Jump to content

.web: Difference between revisions

From ICANNWiki
Vivian (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
Jessica (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
 
(17 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown)
Line 2: Line 2:
|logo  =
|logo  =
|status = Proposed
|status = Proposed
|manager  =  
|manager  = [[STRAAT Investments|NU DOT CO LLC]]
|country  = International
|country  =  
|language =  
|language =  
|translation =  
|translation =  
|stringcontention = Yes
|stringcontention =  
|registryprovider  =  
|registryprovider  =  
|registrations  =
|registrations  =
Line 13: Line 13:
|category  = [[:Category:Technology New gTLDs|Technology]]
|category  = [[:Category:Technology New gTLDs|Technology]]
|community  =  
|community  =  
|priority =
|keypeople  =  
|keypeople  =  


}}
}}


'''.web''' is a proposed new generic top level domain name ([[gTLD]]) to [[ICANN]]'s [[New gTLD Program|new gTLD expansion program]].  
'''.web''' is a proposed new generic top level domain name ([[gTLD]]) to [[ICANN]]'s [[New gTLD Program|new gTLD expansion program]]. On 28 July 2016, [[STRAAT Investments|NU DOT CO LLC]] won right to the string with the winning bid of $135 [[GTLD_Auctions#ICANN_Auctions|ICANN auction of last resort]].<ref>[http://domainnamewire.com/2016/07/28/breaking-web-top-level-domain-name-auction-ends-135-million/ .Web top level domain name auction ends for $135 million]</ref><ref>[http://domainincite.com/20820-verisign-likely-135-million-winner-of-web-gtld Verisign likely $135 million winner of .web gTLD]</ref> The $135 million dollar bid more than tripled the highest amount previously paid in an ICANN auction.<ref>[https://gtldresult.icann.org/application-result/applicationstatus/auctionresults ICANN gTLD Auction Results]</ref>
 
Shortly after the auction, [[Verisign]] announced that it had funded NU DOT CO LLC's bid and anticipated that the [[Registry Agreement]] would be assigned to Verisign pending [[ICANN]]'s approval.<ref>[https://www.verisign.com/en_US/internet-technology-news/verisign-press-releases/articles/index.xhtml?artLink=aHR0cDovL3ZlcmlzaWduLm5ld3NocS5idXNpbmVzc3dpcmUuY29tL3ByZXNzLXJlbGVhc2UvdmVyaXNpZ24tc3RhdGVtZW50LXJlZ2FyZGluZy13ZWItYXVjdGlvbi1yZXN1bHRz Verisign .web Press Release]</ref>


==Applicants==
==Applicants==
# [[Web.com]] is the parent company of two ICANN accredited registrars- [[Network Solutions]] and [[Register.com]] is applying for the TLD. The company owns the Web.com trademark issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office ([[USPTO]]). <ref>[http://www.marketwatch.com/story/webcom-applies-to-be-exclusive-registry-for-new-web-designation-2012-05-30 Web.com Applies to be Exclusive Registry for New ".WEB" Designation]</ref>  
# '''[[Web.com]]'''
# [[Radix]], a subsidiary of Dubai-based company [[Directi]], owner of various registrar and web hosting businesses such as [[ResellerClub]], [[Media.net]], [[LogicBoxes]], [[BigRock]], [[Skenzo]] and [[WebHosting.info]]. The company is applying for 31 domain name strings including .web. <ref>[http://www.thedomains.com/2012/05/31/directi-invest-over-30-million-applies-for-31-new-gtlds-including-law-web-bank-shop/ Directi Invest Over $30 Million & Applies For 31 New gTLD’s: Including: .Law, .Web, .Bank, .Shop]</ref> The company partnered with [[ARI Registry Services]] to provide back-end registry solutions. <ref>[http://www.radixregistry.com/technology.php Technology]</ref>
# '''[[Radix]]''' (Web.com Group, Inc.)
# [[STRAAT Investments]], a holding company founded by [[Juan Diego Calle]] and parent company of [[.co Internet]] also submitted an application for the TLD. The company partnered with Neustar to serve as its back-end registry service provider. <ref>[http://domainnamewire.com/2012/06/12/parent-company-of-co-internet-applies-for-13-top-level-domains-heres-the-list/ Parent company of .Co Internet applies for 13 top level domains (here’s the list)]</ref>
# '''[[STRAAT Investments]]''' (NU DOT CO LLC)
# [[Schlund Technologies GmbH]]
# '''[[Schlund Technologies GmbH]]'''
# [[Afilias]]
# '''[[Afilias]]''' (Afilias Domains No. 3 Limited,)
# [[Google]] (Charleston Road Registry Inc.)
# '''[[Google]]''' (Charleston Road Registry Inc.)
# [[Donuts]] (Ruby Glen, LLC), one of 307 applications submitted by the company
# '''[[Donuts]]''' (Ruby Glen, LLC)
 
==Auction Controversy==
 
In early July 2016, applicants [[Radix]] and Schlund Technologies GmbH requested that the .web auction be postponed to investigate reports that another applicant, NU DOT CO LLC, had changed leadership.<ref>[http://domainnamewire.com/2016/07/14/applicants-ask-web-auction-postponement-nu-dot-co/ Applicants ask for .web auction postponement over Nu Dot Co]</ref> After ICANN denied the request, Radix and [[Donuts]] filed a reconsideration request, asking ICANN to delay the auction "on an emergency basis" and conduct an investigation into NU DOT CO LLC's alleged change in ownership.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/reconsideration-16-9-ruby-glen-radix-request-redacted-17jul16-en.pdf Reconsideration Request by Ruby Glen, LLC and Radix FZC]</ref>
 
After ICANN denied the joint Reconsideration Request, Donuts filed a $10 million lawsuit and a temporary restraining order in a final attempt to block the auction from moving forward.<ref>[http://domainincite.com/20789-donuts-files-10-million-lawsuit-to-stop-web-auction Donuts files $10 million lawsuit to stop .web auction]</ref> Donut's request was denied in California court, allowing the auction to commence as scheduled on 27 July 2016, although the auction was not completed until 28 July 2016.<ref>[http://domainincite.com/20801-donuts-denied-web-auction-to-go-ahead-today Donuts denied! .web auction to go ahead today]</ref>


==Current Applications==
On November 14, 2018, [[Afilias]] filed for an Independent Review at ICANN, asking that Nu Dot Co’s bid be negated and Afilias be awarded the TLD. On May 20, 2021, the IRP ruled that ICANN failed to determine whether Nu Do Co’s bid was acceptable under the rules and ordered ICANN’s board to make that decision. It stopped short of ordering ICANN to award the domain to Afilias and said this was not within the panel’s remit.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/irp-afilias-final-declaration-redacted-25may21-en.pdf ICDR Case No. 01-18-0004-2702, IRP]</ref>
On June 21, 2021, [[Afilias]] [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/irp-afilias-claimants-rule-33-application-additional-decision-interpretation-21jun21-en.pdf filed for an additional decision and interpretation under Rule 33].
On December 21, 2021, the IRP unanimously denied the Application in its entirety.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/irp-afilias-panel-decision-claimant-article-33-application-21dec21-en.pdf IRP Decision on Afilias' Rule 33 Application]</ref> The IRP found the appeal frivolous and ordered Afilias to pay ICANN’s legal costs.<ref>[https://domainnamewire.com/2021/12/28/panel-admonishes-afilias-over-web-appeal-verisign-claims-victory/ "Panel admonishes Afilias over .web appeal, Verisign claims victory," Domain Name Wire]</ref>
==Applications==
===Web.com===
===Web.com===
Some have said that Web.com has a strong case through the Legal Rights Objection because it owns the Web.com trademark. In a statement, Web.com CEO [[David Brown]] said, ''"We believe we possess the natural platform from which to successfully market the new .WEB top level domain since we are the sole owner of the Web.com trademark as issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark office."'' <ref>[http://domainincite.com/archives/9134-as-new-gtlds-enter-a-new-phase-the-first-wave-of-announcements-crashes As new gTLDs enter a new phase, the first wave of announcements crashes]</ref>
Some have said that Web.com has a strong case through the Legal Rights Objection because it owns the Web.com trademark. In a statement, Web.com CEO [[David Brown]] said, ''"We believe we possess the natural platform from which to successfully market the new .WEB top level domain since we are the sole owner of the Web.com trademark as issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark office."'' <ref>[http://domainincite.com/archives/9134-as-new-gtlds-enter-a-new-phase-the-first-wave-of-announcements-crashes As new gTLDs enter a new phase, the first wave of announcements crashes]</ref> [[David Brown|Brown]] also conveyed that he is open to a cooperative arrangement between more than one applicant, and that Web.com would be satisfied regardless of who wins the application.<ref>[http://domainincite.com/12883-web-com-ceo-talks-defensive-web-strategy Web.com CEO Talks Defensive .Web Strategy, Domain Incite] Retrieved 11 Sept 2013</ref>
 
