Afternic Reports $1,85 Million in Domain Name Sales, Led by ProjectBook.com at $20,000
Afternic/GoDaddy have just sent in their weekly sales report. Sales add up to a total of $1,848,381 .The list was led by the sale of ProjectBook.com at $20,000 .
Other notable domain name sales include :
.COM
vitaminbox.com $14,500
commoncorestandards.com $13,500
happy-family.com $11,880
immigrationhub.com $10,000
cribber.com $9,999
6887.com $8,100
artsolutions.com $7,500
bondora.com $7,500
clarkedu.com $7,135
printeer.com $7,000
cosmicworld.com $6,388
securityeducation.com $6,088
learnest.com $5,625
rsvpevents.com $5,288
bitclix.com $5,000
constructively.com $5,000
geossl.com $5,000
peanutsmovie.com $5,000
urbansites.com $5,000
thereconciliationproject.com $4,999
livingood.com $4,800
clubbook.com $4,500
homeforever.com $4,500
hotelsbay.com $4,500
studio73.com $4,500
vanguardproperties.com $4,500
victorysquare.com $4,500
workrevolution.com $4,488
communityhealthchoice.com $4,440
internetsoftware.com $4,300
americansportsmen.com $4,288
beachservices.com $4,288
unenforceable.com $4,288
softwarehaus.com $4,188
fspr.com $4,088
gameband.com $4,000
Non .COM Sales
iln.org $9,800
dnw.org $7,000
repp.org $5,505
teapot.co $5,000
wcl.co $4,980
evergreen.net $4,950
blog-directory.org $4,781
lails.net $4,500
fireplacegrates.net $4,114
joomlatags.org $3,100
alfransi.net $2,500
usp.biz $2,488
livefrom.net $2,088
merona.net $2,079
worldsoccershop.net $1,960
keto.net $1,750
thewild.net $1,588
autoservis.ws $1,500
evo.info $1,500
nano.technology $1,425
ceco.org $1,410
hotsauce.co $1,400
iplookup.net $1,380
premierdirectory.org $1,365
religiousresources.org $1,336
localpride.net $1,221
assistedliving.directory $1,140
preacher.co $1,100
simplydigital.net $1,088
beautystore.us $1,000
kitchenremodeling.org $1,000
neutralnow.org $1,000
nlcatp.org $1,000
ICANN : Quick Look at Strategy Panel Recommendations – Provide Your Comments Today
More than 40 diverse practitioners, subject matter experts and thought leaders have been working together since October 2013 as members of the ICANN Strategy Panels to support development of ICANN’s strategic and operational future.
Strategy Panels are advisory in nature and report to the ICANN President and CEO. Their quintessential objective is to inform and support ICANN’s planning process. As highlighted at the opening ceremony at ICANN’s public meeting Durban (July 2013), the Strategy Panels’ work and output is designed to be informative and will not go straight to implementation.
Each of the four panels has now published its draft recommendations, which are being translated into the five additional UN languages and are open for public comment. The recommendations are varied and wide-reaching, from partnering in a study to define an architectural vision for DNS in 2020 to organizing participants by topic rather than constituency groups to adapting ICANN’s cultural to a multi-lingual and multi-cultural one. Highlights of recommendations by each panel are included below. For more information, please refer to each panel’s draft report.
Identifier Technology Innovation Recommendations
Email:
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
DNS use in the infrastructure will continue to grow; DNS use in the User Interface (UI) is challenged by search-based alternatives, mobile interfaces, etc.
ICANN should publish more DNSSEC signed data for reserved labels, etc.
In cooperation with IETF et al, do a study to define an architectural vision for DNS in 2020.
Design & prototype open root publication.
Design a shared zone control system for the root.
Perform collision exercises to test the ease of implementing [ICANN 2013].
ICANN Multistakeholder Innovation Recommendations
Email:
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
ICANN should adopt an evolutionary approach that embraces experimentation and empirical evidence. The 16 proposals identified include the following:
Making all of ICANN’s data freely available and downloadable in machine-readable formats.
