3 new gTLDs for "game"

There are 3 new generic Top-Level Domains for the sign "game":

1. The .GAME new gTLD;
2. The .GAMES new gTLD;
3. The .游戏 (.game) new gTLD.

These 3 new gTLDs appear in the SPORT new gTLD report.

The right approach for .BRANDs

Unless I am wrong, I think that these .BRAND domain names were redirections to long URLs.
Not anymore:

• http://location.leclerc/
• https://www.mouvement.leclerc/
• http://www.photomoinscher.leclerc/
• ...

That could look like an approach for trademarks to start using their .BRAND new gTLD:

1. Use new domain names as redirections to old long URLs;
2. Host final contents differently;
3. Use new ".brand" domain names and kill redirections.

Losing auctions: the next new gTLD business model

Reading that small line, in the link below, reminds me that I never signed any NDA to participate in the Famous Four Media project: what if I had published or distributed their list of strings prior to the first round of the ICANN new gTLD program to close?

You don't understand?
Here is an explanation - and again - it focuses on the number one reason why participants in the next ICANN new gTLD program should pay attention to confidentiality.

What the text says
The link I am referring to, points to this line which says: "An additional $2.4million of cash due as a result of the private auctions for .llc and .inc in which the Company withdrew its applications".

In more simple words, it means that this participants (called a "multiple registry"), earned $2.4 million by withdrawing two of its applications in the ICANN new gTLD program: this in return of participating in an auction for a third party (the winner of the auction) to become sole operator of these two extensions.

As a reminder, it cost $185,000.00 to submit one application (in fact it cost more than this but let's focus on basic figures) and in that case, by withdrawing it because of an auction, it generated $1.2 million.

Thinking fast

Let's assume that a participant to a new gTLD project gets info prior to the next round to begin: developing competing projects for the sole purpose to participate in auctions becomes highly profitable. It is risky but much faster to reach out to profitability and much more profitable than selling domain names.

Another line below in the linked document says: "H1 2016 group losses of $1.9million reduced to $0.5million group loss H1 2017". The first new gTLD launched in 2013.

The .CHLOE gTLD

The operation of the .chloe gTLD is being transferred to China Internet Network Information Center (CNNIC) as part of this test. Simulating an emergency registry operator transition will provide valuable insight into the effectiveness of procedures for addressing potential gTLD service interruptions.



Transition Simulation in Progress

Le Louvre: time for a change?

Le Louvre is one of the most popular museum in the world, at least in real life, but can we say the same in terms on naming?

Le Louvre is French
Le Louvre is French so it uses a ".fr" domain name. Normal isn't it? The website is available in multiple languages and it occupies most of the results in the front page of Google when I hit "Le Louvre". Good, but let's hope that this does not change since it has no SSL certificate (Google announced recently that SSL certificates help rank better). Yes...the most prestigious museum in the world is not secured on Internet.

I checked a certain number of similar ccTLD domain names to see if other extensions had been secured (and more domain names registered) and it I didn't want to dig more than the .es and it. My conclusion is that...well...not so many apparently, but who worries about this: it is "Le Louvre". I visited lelouvre.fr too and...well...no need.

Interesting, the louvre.museum domain name has been registered but points to an error. I would have redirected it to the official domain name. What about Paris? The louvre.paris domain name was registered and redirects to louvre.fr: good point but since Le Louvre is located in Paris, isn't it time for innovation?

HOT - Coming to Abu Dhabi
Le Louvre opens in Abu Dhabi in November 2017 and it is important to know that the ".abudhabi" new gTLD was launched in April 2016. Since then, one domain name was registered only and this, very recently. The only known existing domain name ending in ".abudhabi" is icann60.abudhabi. Sadly, it is a simple redirection to the next ICANN meeting in but hey...it's a start.
Le Louvre in Abu Dhabi has its own website and it is...http://louvreabudhabi.ae/ (not secured neither).

Hundreds of people are working in in communication and intellectual property for Le Louvre, and I am confident that one, at least, has had the same thought as I have: isn't it the opportunity to consider changing domain names for these two fantastic museums and go for a ".paris" and a ".abudhabi" domain name? It implies changes and I already hear SEO specialists but hey: what's the most important when you are Le Louvre?

This is innovation.

The ".museum" new gTLD
Just for the note, ".museum" domain names are only available to museums and individual members of the museum profession but it appears that this is about to change (how surprising). The .MUSEUM new gTLD will open to all in the future: "Eligibility requirements have been expanded such that registrations will be granted to museums, professional associations of museums, individuals with an interest or a link with museum profession and /or activity, or bona fide museum users." This is a common move at closed Registries to "expand" the number of domain name registrations. In more simple words, "Individuals with an interest" also includes cybersquatters, domainers but also, bona fide Trademark owners who would be interested in securing their domain name in the ".museum" extension.

New gTLD Registry Fee Offset Proposal

This is the ICANN answer to Chairman of the Registries Stakeholder Group in regard to a proposal to offset new gTLD Registry Fees.

In simple words:

1. Registries: "ICANN: it is too expensive for us! With all that money that you have, why don't you lower costs?"
2. ICANN: "hey, we've been talking about this for years: where the hell were you in 2011? As for now, it is No."

The answer

Thank you for your proposal of 14 March 2017, regarding new gTLD registry fees. Your letter has been published to the ICANN correspondence page. 

We sympathize with the financial challenges that some new gTLD registry operators may be facing in the early periods of these new businesses. New gTLD Operators face a challenging task of building consumer awareness and this can and may take significant time and effort. ICANN remains committed to supporting the evolution of the robust, stable and trusted domain name marketplace, and new gTLDs are part of this evolution. ICANN recognizes the challenge you cited related to universal acceptance of TLDs, in particular IDN TLDs. ICANN has established the Universal Acceptance Steering Group to help address some of these challenges. This effort is being funded from the New gTLD program application fees. By the end of FY18 ICANN will have committed several million dollars to this effort.

We appreciate that the gTLD Registry Stakeholder Group (RySG) has developed a proposal to offset New gTLD Operator fees for ICANN’s consideration. Your proposal requests ICANN to provide a one-time credit to new gTLD registry operators of 75% of the annual fixed registry fee ($25,000 USD) using a portion of what your proposal characterizes as $96 million of projected remaining funds from the New gTLD Program applications fees. In your letter you assert a fiduciary duty on ICANN to refund the excess funds from the New gTLD program to the registry operators, to be clear, ICANN does not agree with this assertion. 

Your letter cites obstacles related to competing in the domain name market place due to the fixed registry fee structure of the New gTLD Registry Agreement. The current registry fee structure, comprising fixed and registration-based fees, was outlined in the Section 6.1 of the Base Registry Agreement and published as part of the New gTLD Applicant Guidebook (AGB). It was subject to several rounds of public comment from the wider ICANN community as part of the AGB development process, and the fee structure and amount have not changed since the ICANN Board approved the AGB in 2011. 

As you are aware, the 2012 round of the New gTLD Program is still underway, and a portion of the remaining funds are required for the ongoing operation of the program.
As noted in ICANN’s FY18 Operating Plan and Budget, ICANN expects to have spent approximately $214 million on the Program, including “hard-to-predict” costs incurred in FY18 and in the future3 . To date, ICANN has spent Program funds on a range of previously unforeseen expenses including the formation and coordination of the Universal Acceptance Steering Group, Emergency BackEnd Registry Operator Program operations, studies and mitigation plans relating to Name Collision, implementation of the Trademark Clearinghouse, support for the administration of ICANN Accountability Mechanisms, and legal fees and costs relating to the New gTLD Program. The remaining Program funds are intended to cover operating expenses and future unanticipated costs such as those listed above, which continue to occur on an ongoing basis. We do not yet know how much of the New gTLD Program remaining funds will be required to address future unanticipated expenses, and by when. As such, at this time, ICANN is not in a position to commit to the dispensation of any potential remaining funds from the New gTLD Program applications fees. Thank you for your thoughtful proposal and for your understanding.

Download the updated proposal from the gTLD Registries Stakeholder Group (RySG) here (PDF document).