===Radix's Early Warning===
===Radix's Early Warning===
Radix received a GAC Early Warning as an entire applicant, where each one of the applicants was flagged by the U.S. Government. This seems to be the only time a portfolio applicant had all of their applications warned. The issue does not deal with the technical capabilities or thematic content of their applications, but rather the inclusion of an email address associated with the US' Federal Bureau of Investigation. It seems that Radix included correspondence with this address as a recommendation with each of their applications.<ref>[https://gacweb.icann.org/download/attachments/22938690/RadixReg-US-31.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1353452704000 RadixReg. GACweb.ICANN.org] Retrieved 27 Nov 2012</ref>
Radix received a GAC Early Warning as an entire applicant, where each one of the applicants was flagged by the U.S. Government. This seems to be the only time a portfolio applicant had all of their applications warned. The issue does not deal with the technical capabilities or thematic content of their applications, but rather the inclusion of an email address associated with the US' Federal Bureau of Investigation. It seems that Radix included correspondence with this address as a recommendation with each of their applications.<ref>[https://gacweb.icann.org/download/attachments/22938690/RadixReg-US-31.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1353452704000 RadixReg. GACweb.ICANN.org] Retrieved 27 Nov 2012</ref>


==Previous .web Applications & Current Contention==
==Previous .web Applications & Current Contention==
.web was applied for in the 2000 [[gTLD#First Round: New gTLD Expansion|first round of TLD expansion]] by [[Image Online Design]]. ICANN did not approve the application at that time, but IOD argues that it never officially rejected its application. Thus, in October, 2012, IOD sued [[ICANN]] for breach of contract and trademark infringement. It is seeking an injunction to prevent ICANN from awarding the [[TLD]] to any of the current 2012 applicants, which does not include IOD, and also for profits from the alleged trademark infringement. The original application for .web was denied in part because IOD was already operating an alternative root using that [[TLD]]. They claim to still have 20,000 domains registered in their alternate route.<ref>[http://domainincite.com/10783-original-web-gtld-applicant-sues-icann Original Web gTLD Applicant Sues ICANN, DomainIncite.com]</ref>
===Image Online Design===
.web was applied for in the 2000 [[gTLD#First Round: New gTLD Expansion|first round of TLD expansion]] by [[Image Online Design]]. ICANN did not approve the application at that time, but IOD argues that it never officially rejected its application. Thus, in October 2012, IOD sued [[ICANN]] for breach of contract and trademark infringement. It is seeking an injunction to prevent ICANN from awarding the [[TLD]] to any of the current 2012 applicants, which does not include IOD, and also for profits from the alleged trademark infringement. The original application for .web was denied in part because IOD was already operating an alternative root using that [[TLD]]. They claim to still have 20,000 domains registered in their alternate root.<ref>[http://domainincite.com/10783-original-web-gtld-applicant-sues-icann Original Web gTLD Applicant Sues ICANN, DomainIncite.com]</ref>
 
On February 7, 2013, The United States District Court for the Central District of California approved a motion to dismiss the complaint from ICANN.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/news/litigation/iod-v-icann IOD v ICANN, ICANN.org]Published and Retrieved 7 Feb 2013</ref>


==.web and Image Online Design==
==Name Collision Issues==
Alternate root registry [[Image Online Design]] hosts 20,000 .web domains on a root system that is different from ICANN's.  company Theunsuccessfully applied for the .web gTLD in 2000 and sued ICANN in Fall 2012, citing a breach of contract and trademark infringement. It claimed that ICANN should never have allowed other companies to apply for the gTLD, and is seeking an injunction that prevents ICANN from awarding .web to another bidder and gives Image Online Design profits from the alleged trademark infringement. Its complaint cites an early ICANN meeting where the first proof-of-concept gTLDs were approved by the [[ICANN Board]]; the chair at the time, [[Vint Cerf]], did not approve the .web application filed by [[Afilias]] because of the existence of Image Online Design's .web operations.<ref name="domainincite">[http://domainincite.com/10783-original-web-gtld-applicant-sues-icann Original .web gTLD applicant sues ICANN], DomainIncite.com. Published 18 October 2011. Retrieved 7 December 2012.</ref>
In October 2013, [[ICANN]] released their final assessment and mitigation plan for the [[Name Collision]] issue that was facing the New gTLD program. On 18 November 2013, ICANN announced the applied-for strings that were eligible for an alternative path towards delegation that would allow applicants to proceed without waiting for further mitigation research and plans to be published. 25 strings, including .web, were not eligible for the alternative path, and will have to wait for more plans to be published before continuing towards delegation.<ref>[https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/announcements-and-media/announcement-2-17nov13-en Announcement 17 Nov 13, ICANN.org] Retrieved 20 Feb 2014</ref>


