Showing posts with label new generic top-level domains. Show all posts
Showing posts with label new generic top-level domains. Show all posts

2017-06-29

Global Phishing Survey, New gTLD Domain Names, Malicious Registrations

graphic of APWG Global Phishing Survey major findings
source: APWG Global Phishing Survey, infra
"... the problem in the nTLDs [new generic top-level domains] are malicious registrations, made for the purpose of phishing. Of the 6,549 domains used for phishing in the 228 nTLDs, 86% (5,633) were registered maliciously ... 71% of those malicious registrations were found in just ten nTLDs [chart below] ... The TLD market is now more crowded and competitive than at any time in history, and some nTLD registries have been competing aggressively on price ..."--APWG, infra
Top ten nTLDs with malicious domain name registrations
source: APWG.org
APWG (Anti-Phishing Working Group | domain: apwg.org)  released its latest Domain Name Use and Trends report (embed below) on 26 June 2017:

"Some Key Findings in this report:
  • There were at least 255,065 unique phishing attacks worldwide. This represents an increase of over 10% from the 230,280 attacks we identified in 2015. An attack is defined as a phishing site that targets a specific brand or entity. A single domain name can host several discrete phishing attacks against different banks, for example.
  • The attacks occurred on 195,475 unique domain names. This is the most we have recorded in any year since we began these reports in 2007. The number of domain names in the world grew from 287.3 million in December 2014 to 329.3 million in December 2016.
  • Of the 195,475 domains used for phishing, we identified 95,424 domain names that we believe were registered maliciously by phishers. This is an all-time high, and almost three times as many as the number we found in 2015. A little over half of these registrations were made by Chinese phishers. The other 100,051 domains were almost all hacked or compromised on vulnerable Web hosting. This means that nearly half of all domains that hosted phishing sites were maliciously registered.
  • Seventy-five percent of the malicious domain registrations were in just four TLDs: .COM, .CC, .PW, and .TK. More than 90% of malicious domains were found in just 14 TLDs. Please see pages 16-17 for more detail.
  • We counted 679 targeted brands. This dropped from 783 in 2015. Phishers are still creating kits dedicated to attacking both popular targets and new targets.
  • Phishing occurred in 454 top-level domains (TLDs). Two-hundred twenty-nine (228) were new top-level domains launched since 2013." (emphasis added)
The Anti-Phishing Working Group (APWG)is a non-profit industry association focused on eliminating the identity theft and fraud that result from the growing problem of phishing and email spoofing. The organization provides a forum to discuss phishing issues, define the scope of the phishing problem in terms of hard and soft costs, and share information and best practices for eliminating the problem.

Global Phishing Survey: Domain Name Use and Trends in 2016 (embed below)


See also:


feedback & comments via twitter @DomainMondo


DISCLAIMER

2015-11-02

ICANN Admits New gTLDs Failed Expectations, Should There Be More?

Just a few days ago, Internet Hall of Famer Dr. Paul Vixie blasted ICANN, calling new gTLDs (new generic top-level domains) "all commercial failures"and ICANN "captured by the [domain name] industry"--ICANN's "job is to serve the public, not to serve the companies"--"There should be no price at which you can buy .microsoft [a .BRAND new gTLD], but there is, and that's a mistake. That indicates corruption, as far as I'm concerned." (emphasis/links added)

On Friday, 30 Oct 2015, public comments closed on ICANN's Preliminary Issue Report on subsequent new gTLDs:

ICANN New gTLDs, Subsequent Procedures, Preliminary Report Comments--
"Expanding the DNS is considered consistent with ICANN’s Mission and Core Values, in particular Article 1, Section 2.6 of the ICANN Bylaws: Introducing and promoting competition in the registration of domain names where practicable and beneficial in the public interest. However multiple views regarding whether new gTLDs are needed and the extent to which they may cause harm to the DNS have been articulated throughout the development process to expand the DNS ... Consumer adoption of new gTLDs have not met certain expectations, though success or failure was not pre-defined ... The question of whether or not there should be additional New gTLD rounds is a foundational question and should be answered as early as practically possible, to avoid policy work that may end up being unneeded...." -- Preliminary Issue Report on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures, August 31, 2015 (pdf) (emphasis added).
Preliminary Issue Report on New gTLD [new generic top-level domains] Subsequent Procedures - ICANN: "Following review of public comments received on this report, the Staff Manager will update the Issue Report as appropriate to reflect public comment. The Staff Manager will submit a summary of the public comments received together with the Final Issue Report to the GNSO Council for consideration."

