Verisign Unhappy With Operator of .XYZ, Sues For Misrepresentation
Verisign is suing the operator of the .xyz gTLD and its CEO Daniel Negari, the largest of any of the new gTLDs, for “for disparaging .com and allegedly misrepresenting how well .xyz is doing,” according to Domain Incite.
The .xyz gTLD currently has 799,000 of the 4.5 million registrations across all the new gTLDs making it the largest. However probably 300,000 to 350,000 of these have been given away, but it would still be the largest of any new gTLDs without these registrations.
“The lawsuit focuses on some registrars’ habit of giving .xyz names to registrants of .com and other domains without their consent, enabling XYZ.com and Negari to use inflated numbers as a marketing tool,” the Domain Incite report notes.
Verisign’s complaint is with a video available here and published on the front page of xyz.com.
For more information, see the Domain Incite report at:
domainincite.com/18023-verisign-sues-xyz-and-negari-for-false-advertising
ICANN: New gTLD Auction Rules for Indirect Contention
Brief overview: ICANN is seeking community input on the detailed rules (i.e. methodology and processes) for Auctions involving Contention Sets containing Indirect Contention relationships.
Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose
The existing version of the Auction Rules for New gTLDs (“Rules for Direct Contention”) does not contain provisions for indirect contention (see below for background and definitions), and ICANN has worked closely with its auction service provider, Power Auctions LLC (“Power Auctions”), to devise an appropriate methodology for executing auctions among contention sets that contain indirect contention relationships. This public comment period is thus being opened to gain community input on the appropriate rules (i.e. methodology and processes) for these auctions.
ICANN welcomes feedback on the following:
- Concept for Indirect Contention Auctions – “Indirect Contention” is defined in section 4.1.1 of the Applicant Guidebook as existing when “two strings are…both in direct contention with a third string, but not with one another” (e.g. Applicants A and C are in direct contention with Applicant B, but in indirect contention with each other, as diagramed in Figure 4-1 in section 4.1.1). The main difference between Direct and Indirect Contention Auctions exists with the concept of “Feasible Sets,” where more than one application (“Feasible Sets”) from a single contention set can be deemed winners. Groups of winning applications are possible because of indirect contention; indirect contention relationships mean that more than one string in a contention set may prevail and co-exist in the root zone. For example, in a contention set with A-B-C Applications, Application A and Application C are both in direct contention with Application B, but not in direct contention with one another. A and C are in indirect contention with one another and can co-exist in the root zone; the two together thus form a “Feasible Set”. Application B is in direct contention with both Applications A and C and thus cannot co-exist with any other members of the contention set; B thus forms a “Feasible Set” by itself. In the course of the auction, the bids from each member of the feasible set are summed and compared to the sum of the bids from the other feasible sets. The feasible set (e.g., A+C or B) with the highest total bid is determined to be the winner.
- Auction Design for Indirect Contentions (Version 2014-11-10) (“the Auction Design Paper”) – The Auction Design Paper explains the design considerations of an ascending-clock auction for indirect contention and was drafted by Power Auctions. The Auction Design Paper clarifies the concept described above with more detail and examples, and provides the rationale for why this methodology is appropriate for these rare indirect contention scenarios.
- Auction Rules for New gTLDs: Indirect Contentions Edition (Version 2014-11-10) (“Rules for Indirect Contention”) – The Rules for Indirect Contention uses the same format and contains largely the same information as the Rules for Direct Contention. It details eligibility, scheduling, preparation procedures, deposits, bidding limits, and refunds, but deviates based on consideration of the recommendations provided in the Auction Design Paper. Many of the concepts mentioned in the Auction Design Paper are incorporated into the Rules for Indirect Contention, such as in the sections detailing the rules for “Bidding,” “Validity of Bids,” or “Processing of Bids after a Round.” Community input on how concepts translate into execution of rules will be especially beneficial.
ICANN will take all feedback into account, but would like to emphasize that it is seeking input on the following topics:
- The conditions for determining winning applications and “Feasible Sets”
- Pricing / cost allocation for winning applications
Upon close of the public comment period, ICANN will publish a report summarizing and analyzing the comments, and update the Rules for Indirect Contention. ICANN will then move forward to scheduling and administering auctions for indirect contention sets.