Moving from stakeholder engagement to global engagement.
Using expert networks to provide oversight to ICANN officials.
Public Responsibility Framework Recommendations
Email:
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Streamlining of current ICANN public responsibility activities under a Public Responsibility Department (PRD).
Strengthening ICANN Regional Engagement Strategies.
Commissioning research to enhance understanding of links between Internet Governance and Development.
Exploring the establishment of an external foundation to operate in the philanthropic space.
ICANN’s Role in the Internet Governance Ecosystem Recommendations
Email:
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Consolidation and simplification of root zone management.
Globalize, not internationalize, the structure of ICANN and its associated or related institutions.
ICANN develop tailored AOC documents to be used to establish bilateral or multilateral, documented relationships between and among ICANN and ecosystem partners that wish to participate.
Globalize the process for accountability within Internet ecosystem.
your thoughts today! We encourage you to review each draft report and provide your perspective by sending your comments to the email address for each panel’s mailing list. Input will be welcome through 30 April 2014; all input sent to the mailing lists is publicly archived. Each panel will consider feedback received before finalizing their reports, so make your voice heard.
To support community consideration and input, an interactive webinar will be held in early March 2014. A public session also will be conducted at the upcoming ICANN 49 meeting in Singapore (March 2014). Details will be shared in due course. Public comments and output will help inform ICANN’s strategic and operational plans.
Announcements
Public Comment
For Journalists
Newsletter
Correspondence
Presentations
In Focus
Dashboard
RSS Feeds
RFPs
Litigation
Independent Review Process
This announcement was sourced from :
http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-25feb14-en.htm
ICANN/Paris City Hall Contract signature & first 100 .paris domains announced
In February 21 in the Parisian offices of the NUMA incubator for start-ups and innovation, the registry contract for the .paris GeoTLD was signed by and between ICANN and Paris City Hall.
Mathieu Weill, CEO of Afnic, which has backed the application of the .paris GeoTLD since its inception, presented the role of the association and explained the implications of the project for the Afnic / Core group.
Nearly 150 people – including the first holders of the GeoTLD, partners and elected representatives – attended the event, during which:
the milestones in the .paris GeoTLD project were recalled, scheduled to open at the end of 2014;
the ambitions of this new namespace with its international status were explained;
the names of the first 100 .paris GeoTLD holders to be selected were announced.
As the technical operator for the registry and innovation platform, Afnic is particularly proud to partner with Paris City Hall, and thus provide a new service for the Internet community.
For more information in french, please see http://mondomaine.paris.fr
This announcement was sourced from :
.AR Domains No Longer To Be Free
As of 5 March, NIC Argentina will introduce a registration fee for .ar domain names of less than 200 pesos ($25.50) per year, according to the national director of Nic.ar, Gabriel Brenta. The fee will apply to new and existing registrants.
The registry is attempting to join global practices by introducing a registration fee Brenta told the Spanish language news agency DyN.
Brenta added that payment will affect, in principle, those who apply to register a new domain, but he also made it clear that it will be also applied to around three million users that already have sites and must renew their registration annually.
“The cost is per domain per year. In the case of those who have the domain registered, as the use of the domain is annual, must be paid at the time of renewal, Brenta said. Brenta recalled that to date, the registration of domains in the Argentina is free and stressed that this condition applies in “few countries” of the world, and none in the region.
GoDaddy Hit With Another Trademark Infringement Suit – A Hint of Things to Come? by Philip Corwin, Internet Commerce Association
Number one domain name registrar GoDaddy has been hit by another trademark infringement lawsuit.
Earlier this month GoDaddy failed in its efforts to recuse U.S. District Court Judge Audrey Collins from presiding over a case brought against it by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences.[i] The litigation alleges that GoDaddy committed cybersquatting trademark infringement when it “Parked” more than 100 AMPAS-related domains, including oscarlist.com, academyawardz.com and academyawardsinc.com.