==References==
==References==

Latest revision as of 16:46, 29 December 2021

Status: Proposed
Manager: NU DOT CO LLC
Type: Generic TLD
Category: Technology

More information:

.web is a proposed new generic top level domain name (gTLD) to ICANN's new gTLD expansion program. On 28 July 2016, NU DOT CO LLC won right to the string with the winning bid of $135 ICANN auction of last resort.[1][2] The $135 million dollar bid more than tripled the highest amount previously paid in an ICANN auction.[3]

Shortly after the auction, Verisign announced that it had funded NU DOT CO LLC's bid and anticipated that the Registry Agreement would be assigned to Verisign pending ICANN's approval.[4]

Applicants[edit | edit source]

  1. Web.com
  2. Radix (Web.com Group, Inc.)
  3. STRAAT Investments (NU DOT CO LLC)
  4. Schlund Technologies GmbH
  5. Afilias (Afilias Domains No. 3 Limited,)
  6. Google (Charleston Road Registry Inc.)
  7. Donuts (Ruby Glen, LLC)

Auction Controversy[edit | edit source]

In early July 2016, applicants Radix and Schlund Technologies GmbH requested that the .web auction be postponed to investigate reports that another applicant, NU DOT CO LLC, had changed leadership.[5] After ICANN denied the request, Radix and Donuts filed a reconsideration request, asking ICANN to delay the auction "on an emergency basis" and conduct an investigation into NU DOT CO LLC's alleged change in ownership.[6]

After ICANN denied the joint Reconsideration Request, Donuts filed a $10 million lawsuit and a temporary restraining order in a final attempt to block the auction from moving forward.[7] Donut's request was denied in California court, allowing the auction to commence as scheduled on 27 July 2016, although the auction was not completed until 28 July 2016.[8]

On November 14, 2018, Afilias filed for an Independent Review at ICANN, asking that Nu Dot Co’s bid be negated and Afilias be awarded the TLD. On May 20, 2021, the IRP ruled that ICANN failed to determine whether Nu Do Co’s bid was acceptable under the rules and ordered ICANN’s board to make that decision. It stopped short of ordering ICANN to award the domain to Afilias and said this was not within the panel’s remit.[9] On June 21, 2021, Afilias filed for an additional decision and interpretation under Rule 33. On December 21, 2021, the IRP unanimously denied the Application in its entirety.[10] The IRP found the appeal frivolous and ordered Afilias to pay ICANN’s legal costs.[11]

Applications[edit | edit source]

Web.com[edit | edit source]

Some have said that Web.com has a strong case through the Legal Rights Objection because it owns the Web.com trademark. In a statement, Web.com CEO David Brown said, "We believe we possess the natural platform from which to successfully market the new .WEB top level domain since we are the sole owner of the Web.com trademark as issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark office." [12] Brown also conveyed that he is open to a cooperative arrangement between more than one applicant, and that Web.com would be satisfied regardless of who wins the application.[13]

Radix's Early Warning[edit | edit source]

Radix received a GAC Early Warning as an entire applicant, where each one of the applicants was flagged by the U.S. Government. This seems to be the only time a portfolio applicant had all of their applications warned. The issue does not deal with the technical capabilities or thematic content of their applications, but rather the inclusion of an email address associated with the US' Federal Bureau of Investigation. It seems that Radix included correspondence with this address as a recommendation with each of their applications.[14]

Previous .web Applications & Current Contention[edit | edit source]

Image Online Design[edit | edit source]

.web was applied for in the 2000 first round of TLD expansion by Image Online Design. ICANN did not approve the application at that time, but IOD argues that it never officially rejected its application. Thus, in October 2012, IOD sued ICANN for breach of contract and trademark infringement. It is seeking an injunction to prevent ICANN from awarding the TLD to any of the current 2012 applicants, which does not include IOD, and also for profits from the alleged trademark infringement. The original application for .web was denied in part because IOD was already operating an alternative root using that TLD. They claim to still have 20,000 domains registered in their alternate root.[15]

On February 7, 2013, The United States District Court for the Central District of California approved a motion to dismiss the complaint from ICANN.[16]

Name Collision Issues[edit | edit source]

In October 2013, ICANN released their final assessment and mitigation plan for the Name Collision issue that was facing the New gTLD program. On 18 November 2013, ICANN announced the applied-for strings that were eligible for an alternative path towards delegation that would allow applicants to proceed without waiting for further mitigation research and plans to be published. 25 strings, including .web, were not eligible for the alternative path, and will have to wait for more plans to be published before continuing towards delegation.[17]

References[edit | edit source]