Public Comments submitted--excerpts:

comment John Poole, Editor, Domain Mondo.com: " ... 'ICANN services the global public interest. For me [Tim Berners Lee], that means that when a decision is taken about a possible new top level domain, ICANN's job is to work out, in a transparent and accountable manner, whether it is really in the best interest of the world as a whole, not just of those launching the new domain.' ... until 4.2.1 of your Preliminary Report is answered, all other issues should be deferred as they are premature. Should there even be gTLDs? Most of the original gTLDs (EDU, COM, NET, ORG, GOV, MIL, and INT), were, and many still are, operating under the authority of the U.S. government. Why should lawless multinational corporations be allowed “brand” gTLDs? Many fundamental questions were left unanswered in the original policy development process and implementation, see: ICANN Insiders On New gTLDs: Mistakes, Fiascos, Horrible Implementation."

Google Registry Comment Stephanie Duchesneau: "... we believe that ICANN should rely upon the existing GNSO recommendations and Applicant Guidebook procedures as the basis for future rounds if there is no community consensus on new or modified policies and frameworks ..."

FairWinds Partners Public Comments on Preliminary Issue Report on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Samantha Demetriou: "... In the context of the Preliminary Issue Report, there are a number of sections that should be expanded to account for the fact that .BRANDs are likely to comprise a significant portion of applications ..."

Business Constituency (BC) on Preliminary Issue Report for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Steve DelBianco: "...Concerns about premium pricing and predatory pricing were identified by the BC, but ICANN did not consider this a compliance issue. We recommend requiring registry operators to include a detailed description of their proposed Sunrise and premium pricing programs in their applications. ICANN should publish guidance against predatory pricing schemes specifically targeting trademarked terms, as grounds for losing points on the application. Any failure to follow the proposal in the application without a formal change-request would then be an RA compliance issue once the application is incorporated into the signed RA..."

IPC Comments on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Preliminary Issue Report Greg Shatan: "... The IPC supports going back to “first principles” during this process and encourages a “reboot” of
the New gTLD Program ... one issue that could be more directly addressed by the Report is whether the rapid expansion of the root zone (from the aggregate issuance of many gTLDs) could affect the security and stability of the DNS... questions of whether ICANN compliance is fully prepared to enforce the new registry agreements in a manner that serves the public interest have arisen frequently since the launch of the program ..."


Registries Stakeholder Group (RySG) comments the Preliminary Issue Report on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Stephane Van Gelder - Starting Dot: "... The Preliminary Issue Report raises the question of whether the issues at stake in a Policy Development Process on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures should be carried out sequentially or simultaneously. The RySG prefers the latter strategy ..." 

Big Room Inc. Comment Jacob Malthouse:"... we do not believe such reviews can properly consider a number of contention resolution aspects of the program until remaining contention sets from the current round have been resolved ... so that lessons learned from the current round can be effectively considered."

INTA Comments on Issue Report for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Lori Schulman: "... A question to be considered at the outset is whether there should indeed be Subsequent Procedures and, if so, whether any Subsequent Procedures should be limited to certain types of TLDs such as brand or community TLDs. If the answers to these questions were to be negative then many of the other issues identified in the Report would become academic..."

GAC input to public comment process Tom Dale: "... before defining the modalities for future rounds, a rigorous assessment of all public policy related aspects of the current round should be undertaken, taking into account the advice given by the GAC on this subject since the beginning of the New gTLD process, including advice relating to community-wide engagement on the issues of communication to and access by developing countries and regions; and advice regarding past policy decisions taken by the Board to reserve the Red Cross and Red Crescent designations and names..."

Comments New TLD Subsequent Procedures Annebeth Lange, UNINETT Norid AS: "... the AGB is in our opinion a document that can be used in subsequent rounds..."