The Court had previously ruled that GoDaddy did not qualify for the safe harbor provisions of the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA) because its activities ventured beyond acting in a mere registration or maintenance capacity when it affirmatively placed the domains in a program meant to generate revenue to itself. It now looks like the case is heading for trial if it isn’t settled first.
Now we’ve just learned that Principal Financial Services, Inc. and
Principal Global Investors, LLC filed suit[ii] against GoDaddy for trademark infringement in the U.S. District Court for Northern Illinois on February 20th. We don’t yet have further details — and we have no view on the merits of either case.
As we recently reported[iii], there is an ongoing dispute as to whether contributory trademark infringement even exists under the ACPA. That case also involved GoDaddy but arose from the use of its domain name forwarding service to direct allegedly infringing domains to adult content websites hosted by a third party. The Oscar (and likely the Principal) lawsuits appear to involve charges of direct trademark infringement.
This litigation leads us to speculate that major brands may react to any significant cybersquatting in new gTLDs by going after wholesale middlemen who offer programs to generate parking or other income from domains that are identical or confusingly similar to trademarks, and might also target auction providers and secondary market services that facilitate their sale.
The new gTLD program created two new rights protection mechanisms (RPMs). The first, Universal Rapid Suspension (URS) seems to be working as intended to provide a narrow supplement to the traditional UDRP. IBM brought the first successful URS actions against new gTLDs when it got IBM.ventures and IBM.guru suspended six days after filing. But each URS filings costs $500 plus attorney fees, and brands could quickly tire of playing whack-a-mole if there is significant cybersquatting at hundreds of new gTLDs.
The other RPM, the Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH), does not appear to have attracted anywhere near the expected number of registrations. That prompted Deloitte, which operates the TMCH, to unilaterally decide that the complainant services side of the Trademark Claims Service will operate for an indefinite period, rather than the required 90-day period set by the consensus agreement of ICANN stakeholders – a move that we criticized[iv] back in December.
But that apparently has still has not boosted TMCH registrations sufficiently, so now Deloitte and its spokespersons have launched a scare campaign to try to gin up registrations, warning, “our research shows that some of the biggest American brand names are at risk of intellectual property infringement online as the new TLDs are rolled out, with many unknown entities eager to capitalize on the traffic and illegitimate opportunities a branded website will generate. This potentially compromises the reputation of each brand targeted”[v].The reaction from the brand side was basically “we told you so”.
We have also read that some parties have succeeded in registering generic, trademark-ineligible terms in the TMCH; and that the Chair of ICANN’s Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) recently raised technical concerns about a “broken TMCH”. None of that will increase brands’ confidence in it.
The problem for Deloitte and the TMCH is that, unless a major brand intends to make use of TMCH registrations as a means to gain the right to register its trademarks in dozens of new gTLDs during higher pricing “sunrise” periods, the TMCH offers little else to attract them enough to invest $150 per mark in annual registrations. Existing domain monitoring services offer a broader warning of infringing websites than the TMCH, which only generates notices of registrations of identical matches to its database. And apparently lots of big brands have decided that they have no intention of developing large portfolios of defensively registered domains in new gTLDs but will rely instead on monitoring and legal actions.
Many large brands may indeed be concluding that the very scale of the new gTLD program make the traditional recourse of defensive registrations and actions against individual domain registrants impractical. If that’s the case, we may well see many more lawsuits directed at the wholesale level in an effort to stop the monetization or resale of infringing domains – and to incentivize the middlemen to more proactively review the domains they are servicing. We’ll be monitoring these developments closely, especially to see if some overbroad lawsuits have the potential to impose unreasonable standards and thereby harm legitimate domain marketplace services.
[ii] www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuits/trademark-lawsuits/illinois-northern-district-court/726162/principal-financial-services-inc-et-al-v-godaddy-com-llc-et-al/summary/
[v] www.adweek.com/news/technology/icann-brands-are-risk-domain-abuse-new-top-level-domains-155584
This article by the Internet Commerce Association’s Philip Corwin was sourced with permission from:
www.internetcommerce.org/GoDaddy_TM_Infringement_Lawsuits
