Subscribe to RSS Feed

11|15|2010 11:29 am EDT

New Applicant Guidebook blocks GoDaddy, Demand Media & Tucows from applying for new TLDs?

by Frank Michlick in Categories: ICANN / Policy

The newest proposed and supposedly final version of the ICANN new TLD applicant guidebook brought some unexpected changes and questions such as the sudden dropping of the requirements of registry/registrar separation.

As pointed out by industry watchdog George Kirikos on the ICANN forum the changes in the new gTLD guidebook block any entity from applying for a new TLD that has lost more than three UDRP proceedings. The arbitrary rules seems to have been added in order to block specific applications, especially from domain investors who have been target of UDRP proceedings. Unfortunately the decisions in these proceedings have been less than impartial in the past.

Interestingly enough it seems that the changes to the new TLD application could for example bar registrars GoDaddy (through their subsidary “Standard Tactics LLC”) and eNom/Demand Media from applying for new TLDs, as they have lost more than 3 UDRPs in the preceding four years.

As pointed out by The Domains, this change also affects the registrar Tucows, which has lost more than three UDRPs.

Tags: , , , , , , ,


George Kirikos

November 15, 2010 @ 11:54 am EDT

Actually, my point was that if the UDRP losses stemmed from *related companies* (shell companies, dummy corporations, etc.), then the parent company might NOT be blocked from applying. This represents a loophole. If the intent of the rule is to prevent those who’ve engaged from cybersquatting to be involved with a new TLD, then they need to tighten the language of the guidebook considerably, to close this gaping loophole.

Tom Barrett

November 15, 2010 @ 2:57 pm EDT

Registrars don’t lose UDRP’s. Registrants do.

This rule should not impact GoDaddy, enom or any other registrar unless they (or their affiliated company) is listed as the actual registrant.

Tom Barrett

George Kirikos

November 15, 2010 @ 4:28 pm EDT

Tom: Go read the threads in the ICANN forum — the actual registrants *were* apparently related companies of the registrars.

Frank Michlick

November 16, 2010 @ 10:56 am EDT

@George: Thanks for the clarification.

@Tom: See what George wrote. In the case of Tucows for example the registrant appears to be Tucows.


November 16, 2010 @ 4:51 pm EDT

There are those within the ICANN community who would also like to see those who have been found and documented to be guilty of reverse hijacking from having a similar restriction upon them, in the interests of fairness.

RSS feed for comments on this post · TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply