NameJet Selected by Daniel Negari for New gTLD .COLLEGE Auctions
NameJet and .XYZ Registry ,announced recently a partnership to bring the new gTLD .COLLEGE to the public .NameJet will be managing the auction process for the Sunrise and Landrush phases of lunch.
You can read the press release after the jump :
“NameJet.com, the leading aftermarket domain auction company, has partnered with the XYZ.COM Registry to help launch the new generic Top Level Domain (gTLD) .COLLEGE.
The .COLLEGE gTLD will be free of restrictions, and unlike .EDU, open to any organization, individual or group interested in an online presence. Groups that will benefit from the new online domain include universities and their departments, college preparation services, online learning resources, tutoring services, students and professors, and even businesses that offer internal training courses for employees. In addition, the .COLLEGE TLD will serve academic institutions all over the world, regardless of their accreditations.
According to US Census data, there were 19.7 million students enrolled in US colleges in 2012. The National Center for Education Statistics indicates that there are over 6,700 accredited post-secondary institutions in the United States alone. In addition, there are at least 500 non-accredited colleges consisting of religious and other educational institutions. Multiply these statistics by the number of departments, clubs, faculty, and other campus organizations, and it becomes apparent that .COLLEGE has tremendous potential for growth.
“We’re thrilled to be offering an innovative, competitive, and unrestricted educational domain extension,” said Daniel Negari, owner of the XYZ.COM Registry. “Making .COLLEGE available to everyone is going to create opportunities for businesses and educators that were not previously available.”
NameJet’s role in the launch will be running the auctions for both the Sunrise and Landrush phases of release, both of which are scheduled to begin in the first half of 2014. “We’re very excited to bring the .COLLEGE TLD to the NameJet marketplace,” said Matt Overman, General Manager of NameJet. “Daniel continues to be a great partner for us and we look forward to helping him achieve success in yet another new venture.”
About NameJet
NameJet is a joint venture between Demand Media, Inc. and Web.com Group, Inc. who each own two of four leading ICANN-accredited registrars (eNom, Name.com, Network Solutions and Register.com). Launched in 2007, with core auction software and technical infrastructure operating since 2004, NameJet serves domain investors, Fortune 500 companies and their representatives, small- and medium-sized businesses, as well as a diverse and global mix of individual investors. It has processed over 200,000 domain auctions, establishing itself as a trustworthy and transparent auction platform that is customer-focused and user-friendly.
About XYZ.COM LLC
XYZ.COM LLC is led by Founder Daniel Negari, a visionary Internet entrepreneur with years of experience in the domain name space. Located in Las Vegas and Beverly Hills, XYZ.COM is a registry operator that is bringing new unrestricted domain extensions, including .xyz, .COLLEGE and .Now to the internet.
XYZ.COM is currently accepting preregistration requests for .xyz and .College domain names at XYZ.COM and XYZ.COM/college. Both unrestricted extensions will be available for registration in 2014. Institutions and trademark holders will have the opportunity to register their .xyz and .College domain names in the sunrise periods, followed by advanced registration with no trademark requirement”
Sedo Three Letter Domains Auction is Now Underway
Sedo is hosting these days a three letter domain name auction.The auction features 107 domain names and will run for seven days,ending October 10,2013.
Up until now,13 domain names received bids .Tod.info received the highest bid – 1,200 EUR.Glu.eu managed to attract a lot of interest and received four bids,with the highest one of 119 EUR.
Some interesting domain names included in the auction are :
Bav.org
Gas.asia
Sak.info
Sef.info
UPC.info
VCR.info
ROV.eu
ONH.eu
SGU.eu
OFC.infi
Diq.info
Check out Sedo.com to see the entire inventory and place your bids .
World’s Best “Domain Hack” Portfolio on the Market for th First Time
DNX.com selected to liquidate the world’s best “Domain Hack” portfolio,including VideoGam.es and Cruis.es .