ALAC Statement on the Preliminary Issue Report on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures ICANN At-Large Staff: "... In Section 4.2.1.2 there is sadly no mention of the potential harm to consumers in launching a new round when the prior round did not deliver on its public interest promises. Quite the contrary, the Issues Report weakens the importance of this factor with this observation: “Consumer adoption of new gTLDs have not met certain expectations, though success or failure was not pre-defined”. We beg to disagree. Some failures were anticipated. Sadly, attempts to mitigate or entirely avoid them were either not fully embraced or, simply ignored. Some must be mentioned for balance to the thread:  The failure of the PIC regime, that was identified by ALAC, acknowledged by staff and Directors but never satisfied  The complete and utter failure of the Applicant Support System  The failure of the Community Evaluation Program to achieve its goals, with poorly-defined communities accepted while legitimate community efforts were rejected  The increasing use of unpoliced TLDs as sources of spam and phishing  The failure of the gTLD expansion to help alleviate demand in the legacy TLDs .... 4.7.3 Work Process Options The ALAC is concerned that the GNSO might be tempted to launch a PDP-WG using the Simultaneous method of work. This type of work is indeed very challenging to both ICANN staff and the volunteer community in particular. It provides a significant advantage to participation by those community members who are paid for their attendance, to the detriment of volunteers who are over-stretched when they need to balance ICANNrelated pro-bono work with other work. With the ICANN communities complaining of volunteer overload, working on all five preliminary groupings would seriously unbalance the Multistakeholder model that ICANN is built on. Again, the ALAC is concerned that speed and rush might be placed above thoroughness and diligence. On balance, the ALAC is convinced that amendments to the draft WG Charter are both needed and necessary and we strongly recommend so."

Individual Comments of James Gannon, Cyber Invasion Ltd James Gannon: "... While understanding that there may technically be a policy commitment to subsequent rounds we believe that if there is genuine reason found to cancel subsequent procedures then that must be honored. We do not believe that the assumption from the 2007 Final Report serves as suitable justification for advancing subsequent rounds, but that there must be a combination of factors including community support, technical justification and business drivers to bring about a subsequent or continuous round in future.We support the recommendation that policy efforts be undertaken by the GNSO to examine the viability of subsequent rounds..."

See also on Domain Mondo:



DISCLAIMER

2015-10-24

GAC Communique, ICANN 54, Future gTLD Rounds, CCWG Stress Test 18

The Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) meeting at ICANN54 in Dublin, issued its GAC Dublin 54 Communiqué [PDF, 169 KB].on October 21, 2015. Two of the many issues covered by the communique were future gTLD rounds (new generic top-level domains) and Stress Test 18 (relating to CCWG-Accountability's work)(emphasis added):

Future gTLD Rounds
"The GAC advises the Board that: i. before defining the modalities for future rounds, a rigorous assessment of all public policy related aspects of the current round should be undertaken, taking into account the advice given by the GAC on this subject since the beginning of the New gTLD process, including advice relating to community-wide engagement on the issues of communication to and access by developing countries and regions; and advice regarding past policy decisions taken by the Board to reserve the Red Cross and Red Crescent designations and names. In this regard, the GAC expects that those elements of the current framework for new gTLDs that are considered appropriate by the GAC will remain and that the elements that are not considered satisfactory will be improved for subsequent rounds."

Stress Test 18
"Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability): The GAC recognizes that much progress has been made by the CCWG-Accountability in its ongoing work, and welcomes the CCWG’s achievements to date and supports the efforts to finalise its proposal for enhancing ICANN accountability as required for the IANA stewardship transition. In assessing the specific accountability recommendations put forth so far by the CCWG-Accountability, the GAC considers that whatever the final outcome of this process may be, the new accountability framework to be agreed upon must preserve the current role of governments in ICANN. The discussions on Stress Test 18 have helped the GAC to have a better understanding of the different views on the issue. In assessing the different rationales presented so far related to Stress Test 18, the GAC considered:
• The need that each and every Advisory Committee ensures that the advice provided is clear and reflects the consensus view of the Committee; 
• The need that each and every Advisory Committee should preserve its own autonomy in its definition of consensus; 
• The value the Board attributes to receiving consensus advice; 
• The recommendation of the BGRI WG, as reiterated by the ATRT2, to set the threshold for the ICANN Board to reject GAC advice to a 2/3 majority voting, consistent with the threshold established for rejection of ccNSO and GNSO PDP recommendations." 

"In view of the above, having considered concerns expressed by various parties, the GAC agreed to further work on the issue of Stress Test 18, and to submit any further input to the CCWG taking into account the timelines of the CCWG. GAC Members will continue to work within the CCWG to finalise the proposal for enhancing ICANN accountability." (emphasis added)

Editor's Note: CCWG-Accountability has proposed changes to ICANN bylaws related to CCWG's Stress Test 18: "Governments in ICANN’s Government Advisory Committee (GAC) amend their operating procedures to change from consensus decisions to majority voting for advice to ICANN’s board. Consequence: Under current bylaws, ICANN must consider and respond to GAC advice, even if that advice were not supported by consensus. A majority of governments could thereby approve GAC advice that restricted free online expression, for example." Bylaw changes have been proposed by CCWG-Accountability to prevent such an outcome.




DISCLAIMER

2015-09-30

Housing Bubble Like New gTLDs Mania? The Big Short Trailer (video)



"The Big Short Trailer (2015) - When four outsiders saw what the big banks, media and government refused to, the global collapse of the economy, they had an idea: The Big Short. Their bold investment leads them into the dark underbelly of modern banking where they must question everyone and everything. Based on the true story and best-selling book by Michael Lewis (The Blind Side, Moneyball), and directed by Adam Mckay (Anchorman, Step Brothers) The Big Short stars Christian Bale, Steve Carell, Ryan Gosling and Brad Pitt. In US theaters this Christmas.

This looks like a great movie, and also reminds Domain Mondo of the same mindset or mania of those within ICANN, its directors, officers, staff and stakeholder groups, and applicants, for new gTLDs, flooding the market with hundreds of mostly unwanted, unneeded new gTLDs (new generic top-level domains), only to discover that the expected consumer demand and predicted financial success missing--e.g., remember ICANN's estimate that there would be 33 million new gTLD registrations in FY15 (July2014-June2015)--reality: less than 5 million! And then we have all the new gTLD hucksters and suckers who have ended up with new gTLD domain names they couldn't sell or, in some cases, even give away--a good example is the otherwise successful investor Frank Schilling--

"Marketing for .SEXY and .TATTOO begin March 8th [2014].  At $19.99, anything good .SEXY will be gone in a year." --Frank Schilling  27 Feb 2014 (emphasis added)

How many "good" .sexy domains do you think are available? "I think there are probably 200,000 big generics and creative hax. When those are gone, others will be taking FirstLast.sexy."--Frank Schilling 27 Feb 2014 (emphasis added)

Reality check: more than a year later, as of September 29, 2015, total registrations for new gTLD .sexy total only 21,290 (source: namestat.org) and reportedly Frank paid for thousands of those .SEXY domain name registrations himself through his North Sound Names, otherwise the registrations total would be even worse!

"...  I think new gTLD operators like Uniregistry were too close to their product in 2014. We have been living and breathing new gTLDs since 2011, so the official launch in 2014 was the end of a 3 year relay for us, and we were surprised that the consuming public and other registrars were not standing there eagerly to take the baton and run forward with the same zeal that it took us to get that baton to them."--Frank Schilling (January, 2015)(emphasis added)

Key phrase: "We were surprised."

"I do think that Donuts’ approach of having a large portfolio of names is the right model. There is not enough cash flow to sustain a business otherwise. We at Uniregistry are just big enough but I expect that some registries will soon be people operating out of their bedrooms. Many of the new names just don’t work."--Frank Schilling (June, 2015)(emphasis added)

Sound like the kind of domain name extension or TLD (top-level domain) you want to build your business on?--"Oh, the registry operator of our domain name operates out of his bedroom"--what were they (ICANN on down) thinking? Was it really just about greed? 

See also on Domain Mondo: New gTLD Domains, the Walking Dead and Dying, ICANN FY15 Results July 2, 2015

Caveat Emptor!




DISCLAIMER

2015-09-16

ICANN Finally Releases APNIC Report on New gTLDs UA Problems

Universal Acceptance screenshot from ICANN Quarterly Stakeholder Call August 20, 2015
Universal Acceptance (UA) screenshot from ICANN Quarterly Stakeholder Call August 20, 2015
"What data or metrics is ICANN capturing or measuring about new gTLDs Universal Acceptance issues, i.e., new gTLD domain names “failing to work as expected on the internet” and reportedly “breaking stuff”? Is this data being captured on an on-going basis? Will the data or metrics be published so the global Internet community and domain name registrants may be advised of “defect” issues relating to ICANN’s new gTLDs domain names?" -- Question asked by John Poole, editor of Domain Mondo at ICANN Quarterly Stakeholder Call, August 20, 2015
When the above question was asked on August 20, 2015, Fadi Chehade, ICANN CEO, referred it to Global Domains Division President, Akram Atallah, who basically indicated there were no such metrics or data being captured on an ongoing basis and did not mention the APNIC report. Then ICANN CTO Dave Conrad answered and indicated the "APNIC" Report had been published on the ICANN website and he would provide the URL before the stakeholder call concluded. At the conclusion of the stakeholder call, Conrad entered the following into the chat window:
David Conrad: My apologies, it seems that the report on the study on Universal Acceptance we developed with APNIC has not yet been released -- we wanted to look at the data a bit more.  We anticipate a release of the report very soon.
The referenced APNIC report (pdf) was finally released September 14, 2015. It is of limited scope and use, however the biggest takeaway was stated by David Conrad:
"There will need to be changes to systems and software to fully leverage the global opportunities these new TLDs enable."
The transcript of the Quarterly (FY15 Q4) stakeholder call on August 20, 2015, is still not available as of September 16th (3pm ET), but the recordings and presentation may be accessed here.

