<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
<channel>
<title>Techdirt. Stories filed under &quot;gtld&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 13 Jun 2012 14:39:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>.Rip .Off: Highlights From The Top-Level Domain Scrum</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120613/12491719310/rip-off-highlights-top-level-domain-scrum.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120613/12491719310/rip-off-highlights-top-level-domain-scrum.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ The whole ICANN process for creating generic top level domains (gTLDs) has clearly been designed to allow certain groups to make a ton of money by basically pressuring individuals and companies to snap up more domains they don't need.  The whole thing has appeared <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120323/03201418221/massive-conflict-interests-icann-called-out-ceo-start-to-get-some-attention.shtml">impossibly corrupt</a> from the very beginning.  However, with ICANN finally releasing <a href="http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/application-results/strings-1200utc-13jun12-en" target="_blank">the full list of gTLDs that have been applied for</a> (using the obnoxious title "reveal day" -- as if the world was really waiting impatiently for this crap), there are at least some bizarre or interesting factoids as we skim through the list.  Here are a few:
<ul>
<li>Lots of companies applied for their own name or an acronym of their name.  This is one area where I could see <i>some</i> benefit in potentially stopping certain phishing scams... But it seems unfortunate that only super rich companies should be able to do that.  A few companies sought gTLDs on related terms -- like Nationwide Insurance seeking .onyourside to match with its slogan.  Ralph Lauren just wants .polo.  Chrysler wants .ram.  Travelers Insurance wants .redumbrella (really?!?).
</li>
<br />
<li>Google's bids are slightly (just slightly) obfuscated by the use of "Charleston Road Registry Inc." as their applicant.  But as the company had suggested last month, it was pretty active, going after some clearly Google related names, including .google, .goog, .gmail, .android, .gbiz and .goo.  But it also has a few more broadly worded ones, including .ads (which no one else sought), .car (for their autonomous vehicles?), .dad (just in time for father's day?), .mom, .dog, .family, .fyi, .plus, .tour, .prod, .here, .prof, .phd, meme., .lol, .day, .love (which has a lot of competition), .rsvp, .mba, .vip, .web, .eat, .soy and (believe it or not) .and.  There are some strange ones too, like .zip, .boo (did Google scare you?) and .foo.  They also want .page (is Larry getting his own TLD?).
</li>
<br />
<li>Thirteen applications were made for .app -- including from Google and Amazon, but also a whole bunch of companies that were clearly set up just to seek .app and all of which have similar names: Dot App LLC, .APP REGISTRY Inc., DotApp Inc., and dot App Limited.  Not confusing at all.
</li>
<br />
<li>Both Amazon and Google would like .book (where they have competition from seven others) and .search (where they have competition from two others).
</li>
<br />
<li>Amazon and Google actually come up against each other an awful lot, including for .buy, .shop, .store, .free, .game, .play, .movie, .show, .mail, .map, .spot, .talk, .wow, .you and .cloud -- all of which have a bunch of other suitors as well.  They also go head to head (with no other competitors) for .drive.  They just missed each other in going after children.  Google wants .kid, while Amazon wants .kids.  Think these two companies are competing in a lot of areas?
</li>
<br />
<li>Amazon would also like both .safe and .room, but not .saferoom (no one went for that one).  Amazon has no competition for either of those.
</li>
<br />
<li>Amazon would like you to .smile.  Somewhat surprised no one else sought that one.
</li>
<br />
<li>For .docs, Google's competition is... Microsoft.  No surprise there.  Those two companies also face off (with one other applicant) for .live.</li>
<br />
<li>Six different companies are seeking .baby, including Johnson and Johnson... and Google?  Not sure I get that one.
</li>
<br />
<li>Surprised that there are only two applications for .money -- since that's what this whole thing is all about anyway.
</li>
<br />
<li>Nine companies want .blog.  I really have no desire to pay anyone for techdirt.blog.
</li>
<br />
<li>Slightly surprised that only American Express wants .open.
</li>
<br />
<li>Hasbro wants .transformers.  Seriously.
</li>
<br />
<li>TJX (owners of stores like Marshall's and TJ Maxx) wants .winners.  No one went for .winning.  Apparently Charlie Sheen has fallen off the face of the earth.
</li>
<br />
<li>Six different applications for .cpa (including one from Google).  Apparently some people expect that CPAs have money to blow on new domains...
</li>
<br />
<li>Two different companies want .dot (which actually is kind of creative): Google and Dish.  Not sure I understand either one.
</li>
<br />
<li>McDonalds wants .mcd (and .mcdonalds).
</li>
<br />
<li>Three different companies want .rip.  I'm assuming these are for "memorial" sites.
</li>
<br />
<li>AOL wants .patch.  Meanwhile plenty of people expect that Patch will soon need .rip.
</li>
<br />
<li>Many regional ones are unopposed, but .osaka has two proposals.
