Eurid Proud Recipient of CENTR Award

Eurid,the company behind .EU domain extension,was presented the CENTR award for Marketing and Communication for their Co-funded Marketing Programme at the CENTR 50 General Assembly dinner gala .

You can read the announcement after the jump :

“EURid was presented the CENTR award for Marketing and Communication for our Co-funded Marketing Programme last night at the CENTR 50 General Assembly dinner gala which took place at the Atomium in Brussels, Belgium. We consider it an achievement for the entire EURid team that we were also nominated in the R&D category for our YADIFA project, and in the Security category for our yearly Business Continuity exercise.

The EURid Co-funded Marketing Programme aims to support registrar marketing campaigns that promote the .eu registrations and awareness. Launched at the end of the second quarter of 2009, the programme has since proved enormously popular. We have approved 87 co-funded campaigns this year alone.”

September 2013 Highest Reported Domain Name Sales

IG.com was the highest selling domain name in September,2013 .The domain name changed hands for $4,7 million through Igloo/Marcus Kocak.

Here are the highest reported domain names in September,2013 :

1.IG.com$4,700,000

2.Hot.com$850,000

3.tieFinances.com$500,000

3.tieHousing.com$500,000

5.Intranet.com$160,000

6.Moneta.com$150,000

7.Pizza.net$150,000

8.3C.com$140,000

9.Dumpsters.com$110,000

10.Deco.com$100,000

11.Credo.com$75,000

12.Sale.co.uk$60,000

12.DPC.com$60,000

14.Alichat.com$53,000

15.CamShow.com$52,000

16.Mekan.com$51,500

17.tieBudgetDirect.com$50,000

17.tieDentl.com$50,000

17.tieFork.com$50,000

17.tiePhilanthropist.com$50,000

Sedo Three Letter Auction Starts Today

Sedo is running a three letter auction starting today .The auction features 107 domain names and will run for seven days,ending October 10,2013.

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 .

ICANN: Revised Public Interest Commitments Dispute Resolution Procedure

Purpose (Brief): Seeking comments on the Revised Public Interest Commitments Dispute Resolution Procedure

Current Status: Awaiting comments

Next Steps: Review public comments and revise if necessary

Detailed Information

Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose:

As previously reported, a dispute resolution procedure will be put in place to address complaints that a Registry in the New gTLD Program may not be complying with the Public Interest Commitment(s) in Specification 11 of their Registry Agreement with ICANN . A draft procedure was published in draft form on 15 March 2013. A variety of feedback was provided, including comments submitted through public comment forum. ICANN has considered the input received and has created a Revised PICDRP [PDF, 209 KB] that is being published for comment.

Section II: Background:

Specification 11 in potentially over 500 new gTLD Registry Agreements will have voluntary Public Interest Commitments that the Registry has made and with which the Registry has agreed to comply. Specification 11 will also have mandatory Public Interest Commitments that the Registry must comply with in all new gTLD Registry Agreements. To effectively and efficiently resolve any issues that might arise regarding non-compliance with a Registry’s Public Interest Commitments, ICANN Contractual Compliance will administer the PICDRP.

Section III: Document and Resource Links:

Revised PICDRP [PDF, 209 KB] (2 October 2013)
Draft PICDRP Requirements [PDF, 349 KB] (15 Mar 2013)
Registry Agreement [PDF, 2.15 MB]

Section IV: Additional Information:

Comments submitted during the previous public comment period have largely been addressed in this Revised PICDRP, including the request that ICANN itself ensured compliance with the PICDRP. ICANN notes that a couple of comments submitted in the public comment forum suggested that the standard of harm be changed from “measurable” to “material” and that the burden of proof be changed from “preponderance of evidence” to “clear and convincing evidence.” ICANN has considered these requests in light of the nature of the obligations that are to be challenged under the PICDRP. We note that these specific issues were debated during the development of the Trademark Post-Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedure (Trademark PDDRP) and the Registry Restriction Dispute Resolution Procedure (RRDRP), and a distinction was made between the standards and burden of proof for the Trademark PDDRP as opposed to the RRDRP because of the obligations that those procedures were meant to address. As the Trademark PDDRP is intended to essentially address a pattern and practice of misconduct by the registry operator, the community discussion ultimately lead to a standard of harm and burden of proof higher than that for the RRDRP, in which the Registry Operator is being challenged for failing to comply with a commitment that it made in its Registry Agreement. Given that the PICDRP will also be challenging the Registry Operator’s failure to comply with a commitment that it made in its Registry Agreement, it seems logical to adopt the same standard and burden of proof as found in the RRDRP. Accordingly, the standard of harm and burden of proof in the PICDRP will remain as stated in the version that was posted for public comment

Comment / Reply Periods (*)

Comment Open Date: 2 October 2013

Comment Close Date: 23 October 2013 – 23:59 UTC

Reply Open Date: 24 October 2013

Reply Close Date: 14 November 2013 – 23:59 UTC

Important Information Links

Public Comment Announcement

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

View Comments Submitted

This ICANN announcement was sourced from:

www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/draft-picdrp-02oct13-en.htm

Awareness of New gTLDs Remains Low Among Advertisers/Marketers: Sedo Survey

Awareness of the coming new gTLDs remains low among advertisers and marketers a survey conducted by Sedo has found. But the majority (64%) when asked yes or no whether new gTLDs would be successful thought they would be successful.

The 361 survey respondents were all employees at advertising or marketing firms, or were responsible for the advertising or marketing programs at their companies, in the United States.

Overall, one quarter (25%) of all respondents were aware that new gTLDs were coming while over half (54%) said they were not aware. The remainder said the new gTLDs were familiar, but weren’t sure.

Almost two-thirds (62%) of the respondents from the marketing and advertising industry thought the introduction of new gTLDs would make it more confusing to navigate the internet and around a quarter (27%) that they will make no difference, while the remaining 11 percent said they would make it less confusing.

But confusion was what 40 percent of respondents thought was the biggest hurdle facing new gTLDs, while one in five thought awareness (22%) and widespread adoption (21%) were the biggest hurdles.

Clients of the marketers and advertisers have not been very forward in bringing up the idea of using one of the new gTLDs with 70 percent saying clients had not discussed using a new gTLD while 12 percent said clients had discussed it. And the remaining 18 percent had not discussed using new gTLDs, but the marketers and advertisers said they were going to bring it up.

Respondents were also asked whether they would consider using a domain that ended in something other than .com for an upcoming campaign. Almost three in five (59%) respondents said that they would consider it, showing how easy it is for those in the advertising and marketing industry – many whom had no awareness of gTLDs at the start of the survey – to understand the value of the greater variety of website addresses that gTLDs enable. This is especially encouraging, as those surveyed were located in the United States, where few are aware of website addres¬ses other than .com.

Respondents were also asked whether consumers would understand a website address ending in something other than .com if it appeared in a campaign. A majority (57%) said they would indeed understand what it was.

Respondents were also queried about what would get them to purchase a new gTLD. Only 12 percent of respondents said they would not purchase a new gTLD while others were open to using them for a variety of scenarios.

And what would be the advantage of a new gTLD? Memorable addresses (35%) and the availability of good domains (20%) were by far the most chosen responses while earlier for consumers (15%), innovative uses (13%) were also chosen while 11 percent said there would be no advantage.

When it comes trademark protection, respondents were also asked about their knowledge of the Trademark Clearinghouse. A huge majority (86%) said they were not aware of the Trademark Clearinghouse. And of the 14 percent that were aware of the TMCH, less than one in five has submitted a trademark (17%), 44 percent said they had not and 39 percent were not sure. And of these 14 percent, half (46%) said they planning to use the TMCH, while a quarter (26%) said they were both not afraid of trademark infringement and waiting to see if new gTLDs were adopted.

The survey report can be downloaded in full from https://sedo.com/fileadmin/documents/pressdownload/advertising-and-marketing-industry-gtld-awareness-report-sedo.pdf.