For more information about Universal Acceptance "problems" with ICANN's new gTLDs (new generic top-level domains) see Domain Mondo posts:


and
ICANN website on Universal Acceptance
and maillist: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ua-discuss/

Maillist posting of September 16, 2015, by ICANN Board Member Ram Mohan (and Chair, UASG):

"BlueCoat <https://www.bluecoat.com/company-overview>, a security vendor used by most of the Fortune 500, released a report on the Web’s shadiest TLDs <https://www.bluecoat.com/company/press-releases/blue-coat-reveals-webs-shadiest-neighborhoods> on Sep 1, 2015. They recommend to their 15,000+ customers to block all listed TLDs (report attached). Most of these are new gTLDs. There are implications for universal acceptance. This will result in some discussion at the upcoming UA Coordination Summit in Horsham tomorrow and Friday. The summit will have a conference bridge for anyone interesting in participating. Don Hollander will provide details."    -Ram Chair, UASG [BlueCoat report (pdf)] (emphasis added)
and
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ua-discuss/2015-September/000399.html
"BlueCoat’s methodology is discussed in some security group mailing lists. My understanding is that in the case of .zip, there were instances of <file>.pdf.zip which allowed for drive-bys, malware etc. regardless of the state of name registration. -ram"



DISCLAIMER

2015-07-20

New gTLDs Domain Registry Rightside (NAME) Stock Hits Low of $6.54


In what seems to be a continuing saga of bad news for ICANN's new gTLDs (new generic top-level domains), leading new gTLD Registry operator, Rightside (NASDAQ: NAME) stock hit an intra-day low today of $6.54--see chart above--(the stock's all-time low is $6.42), finally closing at $6.80, down 0.40 (5.56%). It's been a rough ride for NAME stockholders since Rightside was spun off from Demand Media last year--the stock hit a high of $17.00 last year at the height of new gTLDs hype and mania and it's been mostly declining since then (see chart below). While there appeared to be no news affecting the stock, recent SEC filings, here and here, have raised questions. At least one commentator has speculated that the stock might become a "takeover candidate."

1 year chart of Rightside stock - NASDAQ: NAME
1 year chart of Rightside stock - NASDAQ: NAME - chart source: google.com
Note: See disclaimer at the bottom this webpage and here. Neither Domain Mondo's owner, publisher, editor, nor the author, have any interest, long or short, in Rightside (NAME) stock.

See also on Domain Mondo:

2015-03-19

ICANN New gTLD Domains: Chaos, Confusion, Contentions, FUBAR?

ICANN diagram of the "Contention Set On Hold" for .WEB and .WEBS
ICANN diagram of the "Contention Set On Hold" for .WEB and .WEBS

ICANN New gTLD Contention Set Status: "WEB / WEBS" - 9 applicants - Set Status "On Hold" --
ICANN: "This page reflects the current string contention sets as of the most recent update (14 March 2015) to this page. String contention sets will be updated from time to time to reflect any changes. Please note that the current status of string contention sets could change due to changes to application status as a result of withdrawals, evaluation results, dispute resolution proceedings, contention resolution processes, or the potential impact of ICANN accountability mechanisms. Except for the application statuses "Withdrawn" and "Delegated", application statuses are not final. A change in application status or update to a contention set is intended to inform the applicants and the community of an application's current status. A change or update is not a definite indication that an application may proceed to another phase of the program. For more information including definitions of application statuses see the applicant advisory."

Note the diagram above: 9 applicants x $185,000 each = $1,665,000

ICANN's New gTLD domains program--Chaos, confusion, contentions, FUBAR--a giant cl*sterf*ck--and it is obvious that ICANN forgot about, or just ignored, its own multistakeholder-developed policy, and the whole Policy Development Process including comments made during that process, as well as foundational principles that were to guide the introduction of any and all new generic top-level domains (new gTLDs)--

Final Report - Introduction of New Generic Top-Level Domains | Generic Names Supporting Organization: "... [principle A] (A): New generic top-level domains must be introduced in an orderly, timely and predictable way. Network operators and ISPs must ensure their customers do not encounter problems in addressing their emails, and in their web searching and access activities, since this can cause customer dissatisfaction and overload help-desk complaints. Hence this principle is a vital component of any addition sequence to the gTLD namespace." (emphasis added)

For follow-up references on how ICANN just ignored all of the above in its dash "to grab the money," see:

Bottom Line: ICANN absolutely blew it in adding new gTLDs (new generic top-level domains) to the DNS. ICANN violated, or just ignored, its own policies and principles (see above). Users, registrants, registrars, registry operators, and registry applicants, as well as the stability and security of the Internet DNS, have all been adversely affected by ICANN's inept implementation of the new gTLDs program. And now the Obama administration, in the form of Lawrence E. Strickling, wants the global multistakeholder community to just turn everything over to ICANN!