You can read the press release after the jump :
“DNX, domain name exchange, a joint venture between InternetMedia and Media Options, is offering for the first time ever, what could be considered the premier portfolio of “domain hacks”. Comprised of over 500 domains, this incredible portfolio contains the likes of Cruis.es, VideoGam.es, and many more high quality and rare brand opportunities of this caliber; and the best part? They are being sold off at well below the fair market values! All domains are priced for immediate sale and auctions will begin on Monday, October 7th, 2013. The auctions will be staggered so that not all are starting or ending on the same days.
This is an opportunity to capitalize on the next generation of the internet where consumers start thinking about the “right of the dot” as part of the brand. With a flood of new gTLD’s coming out, it will become increasingly more common to incorporate the domain extension into the brand or domain name; example: Car.Insurance as opposed to CarInsurance.com. Domain hacks are one of those internet niches that savvy domain investors have been profiting from for years.
While domain hacks are surely going to capitalize on the next generation TLDs, it’s a lesser known fact that they have already been in the news. Delicio.us went on to an undisclosed 8 figure buyout by Yahoo. Instagr.am, later changed to instagram.com, went for a cool 1 billion to Facebook. There have also been numerous ‘smaller’ sales over the years, to name a few:
LOCAL.LY sold to Infor for $100,000
E.CO sold to Domain Capital for $81,000
T.AG sold to Kinetic Fin for $60,000
SOCI.AL sold for $50,000
INSTANT.LY sold to Webtigo for $32,000
FAMO.US sold to Famous Industries, Inc. for $25,000
MA.DE sold to surefive for $25,000
REP.LY sold to Social Media Ltd. for $22,050
WHI.CH sold to Which.co.uk for $21,840
ANSWE.RS sold to Answers.com for $20,000
LOVE.LY sold to Quotidian Ventures for $20,000
DAI.LY sold to Dailymotion for $17,000
FIR.ST sold to SocialFlow for $15,000
Source: dnforum.com – http://x.co/2TKIW
According to Andrew Rosener, Media Options CEO who is considered a leading expert on domain name valuation, “We expect the value of domain hacks & similar type brands to only go up in the future. One of the biggest barriers to their adoption is that the domain space has for so long been dominated by .com. While we don’t expect the .com dominance to change anytime soon, ICANN is soon releasing an infinite number of new extensions. For the next generation, you’re going to see people who are ready to accept new brands and creative combination of extensions. It’s going to be like 1996 all over again for those who missed the original .com rush.”
Regarding the upcoming domain auction at DNX, Christopher Crowther CEO of InternetMedia says, “You’re going to be shocked at the value available for these domains. The seller is raising money and wants the whole portfolio to go. These domains are priced to sell.”
For a full list of the domains to be auctioned or to participate, please visit: http://dnx.com/account/sign_up?ac=MO
Media Options S.A. is a domain brokerage firm specializing in the acquisition and sale of premium domain names. They are based in Panama City, Panama. For more information visit: http://www.mediaoptions.com”
ICANN Adopts Flawed Trademark Notice by Philip Corwin, Internet Commerce Association
The ICANN Public Comment process can be severely frustrating and unsatisfying, as proven once again by ICANN’s September 30th publication of final Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) for new gTLD registries[1], just twelve days after the September 18th deadline for submitting written comments. The final RPMs include a completely unchanged Trademark Notice that fails to meet ICANN’s stated goal that “The Claims Notice is intended to provide clear notice to the prospective domain name registrant of the scope of the Trademark Holder’s rights.” (emphasis added) Even worse, ICANN’s rationale for refusing to adopt a single modification calls the entire usefulness of the public comment process into question.
ICA’s totally ignored input to ICANN[2] consisted of modest and reasonable suggestions to align the text of the Notice with that stated goal by:
- Amending the Trademark Notice to provide registrants with more comprehensive information regarding the legal distinction between registered trademarks and their variants.
- Requiring rights holders who register such variants in the Trademark Clearinghouse to provide a hyperlink to the UDRP decision on which such registration is based, with such hyperlink(s) to be provided to the registrant in the Notice.