</li>
<br />
<li>Notorious <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/search.php?cx=partner-pub-4050006937094082%3Acx0qff-dnm1&#038;cof=FORID%3A9&#038;ie=ISO-8859-1&#038;q=monster+cable">hater</a> of anyone who uses the word "Monster," Monster Cable is seeking .monster, but has to compete with the jobs site Monster.com.  Those two companies already have an agreement about the use of the term, but you have to imagine they're not happy to see each other here.
</li>
<br />
<li>Eleven companies want .home, once again including a bunch with similar names.  DotHome Inc., Dot Home LLC, .HOME Registry Inc., DotHome/CGR E-Commerce Ltd.  Oh yeah, and GoDaddy and Google are both there as well.
</li>
<br />
<li>The MPAA cannot be happy that Google is also seeking .film, where it's competing against two others, including the "Motion Picture Domain Registry".  According to the website for that group, they have a strong association with the MPAA.  Both those companies (and a bunch of others, including Amazon as mentioned above) are also competing for .movie.
</li>
<br />
<li>As expected, there's also a big fight to be had over .music -- including (once again) Google and Amazon, but also a bunch of operations set up just for this purpose: dot Music Limited, DotMusic, DotMusic Inc.,  and .music LLC.  For what it's worth, the RIAA has <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120208/03161317696/always-gatekeeper-riaa-backs-music-proposal-if-its-only-limited-to-accredited-musicians.shtml">endorsed</a> the proposal from .music LLC, because it only would allow "accredited" musicians to use it, and the RIAA loves nothing more than the chance to be a gatekeeper.
</li>
<br />
<li>Starbucks (<i>Starbucks?!</i>) would like .now, but it has steep competition from five other companies, including its neighbor, Amazon.
</li>
<br />
<li>Seven applications were made for .news (including one from Amazon).  I also do not want to buy techdirt.news.
</li>
<br />
<li>Three different applications for .sucks.  Perhaps I'd buy techdirt.sucks.
</li>
<br />
<li>Yes, someone did apply for .wtf.
</li>
<br />
<li>.ninja actually is a cool idea for a TLD.  I might want one of those.
</li>
<br />
<li>There are two competing applications for .sex, because we didn't already have enough of a battle over the sex.com domain name years ago.
</li>
<br />
<li>This is slightly outside the list, but related to it.  After the list came out, I received a press release from some silly grandstanding "morality" group insisting that .porn, .sex and .adult need to be opposed because "more porn domains means more porn on the internet." I don't think that requires any response other than laughter at the basic cluelessness.
</li></ul>
There's plenty more to dig into, but those were the ones that caught my eye.  It seems like the key story is just how often Amazon and Google come up against each other...<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120613/12491719310/rip-off-highlights-top-level-domain-scrum.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120613/12491719310/rip-off-highlights-top-level-domain-scrum.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120613/12491719310/rip-off-highlights-top-level-domain-scrum.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>.goo-me</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120613/12491719310</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 3 Apr 2012 05:30:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>New York City Cooks Up Annoying Plan That Will Pressure NYC Businesses To Buy .nyc Domains They Don't Want Or Need</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120327/21132118266/new-york-city-cooks-up-annoying-plan-that-will-pressure-nyc-businesses-to-buy-nyc-domains-they-dont-want-need.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120327/21132118266/new-york-city-cooks-up-annoying-plan-that-will-pressure-nyc-businesses-to-buy-nyc-domains-they-dont-want-need.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ New York City officials are apparently all excited about a guaranteed <a href="http://paidcontent.org/article/419-new-york-promised-at-least-3.6-million-for-sale-of-.nyc-domain-names/" target="_blank">$3.6 million "risk free to taxpayers"</a> after signing a deal with a Virginia company to offer .nyc domains.  This is one of those things that sounds good until you think it through, and then you realize it's effectively a hidden business tax.  NYC gets to promote it as a way for more companies in NYC to have domains, and to identify themselves as NYC-based companies.  But for companies already based there, they now need to buy up these domains they don't want or need, just to keep others from buying them up.
<blockquote><i>
To businesses, which only need one website address, new domain names are often a tax they must pay to protect their brand. It&#8217;s as if someone printed an alternate copy of the White Pages and asked companies to buy a listing before it was sold to someone else.