2015-02-09

ICANN 52, Universal Acceptance, New gTLD Domain Names "break stuff"

Screenshot from ICANN 52 Session on Universal Acceptance, ICANN's new gTLDs "break stuff"
Slide from ICANN 52 session on Universal Acceptance - ICANN's new gTLDs "break stuff"
ICANN: "Many of the services and applications Internet users rely on, do not accept new top-level domains [ICANN's new generic top-level Domains], Internationalized Domain Names or Internationalized email addresses. The issue poses a risk to the public perception of ICANN's New gTLD and IDN Programs. This session is intended to solicit community interest in participating in ICANN's Universal Acceptance Initiative, discuss ICANN's outreach plans and gather new ideas for tackling the issue." (ICANN's description of the Universal Acceptance session at ICANN 52)

Better late than never, it has now been proposed that ICANN form a "steering group" to help solve the problem ICANN created with its ill-conceived, misbegotten new gTLDs program, and even an industry organization for new gTLD proponents wants to "help"--thedna.org--headed by former ICANN Chief Strategy Officer, Kurt Pritz, architect of the new gTLDs program, who resigned during development of the program for an undisclosed conflict of interest reportedly "related" to one of the chief backers of both the new gTLDs program and thedna.org, ARI Registry Services. But domain name registrants should be forewarned, this problem is going to take "years" to solve:

Slide from ICANN 52 session on Universal Acceptance -
New gTLD Domain Names "Do Not Work" Across The Internet and the Problem Will Take "Years" To Fix









Download the ICANN 52 Universal Acceptance pdf and then listen/watch the Universal Acceptance session from ICANN 52 at the links below (note: there is an audio problem in the first five minutes of the video), and laugh or weep when you hear of the complaints coming from domain name registrants and internet users, to give but one example of many,  that e.g., "the new gTLD .SOCIAL does not work" on the internet--

Archival Media:
Universal Acceptance | Adobe Connect: Full [EN] Virtual Meeting Room Stream Archive (English)
Universal Acceptance | Audio: Full [EN] Audio Stream Archive (English)

And to top everything off, the inept, incompetent, unaccountable, and conflicted ICANN now wants the global multistakeholder community to give ICANN all power and control over the Internet DNS in the IANA stewardship transition!

QUESTIONS:
  1. Once the IANA transition is complete, and ICANN no longer has benefit of government contractor immunity and similar defenses, who will be the first to file a claim against ICANN related to its new gTLDs--a new gTLD registry operator or applicant, a new gTLD registrar, or a new gTLD domain name registrant? 
  2. What would be the total potential liability for such claims? Billions of dollars (US)? 
see also: Why New gTLD Domain Names Fail To Work Across the Internet and

ICANN, New gTLD Domain Names, Universal Acceptance Another #FAIL - 14 October 2014

Caveat Emptor!

2015-01-13

Has Google Fallen Out Of Love With ICANN's New gTLDs?

Are ICANN's new gTLDs (new generic top-level domains) just another passing fad or a defunct idea now destined for the great trash bin in cyberspace, at least as far as Google is concerned?

Google is notorious for abandoning products and services, almost on a whim--remember Google Reader, Google Buzz, Google Orkut, Google Desktop, Google Labs, Google Health, iGoogle, and many, many more?

While most Silicon Valley companies rejected, scoffed at, and even laughed derisively at ICANN's money-grab a/k/a the new gTLDs program--Google jumped in with both feet at the beginning, applying for more than 100 new gTLDs, through its own Google Registry as well as setting up its own branded Google Registrar.