- Requiring rights holders who register variants based upon court determination to provide a hyperlink to the court case in which its use was found to be infringing; or, where an online database of court decisions is unavailable, to provide as much information as is available to assist the potential registrant in finding the text of the relevant court opinion. Such information should in turn be included in the Notice.
- Requiring rights holders who register terms based on prior UDRP or court decisions to advise ICANN at the time of registration whether such decision was subsequently appealed and, if so, of the status and/or final result of the appeal. Again, such supplementary information should be conveyed to the registrant in the Notice.
We believed that all relevant parties would have benefited from these suggested modifications:
- Domain registrants – expanded information will provide potential registrants with a sounder basis for determining whether they wish to complete or abandon a domain registration following receipt of a Trademark Notice by being better able to gauge the probability of being subject to and losing a potential UDRP, URS, or trademark litigation action.
- New gTLD registry operators – better informed potential registrants will be less likely to abandon prospective domain registrations for which they intend no bad faith registration and use.
- Rights holders – more comprehensive information receipt by a prospective registrant may have bearing upon whether a completed registration was undertaken in bad faith.
The Report of Public Comments[3] contains this staff-generated explanation of why nothing was done to accommodate ICA’s concerns and suggestions:
Analysis:
The form of the Claims Notice is the product of significant community discussions, with the goal of providing clear notice to registrants of the scope of the rights contained. The additional fields relevant to the additional labels (i.e., labels found to have been previously abused) have been incorporated into the existing framework of the Claims Notice and additional changes to the text, if undertaken, should be subject to a broader community discussion.
Let’s parse that rationale.
In regard to the significant community discussions, here is the capsule history provided by ICANN itself in its September 30th notice:
A draft version of the RPM Requirements was published in April 2013 for community discussion and input. ICANN requested and considered input to this document on multiple occasions. This final version reflects significant changes based on stakeholder input received during the ICANN meeting in Beijing in April, an open consultation conference call attended by more than 50 participants in April, comments provided by various individuals and stakeholder groups in May and June, continuing discussions during the ICANN meeting in Durban in July, and a formal public comment period during August and September.
That history makes clear that the “formal public comment period” took place during the last two months, yet the staff analysis seems to say that comments on the final draft of the Trademark Notice were not considered because the document was essentially locked down and final before the formal comment period was opened. In that case, why even bother having a formal comment period? ICANN should have at least alerted the public when it opened that there was no point in submitting comments on the Trademark Notice because it was a done deal.
Second, the Trademark Notice still fails to provide “clear notice to registrants of the scope of the rights contained” because it fails to differentiate in any way between registered trademarks, which clearly encompass recognized rights, and trademark variations found to be abused under the specific facts and circumstances of prior decisions – which may provide the basis for a trademark holder to file a UDRP, URS, or judicial claim based upon the registration and use of a domain at a new gTLD, but in which that trademark owner has no rights akin to those accompanying registered trademarks. By conflating these two very separate types of entries into the Trademark Clearinghouse ICANN is coming perilously close to violating its pledge that the new gTLD RPMs will protect existing rights but will not create new rights.
Third, the Claims Notice still only contains a place to enter relevant UDRP decisions but not relevant court decisions, even though the adoption of Trademark-plus-Fifty made both eligible as a basis for registration in the Clearinghouse. The refusal to make that editing change just baffles us.
Fourth, we think it’s petty to not adopt our suggestion that hyperlinks to the relevant UDRP or court decisions be included to assist potential registrants in finding and reviewing them. The Clearinghouse will already have them, and most recipients of Claims Notices will be unsophisticated registrants with little understanding of trademark law and a disinclination to hire an attorney just to complete a domain registration. ICA members, on the other hand, are well versed on these matters and to the extent that they register domains in new gTLDs will be careful to avoid any domains that could obviously trigger an arbitration action by a rights holder. If registrants are indeed ICANN’s number one priority, why not give them some assistance that doesn’t cost a penny to provide?
