registrants--this is to keep up the illusion that it is the domain name industry that is supporting ICANN when it is actually the domain name registrants!

For more on how ICANN has largely been captured by the Domain Name Industry see:

• Domain Names Industry, ICANN, Regulatory Capture
• Reform ICANN? France or the EU May Be Our Only Hope (video)
• The Internet, US Government, ICANN, ITU Plenipotentiary Conference 
• Most New gTLD Domain Names Are On Life-Support, Infecting Other gTLDs 
• Why ICANN's New gTLD Domains Are A #FAIL, Reason #1 
• Reason #2 Why New gTLD Domains Are a #FAIL 

Follow @DomainMondo

Reform ICANN? France or the EU May Be Our Only Hope (video)

If you are happy with ICANN as it is and currently headed--for example, you are a high-stakes stakeholder with vested interests (i.e., a member of the Domain Name Industry--registrar, registry, service provider, etc.), and enjoy having a stacked Board and ICANN organizational structure of "stakeholder groups" which favor, protect, and advance your interests over the wider public interest, and you really like the fact that domain name registrants and governments are excluded from equal voice, representation, and participation in ICANN (as compared to the Domain Name Industry which has largely captured ICANN), and, for example, you believe it is perfectly fine for a new gTLD registry to charge $30,000 per year (or any amount it wishes!) for renewal of the registration of just one domain name, and that there should be no government oversight of ICANN or the registry operators who "own" the gTLDs (generic top-level domains), or what they can arbitrarily and capriciously charge their captive consumers--the domain name registrants--and that domain name registrants should have very few, if any, rights or protections against abusive registrars and registries, then this post is not for you--go celebrate the roll-out of ICANN's new gTLDs auctioned off to the highest-bidders! [Note: GTLD Auctions - ICANNWiki: All proceeds from new gTLDs auctioned off under ICANN's auction model will go to ICANN as "excess funds" that will be redistributed at a later date, in ways that are yet to be determined.--follow the money!]

However, if you are on the outside--e.g., a domain name registrant, a government representative (other than the U.S. government), or a user of the Internet who believes in Internet freedom-- and dislike the idea of selling off the Internet wholesale to commercial interests to be exploited (financially and otherwise) at their sole whim--thereby putting control of who has access to the Internet DNS within the hands of private, unaccountable interests--or if the fact that the global internet DNS, including root zone, is controlled by a corporation formed at the instance of the U.S. government, incorporated under California state law, with no membership, and accountable only to its own self-selected Board of Directors, does not seem right nor consistent with the idea of an open and free internet, with full transparency and accountability, then this post may be of interest to you.

Axelle Lemaire prepares her proposals for the reform of ICANN: [translated from the original French] "[France's] Secretary of State Digital, Axelle Lemaire, wants the European Union to strengthen its role in Internet governance, she recently reaffirmed, and is preparing for action. In December, 2015, [pdf] a meeting organized by the General Assembly of the United Nations will launch a crucial phase in the evolution of Internet governance. Currently, everything is controlled by ICANN, a company incorporated under California law (for nonprofit corporations).... Like others, the Secretary of State Digital Axelle Lemaire wants Internet governance to be more equitable and that Europe contribute more meaningfully and effectively in the management of the Internet. Europe must "quickly formulate concrete proposals" according to a statement sent after the informal meeting of ministers responsible for electronic communications that took place in Milan on October 3. The statement talks of "multi-stakeholder governance, open, truly inclusive, transparent and respectful of human rights and the role of government." The implication is that this does not exist today. Axelle Lemaire wants the Italian Presidency of the European Union to propose concrete measures. Questioned in July on the subject, Axelle Lemaire said then (video below) that she wants reform "of the appointment of members of the Board, the decision process (...) and the consensus rule."... she is well aware of the many obstacles that will stand in the long road to reform ICANN ..."

Trois questions à Axelle Lemaire sur l'ICANN - Three questions for Axelle Lemaire about ICANN
(sorry--in French only--no English subtitles/captioning available)

Vive la France !


Follow @DomainMondo

Why ICANN's New gTLD Domains Are A #FAIL, Reason #1

There are 2 main reasons why most of ICANN's new gTLDs (generic top-level domains) are a #FAIL and the first reason goes to the core threshold question that ICANN, its Board of Directors, and all stakeholder groups, should always ask, but particularly whenever proposing, considering or implementing a change, or an expanded or new program:

THE QUESTION: Does this increase or decrease costs for domain name registrants?

The answer will invariably always guide one to the right decision. If the answer is that the proposal increases costs, then that should usually end the discussion and any further consideration. Unfortunately, ICANN (and I use the term "ICANN" here in the collective sense of its Board of Directors, Officers, staff, and stakeholders) either failed to ask THE QUESTION or failed to give proper weight to the answer. There is no question that the new gTLDs increase costs for domain name registrants--the registration and renewal fees for new gTLD domain names are higher* on average (sometimes much higher), businesses and trademark holders are bearing increased costs in defensive registrations, trademark enforcement, and related costs, and none of these increased costs are outweighed by any benefits that new gTLDs bring to the marketplace. That is why University of Pennsylvania Wharton School marketing professor Peter Fader, co-director of the Wharton Customer Analytics Initiative, said:

"I really can’t see a legitimate upside where new benefits [of the new gTLDS] outweigh costs, and everyone I mention this to feels the same way. People just shake their heads. It’s all about the money. They [ICANN] are creating these extensions because they can." (source: Knowledge@Wharton).

It is also the reason that the former Chairman of the U.S. Federal Trade Commission said: "The public at large, consumers and businesses, would be better served by no expansion or less expansion [of new gTLD domains]."

If one looks behind the veil at ICANN, it is easy to understand why ICANN failed to either ask the threshold question, or heed its answer: greed and conflicts of interest at the highest levels of ICANN (Board of Directors, Officers, staff, "high stakes" stakeholders with vested interests)--see this and this and this and this and this. And of course, let's not forget that no one within ICANN, particularly within the Board of Directors or influential key stakeholder groups, represents the interests of domain name registrants--there is no "domain name registrants' interest group" within ICANN--for a very good reason: ICANN has been "largely captured by the domain name industry" (registry operators and registrars and their service providers), and they view domain name registrants as captive consumers to be exploited for financial gain. To grant domain name registrants equal power to the domain name industry, or "oversight authority" to governments (which traditionally guard the "public interest" and prevent exploitation of consumers), would be a threat to the domain name industry's power within ICANN. Remember it was the U.S. Department of Commerce, not ICANN, that insisted on limiting what Verisign could charge for .COM registration and renewal fees through November, 2018, in the last contract (2012). And that is why ICANN today is adamant that neither governments nor domain name registrants have equal footing nor oversight of ICANN's operations which could threaten the power of their favored stakeholders--registries and registrars and their service providers. After all, it's the high-stakes vested interest stakeholders--the registries and registrars--which ICANN officers refer to as their "customers."

*Note: No one at ICANN ever polled the global internet community or domain name registrants, at the time new gTLDs were under consideration, with the question: "Do you want the costs of domain name registration and renewal fees to double, triple, or even be unlimited/unregulated, and other costs to increase dramatically, in return for increasing the number of gTLDs from 22 to more than 1300?"

Tomorrow: Reason #2 new gTLD domains are a #FAIL--the market can be cruel, sometimes very cruel--some high-stakes players are about to find out just how cruel the market can really be.

See also: ICANN, New gTLD Domain Names, Universal Acceptance Another #FAIL


Follow @DomainMondo
Seguir a @DomainMondo