Section II: Background
Section 4.3 of the Applicant Guidebook describes auctions as the method of last resort to resolve string contention sets. It also provides an overview of the ascending-clock auction process as well as simplified illustrations of the execution of a contention set auction. ICANN opened public comment in December 2013 on the Auction Rules for Direct Contention, and these rules were implemented in February 2014 after completion of the public comment period. To date, all 12 auctions scheduled by ICANN and the three facilitated to completion by Power Auctions have contained contention sets with only direct contention relationships.
There are four contention sets with indirect contention relationships and which are not yet scheduled for an auction. The Rules for Indirect Contention are required in order to allow facilitation of auctions for these four sets. The four sets that contain indirect contention relationships are: SPORT/SPORTS, SHOP/SHOPPING/通販 (xn--gk3at1e), GAME/GAMES, WEB/WEBS.
Section III: Relevant Resources
- Applicant Guide Book Section 4.3 [PDF, 428 KB]
- New gTLD Auction Rules v.2014.11.03 [PDF, 239 KB]
- Auction Schedule as of 13 November 2014 [PDF, 252 KB]
- Auction Rules for New gTLDs: Indirect Contentions Edition [PDF, 685 KB]
- Auction Design for Indirect Contentions [PDF, 225 KB]
- Introduction to Auctions for Indirect Contention – Presentation [PDF, 838 KB]
Section IV: Additional Information
A webinar regarding the Rules for Indirect Contention will be held on 3 December 2014. The webinar is intended to be an in-depth dialogue and will include an overview as well as discussion of key concepts, preliminary rules, and numerous detailed examples of potential indirect auction scenarios. A recorded version of the webinar along with presentation materials will also be made available on the Auctions microsite: http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/auctions.
Note: The recommended Rules for Indirect Contention contain changes to clause 68 (Anti-Collusion). The corresponding clause in the Bidder Agreement (2.6 Anti-Collusion Rules) will be updated with the same changes after the public comment period and upon finalization of the rules.
Section V: Reports
This ICANN announcement was sourced from:
https://www.icann.org/public-comments/new-gtld-auctions-indirect-contention-2014-11-14-en
Sedo Reports $900,000 in Domain Name Sales! Heika.com Topped Sedo’s Weekly Sales List at $300,000
Heika.com topped Sedo’s weekly sales list at $300,000. Highlights also include Ofen.de, leading the ccTLD category at 15,000 EUR and Checks.net, leading the “Other” category at $24,500 .
Other notable domain name sales include :
.COM
anker.com 130,000 USD
onlinechat.com 24,000 USD
rfh.com 19,000 USD
vietnamesedong.com 10,000 USD
pj5.com 9,000 USD
ushareit.com 8,888 USD
agwest.com 8,800 USD
naturalskin.com 7,700 USD
plusa.com 7,140 USD
andhouse.com 7,000 GBP
foxbar.com 6,500 USD
aquagym.com 6,000 EUR
nuvolo.com 5,500 EUR
infobookmakers.com 5,000 USD
liveincolor.com 5,000 USD
scandalhub.com 5,000 USD
pricehero.com 5,000 USD
filimo.com 4,500 EUR
dock9.com 4,500 EUR
s30.com 4,444 USD
r-a.com 4,305 USD
drips.com 4,010 USD
nextwealth.com 4,000 USD
isc-group.com 3,980 EUR
catfi.com 3,880 USD
tpline.com 3,600 USD
range365.com 3,500 USD
werate.com 3,000 USD
ccTLDs
infor.nl 10,000 EUR
hanffeld.de 3,750 EUR
connect.io 3,600 USD
fibrillazione.it 3,500 EUR
topwedding.it 3,000 EUR
stock.io 2,999 EUR
skyzone.co.uk 2,950 GBP
insight.tv 2,758 USD
ikariam.tv 2,600 USD
rackspacecloud.eu 2,500 USD
meine-kasse.de 2,275 EUR
foyers.ca 2,000 USD
tv-licence.co.uk 2,000 USD
carmart.co.uk 2,000 GBP
b.pe 2,000 EUR
tibo.eu 2,000 EUR
aussenrollos.de 2,000 EUR
ertragswert.de 2,000 EUR