<br /><br />
In this case, a New York City company like Bloomberg would have to buy Bloomberg.nyc or face having to buy it back at a higher price. Other iconic New York City brands will likely watch nervously to see what becomes names like of &#8220;gossipgirl.nyc&#8221; or &#8220;magnoliabakery.nyc&#8221;
</i></blockquote>
The company behind this is asking people to pre-register "for free," but (tellingly) does not share how much the .nyc domains will actually cost once registration opens for real.  So while NYC officials can pretend that they've "found" money here, the reality is that they're creating a totally wasteful business tax and a true nuisance for NYC businesses.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120327/21132118266/new-york-city-cooks-up-annoying-plan-that-will-pressure-nyc-businesses-to-buy-nyc-domains-they-dont-want-need.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120327/21132118266/new-york-city-cooks-up-annoying-plan-that-will-pressure-nyc-businesses-to-buy-nyc-domains-they-dont-want-need.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120327/21132118266/new-york-city-cooks-up-annoying-plan-that-will-pressure-nyc-businesses-to-buy-nyc-domains-they-dont-want-need.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>but...-money</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120327/21132118266</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 30 Mar 2012 10:51:33 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Trademark Lawyers Push For Crazy New Domain Rules Making It Easy For Them To Take Away Others' Domains</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120324/01292018233/trademark-lawyers-push-crazy-new-domain-rules-making-it-easy-them-to-take-away-others-domains.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120324/01292018233/trademark-lawyers-push-crazy-new-domain-rules-making-it-easy-them-to-take-away-others-domains.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ IP maximalists now seem to be targeting ICANN as yet another way to overclaim their rights and block legitimate domains from existing.  As we've been discussing, there have been several fights concerning the new generic top level domains (gTLDs) where we've seen folks like the entertainment industry <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120315/03521318114/fear-induced-foolishness-entertainment-industry-thinks-controls-new-tlds-will-actually-impact-piracy.shtml">demand</a> extra special measures to keep them from being used to infringe copyrights.  But the trademark folks may be going even further.  We already have the (somewhat flawed) UDRP (Uniformed Domain Dispute Resolution Process) system for trademark holders to try to claim rights over a domain.  This process lets trademark holders go through an arbitration process if they feel someone is abusing a trademark in a domain.  In the past, we've discussed how this process is <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100506/0151069316.shtml">pretty sloppy</a>, but it still <i>heavily</i> favors trademark holders.  As in many arbitration situations, the big companies who bring back business to the arbitrators (magically) seem to win quite frequently.
<br /><br />
However, that's just not enough for these trademark holders.  Last year, for these new gTLDs, they were also able to establish a separate process, the <a href="http://www.newdomains.org/news/New_gTLDs_Uniform_Rapid_Suspension_System_URS">URS (Uniform Rapid Suspension System)</a> which, everyone was told, would <i>only</i> be used for the most egregious cases of trademark infringement -- the cases where it's so totally obvious that the domain in question infringes that the whole process can be cheap and streamlined.
<br /><br />
However, before this process has even really been tested, trademark holders are trying very, very hard to basically lower the standards on URS and broaden the reach of it, such that it more or less replaces the UDRP process -- and thus makes it a system that lets trademark holders <i>seize</i> the domains of those they accuse of infringement very cheaply, with minimal review, and to also block certain words from being registered in domains.  Even more incredible?  They're abusing an ICANN comment process to push this plan (which ICANN had earlier rejected).
<br /><br />
All of this came out recently in a <a href="http://internetcommerce.org/Defensive_Registrations_Second_Level" target="_blank">letter to ICANN's board</a> raising concerns about this effort.  ICANN had opened up a comment period for a specific issue having to do with gTLDs, and the trademark folks went hogwild, asking for all of these other things, including: 
<ol>
<li>Lowering the standard for when the simplified URS process (seize domains quickly, ask questions later) process can be put in place.  Originally, the bar had been set high so that this process could only be used in truly egregious cases where there was no question that the domain was infringing.  But the proposal sought to lower the standard such that it's the same as the UDRP standard (effectively stepping in and replacing UDRP).
</li><li>Changing the already agreed upon URS system, such that domains that go through the process aren't just suspended, but <b>transferred to the trademark holder</b>.  In other words, rather than just shutting down the domain, this fastpass system would simply turn the domains over to the trademark bullies.
</li><li>Saying that the URS process (which was developed just for these new TLDs) should also be expanded to cover the most important TLD of all: .com.  Yes, that's right.  That's the goal in all of this.  To actually make it much, much easier for trademark bullies to completely shut down and gain control of domains that they don't like others to use, and to do it cheaply, with very little review.
</li></ol>
And they did all this by abusing a comment process that has nothing to do with these issues, and despite the fact that earlier hard-fought battles over these issues came out with them on the losing side.  But, this is how IP maximalists work.  They just keep trying every way possible to get the same ridiculous rules made in their favor.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120324/01292018233/trademark-lawyers-push-crazy-new-domain-rules-making-it-easy-them-to-take-away-others-domains.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120324/01292018233/trademark-lawyers-push-crazy-new-domain-rules-making-it-easy-them-to-take-away-others-domains.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120324/01292018233/trademark-lawyers-push-crazy-new-domain-rules-making-it-easy-them-to-take-away-others-domains.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>maximalist-land-grab</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120324/01292018233</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>