But somewhere along the way, reality has trumped delusionary new gTLDs enthusiasm in Mountain View:
  1. While Google has immense resources and could outbid any other new gTLD applicant, it has increasingly withdrawn from pursuing its applications for contested new gTLD domains;
  2. Google's new gTLDs in general availability (see registrations for .SOY) have, like most other new gTLDs, very disappointing registration numbers, and receive little marketing support from Google;
  3. The claim by new gTLD proponents that participation by Google in the new gTLDs program would ensure its success, has proven to be just another false claim by new gTLD hucksters;
  4. Google continues to use (as it always has) google.com and redirects .google to .COM
  5. The Google Registrar--Google Domains--has been in beta (by invitation only) since at least June 2014, and shows no signs of going into "live" general availability anytime soon; UPDATE: NOW LIVE in the US --no invitation needed -- although still marked "BETA" (note: Domain Mondo takes no credit for getting Google off its butt!)
  6. At the ongoing new gTLDs "love fest" in Las Vegas, a/k/a NamesCon, Google is conspicuously absent, either as sponsor or participant;
  7. Google has gone out of its way recently to reiterate that new gTLDs do not, and will not, receive any SEO boost over .COM or other domain extensions, proving once again that you cannot believe anything that comes from the new gTLD proponents. In fact, as current trends of cybersquatting and other illegal uses of new gTLDs continue, who knows what effect future algorithmic changes in the great Google bot will have on new gTLDs?
So what does this all mean for the future of new gTLDs in Googleland? Maybe this domaining blogger has it right--

What do Amazon and Google domain name losses mean for new TLDs? | Domain Name Wire: "I’ve also heard that one of Google’s new TLD executive champions left the company. Often, an executive suite champion is needed to see a project to fruition. Having worked at a Fortune 500 company, I’ve seen plenty of initiatives (even those with lots of sunk cost) get shelved for political and monetary reasons. And “just because”. Regardless of how big a deal new TLDs are to new TLD companies, these things are just a spec on the wall at Google and Amazon." (emphasis added)

2015-01-02

ICANN's New gTLD Domains Are Failing Badly, 2015 May Be Even Worse

CentralNic ... - Finance News - London South East: "... the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers [ICANN] to downgrade their demand projections to 15 million domain registrations under the new top level domains by June 2015 from 33 million...."
If you want just an "opinion" about ICANN's new gTLDs (new generic Top-Level Domains), you can find plenty of hucksters hawking their hokem on countless "domaining blogs" and elsewhere on the internet, as well as at numerous "domain name conferences," but for now, let's just look at the facts--the actual registration numbers as reported by ntldstats.com (*data capture as of January 2, 2014 @ 10:33 am EST):

Chart of New gTLD domain name registrations by month FY15

So how badly are ICANN's new gTLDs failing? Well, ICANN originally predicted 33 million new gTLD domain name registrations in FY15 (Fiscal Year 2015: July 1, 2014-June 30, 2015), then "lowered the bar" by more than half in the adopted ICANN FY15 budget to just 15 million new gTLD domain name registrations in FY15. So where are we at the end of the first half of FY15 (December 31, 2014)?

According to ntldstats.com* there were 1,418,338 new gTLD registrations at the end of FY14 (June 30, 2014). If you subtract that from 3,715,143 total new gTLD registrations at the end of calendar year 2014,* then there were only 2,296,805 new gTLD registrations in the first-half of FY15 (including the hundreds of  thousands of new gTLD registrations given away for free!) --meaning ICANN and "whomever ICANN listens to," were "delusional" about the demand for new gTLDs. Of course this shouldn't surprise anyone--ICANN made monumental mistakes in its new gTLDs program, including not considering "registrant demand for new gTLDs" as a "relevant factor" in deciding whether to even authorize any new gTLDs. Instead ICANN decided to just flood the Internet Domain Name System (DNS) with hundreds of unwanted, unneeded domain extensions because there were fools willing and able to pay ICANN $185,000 per new gTLD for the right to do so, or to participate in ICANN's auctioning off of the Internet DNS to the highest bidders. Remember, for ICANN, itself a monopoly, "It's all about the money" and to heck with the public interest and Internet security and stability.

Based on the trends thus far (see chart below), new gTLD registrations for all of FY15 will not only fall far short of the ICANN budgetary estimate of 15,000,000, but in fact will be "lucky" to total even a third of that (5,000,000). And that is without even taking into consideration that renewals of new gTLD registrations will begin in 2015 for the first time--how many domain name registrants who received those hundreds of thousands of "free" new gTLD domain name registrations in 2014, will actually pay to renew those mostly worthless new gTLD domain names in 2015?

Chart of ICANN estimate and actual new gTLD registrations FY15
ICANN estimated 15 million new gTLD registrations for FY15, actual registrations are falling far short




Caveat Emptor!