java.io 1,995 USD
fts.at 1,990 EUR
currencycards.co.uk 1,988 GBP
badewanne.at 1,700 EUR
ework.pl 1,699 EUR
briefly.co 1,500 USD
therasoft.de 1,350 EUR
123fenster.de 1,300 EUR
hotel-oberhof.de 1,250 EUR
phuket.co.uk 1,250 GBP
noip.fr 1,200 EUR
hig.co 1,188 USD
adgreen.de 1,179 EUR
pcp.be 1,125 EUR
isy.be 1,005 EUR
coolmaster.de 1,000 EUR
globalbrands.nl 1,000 EUR
shoes.no 1,000 USD
zählerschrank.de 1,000 EUR
brautkleid-hamburg.de 1,000 EUR
campinggarda.nl 1,000 GBP
wintershop.de 1,000 EUR
Other
businessworld.net 2,500 USD
monotech.net 1,900 EUR
bigo.net 1,500 EUR
ethome.net 1,200 USD
startpoint.org 1,077 USD
yourzone.net 1,000 USD
articlesofincorporation.org 1,000 USD
falkensee.immobilien 999 EUR
sarbanesoxley.org 995 USD
expertise.info 880 USD
carnival.events 820 USD
FLippa Reports Weekly Sales List : HFO.COM, Highest Domain Sale at $18,100
Flippa has just sent in their weekly sales report. HFO.com was the highest reported domain name sale at $18,100.
Here are the sales :
Procrastination.com $10,000
XV.net $10,000
TopTenVideos.com $7,888
Matinee.com $7,750
Heated.com $6,000
Postpone.com $5,000
Tablets.org $4,551
File.io @ $4,050
Airfare.to $4,000
PakoMusic.com $3,700
Liberating.com $3,000
NSFW.net $2,100
Overpopulated.com $2,000
WTB.net $1,200
Educates.org $950
KPI.info $799
MarketRally.com $750
TempingJobs.com $660
Wordstreet.com $600
iLocations.com $569
WriteAnEBook.com $555
FileToday.com $545
iGown.com $500
FM.to $500
Outsourcing.io $499
ClothesEmpire.com $450
iProofs.com $431
Piracy.info $394
Ci.al $345
ConiferousForest.com $330
jQuery.tv $310
IthacaApartments.com $306
Afnic Upgrades Its Offer With a New Service for Locking .FR Domains
Afnic, the company behind .FR extension, announced recently that it is upgraing its offer with a new service for locking .FR domains.
You can read the press release after the jump :
“As of February 24, 2015, Afnic is upgrading its offer with a new service for locking .fr domain names.
Domain name deletions, fraudulent transfers and scams are commonplace and can lead to diversion of traffic or make a website completely inaccessible. They often make the headlines and their consequences can be extensive and costly for companies.
By degrading the trust of customers, these incidents can have a lasting affect on a company’s reputation and heavily penalize its activity. These scams happen when someone fraudulently accesses the registration data of the domain name and changes them.The .fr Lock service
With its new .fr Lock service, Afnic helps effectively control these risks by locking the domain name at the registry level. This offers a safety barrier for every company and institution whose website and online services are strategic and highly exposed to hacking risks.
The operations and updates on domain names locked are made possible only following a request to unlock made by the registrar. In reception, Afnic confirms these requests after a process of authentification.
This service will be available in the next few weeks within all .fr accredited registrars.
Testimonial
Patrick HAUSS, Regional Director EMEA – CSC Digital Brand Services
“Victims of attacks know it: the blocking of a website, an app or an e-mail address are events that remind us that some domain names are more valuable than others.
At CSC Digital Brand Services, we have chosen to accompany Afnic in its project to propose new protection tools for strategic domains. We have integrated the .fr Lock service to our range of services “CSC Multilock” and we offer this kind of registry lock each time a Top Level Domain offers this possibility. This tool is perfect to help us to optimize the portfolio plan we put in place to offer more security to the on-line activities of our clients.”