Now the staff analysis does hold out some hope for correcting the Claims Notice’s flaws in the future with this statement — additional changes to the text, if undertaken, should be subject to a broader community discussion. But, familiar as we are with ICANN procedures, it’s quite unclear how such a broader community discussion would be initiated or when it could take place, now that the RPM Requirements have been deemed Final. Then again, we thought that submitting comments during the formal public comment period was a form of broad community discussion that actually promised some hope for reasonable edits of the Trademark Notice, and that was clearly our misunderstanding based on the feedback of the staff analysis. Again, what was the point of opening the Trademark Notice to formal public comment if staff was already of a mind that no substantive changes would be permitted?
Again, the real losers here will not be ICA members, who are professional domain investors, but members of the general public who we believe will generally pull back from registering any domain name that triggers a Trademark Notice out of fear of being hit with an arbitration claim or lawsuit – even though their contemplated use may be entirely in good faith and non-infringing. Registry operators of new gTLDs will also suffer diminished domain registrations as a result.
Our main motivation for pushing for a more accurate Trademark Notice is the uncertainty in regard to how receipt of one will bear on the question of bad faith registration in a subsequently filed URS or UDRP involving a domain at a new gTLD. We don’t believe that such receipt should be presumptive evidence of bad faith, yet we assume that question will be answered in significantly inconsistent ways by individual URS and UDRP panelists — as it’s an area in which ICANN has abdicated responsibility by placing URS providers under a thoroughly inadequate two-page Memorandum of Understanding, and by resisting even the notion of entering into standard agreements with UDRP providers.
Summing up, we filed what we thought were good faith suggestions for improving the Trademark Notice to make it consistent with ICANN’s stated intent and more helpful to registrants. It’s quite distressing to learn that we needn’t have bothered because the matter was already closed so far as ICANN staff were concerned.
[3] www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/report-comments-rpm-requirements-30sep13-en.pdf
This article by Philip Corwin from the Internet Commerce Association was sourced with permission from:
internetcommerce.org/Flawed_TM_Notice
ICANN Accredited Registrars Can Now Begin to Prepare for Trademark Clearinghouse Services by Christine Willett
After hearing from many Registrars, we have decided to provide any ICANN accredited Registrar access to the Trademark Clearinghouse Sunrise and Claims Database Operational Test and Evaluation Platform (TMDB OT&E).
This means that all ICANN accredited Registrars, not just those that have signed the 2013 Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA), will be able to request registration tokens and start testing their systems with the Trademark Clearinghouse database before it must begin its authenticating and verifying services for trademark data.
For existing Registrars interested in requesting a token, please follow the below steps. In addition, the process document that contains details on registering, obtaining credentials and testing is located on the Trademark Clearinghouse Sunrise & Claims Services page of the New gTLD microsite. Once requested, tokens are generally active within four hours of being generated and they do not expire, so registration can occur when convenient.
Process to request a token:
- Send an email with a subject line of “TMDB Test Registration Token” to ICANN’s Customer Support Center (CSC) Team at
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
. The request should be sent by the primary contact at the Registrar and the following information must be provided in the request:- The Registrar ID (this must be the IANA ID – use this link: www.iana.org/assignments/registrar-ids/registrar-ids.xhtml to obtain/verify the ID).
- The contact name and email address to which the TMDB credentials will be emailed (this occurs AFTER using the token to register at the TMDB site).
- The CSC will generate the token and respond back to the requestor providing them with the registration token to be used in the registration process.
We understand the importance of testing with the TMDB and wish to be sensitive to your need do so as soon as possible, whether or not a registrar has completed its execution of the 2013 RAA. We anticipate that enabling all ICANN Accredited Registrars access to the test environment for Trademark Clearinghouse Sunrise and Claims, they will be prepared for the rollout of new gTLDs and ensuring the protection of the rights of trademark holders.
This article was sourced from the ICANN website at:
newgtlds.icann.org/en/blog/registrars-tmbd-ote-04oct13-en