2014-12-12

A Case Against New Generic Top-Level Domains, New gTLDs

From the University of Richmond Journal of Law and Technology, and worthy of reading in full:

The Tangled Web: A Case Against New Generic Top-Level Domains - University of Richmond JOLT: "... While there are positives, the negative implications of introducing new generic top-level domains far outweigh these positives.  The following subsections discuss four distinct reasons that ICANN should not introduce more new generic top-level domains at this time.  First, ICANN’s own Government Advisory Committee has questioned the necessity and likelihood of success for new generic top-level domains.  Second, by issuing new generic-top level domains to private companies, a core principle of trademark law is violated.  Third, the FTC has warned ICANN that new generic top-level domains will greatly increase the difficulty of prosecuting cases of online fraud.  Finally, ICANN’s actions regarding the introduction of new generic top-level domains, thus far, have raised serious ethical concerns about the organization’s ability to fairly oversee the project..." (emphasis added, read more at the link above)




2014-07-05

ICANN Process for New gTLDs Dysfunctional -- from the beginning

"When a decision is taken about a possible new top-level domain, ICANN's job is to work out, in a transparent and accountable manner, whether it is really in the best interest of the world as a whole, not just of those launching the new domain." -- Tim Berners-Lee
Jean Guillon writing in CircleID asks: "What if France Had Applied for a .WINE New gTLD? ....Well… the situation would be the exact same — the applicant would be in front of three other .WINE applicants with this exact same question: how do I win the auction?... "Standard applications", "Community applications" and "Geographic applications" were created by ICANN to offer a range of procedures for applicants to decide whether "they" considered if their application was sensitive or not. ICANN has no "conseil des sages" or CFT procedure upfront to do a first check up in the new gTLD application process. So what now?"

The whole ICANN process for new gTLDs was dysfunctional from the beginning. There should have been no fees such as the $185,000 per application fee, and no auctions. There should have been a process to receive nominations for new generic top-level domains. Anyone could submit a nomination for new gTLD name extension: .web, .app, etc., with the nominating form indicating the "public interest" rationale and need for the new gTLD extension. A nominating committee to review and process the nominations would be composed of members of the global internet community, including but not limited to, domain name registrants, commercial, civil society, and government representatives (with access to experts in naming protocols, marketing, trademarks, economics, technical and other matters). The nominating committee would specifically exclude from membership registry representatives and anyone else who intended to apply to become a registry of any new gTLD or provide services to current or new gTLDs registry operators. The nominating committee would evaluate the nominations, to determine which ones ranked highest in terms of both rationale and need, in the public interest, perhaps even conducting polls for general world opinion and consensus as to preferences among the nominated new gTLDs. From that process, the nominating committee would determine and publish ranked lists of proposed new gTLDs, which would be published to the global multistakeholder community for comment, for a period of not less than thirty days. Once the comment period closed, the ranked lists and comments would be submitted to the ICANN Board (or its designee) for final determination of which new gTLDs would be added to the global domain name system.

Then, and only then, the process of soliciting and selecting the registry operator for each new gTLD would begin. That process would end with the selected registry operator executing its contract with ICANN -- ICANN acting on behalf of the global internet community. The registry operator contracts would include terms requiring operation of each new gTLD registry in the public interest for a term of years, at the lowest possible cost in annual domain name registration fees, all of which would be strictly regulated by ICANN. Financial soundness of each registry operator applicant would be one, but only one, of many criteria by which the ICANN Board or its designee would make the final registry operator selections. No fees would be paid to ICANN by the selected or applicant registry operators. ICANN would receive only the fee paid upon registration/transfer of each domain name -- ICANN, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, charges a mandatory yearly fee of $0.18 for each year of domain registration per domain name. (Registry operators would be required to pay annual assessments for operation of the internet root zone and other technical IANA functions, directly to IANA, a separate entity.)

Every current and new gTLD should be considered to be the "property" of the global internet community, regulated by ICANN, and operated by each registry, in the "public interest." ICANN was never originally intended to be an ATM or "cash machine" -- "put in your $185,000 and we will issue you your new gTLD which you can do with pretty much as you like" nor an issuer of new gTLDs to the highest bidder -- Glossary | ICANN New gTLDs: "Auction -- A method for allocating property or goods to the highest bidder." Nor were generic top-level domains ever originally intended to be licenses to make profits at the expense of the public interest -- damaging trademarks, businesses, and others in the process.

But somewhere along the line, ICANN stopped listening to people like Esther Dyson and Tim Berners-Lee, and decided to sell out the public interest for private gain and profit. In the process, ICANN has irreparably damaged the internet and its domain name system for which it was supposed to be a protector and steward.

John Poole
Domain Mondo
July 4, 2014





Domain Mondo archive