Blog: IDNs

In a recent post to Circle ID entitled New Domains and ICANN Accountability, Steve DelBianco paints himself as “frustrated” that ICANN didn’t take a different path toward new TLDs. Mr. DelBianco was one of four witnesses at a hearing before the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Courts and Competition on September 23, 2009. He is a creative advocate for his clients, an engaging speaker, and a skillful writer, and he produced a synopsis of the hearing which sounded convincing — until I tried to make sense of it.

My take on the proceedings is decidedly different than Mr. DelBianco’s.

For starters, the panel was not, as Mr. DelBianco claims, historic, except insofar anything that happens, passes, and is recorded is historic. The hearing was mostly a rehash of the familiar pro- and anti-new-TLD arguments, with two notable exceptions: ICANN COO Doug Brent’s solid testimony, and Mr. DelBianco’s showmanship and dizzying arguments, neither of which I had experienced before. (Paul Stahura of eNom and Richard Heath of INTA also testified.)

ICANN has in the past represented itself quite poorly before Congress, culminating with Paul Twomey’s defensive performance (some called it arrogant) before the House Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet in June 2009. Last week, Doug Brent was the opposite — reasonable, responsive, and firm while remaining humble and respectful. His testimony was, in my opinion, very helpful for ICANN’s image.

Mr. DelBianco is a different kind of presenter. With stage props, clever quotes from Mark Twain, a mellifluous tone, and a perfect understanding of committee protocol, he presented what seemed to be a well-fashioned argument: non-Roman-character top-level domains now; Roman-character TLDs much later, if ever.

At first, I couldn’t really make sense of it. Why was DelBianco pushing IDNs? Remember the setting — the House members, which included Howard Coble, a co-author of the letter that set the stage for the hearing), have been heavily lobbied by the many representatives of big intellectual property holders. Verizon by itself has 120 full-time lobbyists in Washington, and they are active on this issue. The stage was set by the letter to ICANN, very sparsely attended by subcommittee members, and those mostly Republicans, even though the subcommittee is dominated by Democrats. The lawmakers were primed for an anti-new-TLD message, and Mr. Coble in particular read out a prepared statement that hewed exactly to the position that had so frequently from major companies such as Verizon, Time Warner, and other large trademark holders — no new TLDs. Why then the advocacy for IDNs?

DelBianco’s testimony was two-pronged and dazzlingly contradictory. On the one hand he said — waving what would become a familiar prop, an enormous label-maker — that top-level domains were just “labels,” meaningless in themselves. On the other hand, he claimed, the masses of non-Roman-alphabet users were crying out for internationalized domain names (IDNs). So, according to DelBianco, on the one hand TLDs are pointless labels — except when they are not. On the other hand, there is no demand for new TLDs — except that non-Roman alphabet users are clamoring for them.

Why are new TLDs mere “labels” when they are in Roman characters, but oh-so-meaningful when they are not?

When Paul Stahura asked, “Why should the Chinese get .BLOG in Chinese characters, but I can’t get .BLOG is English?” the Republican subcommittee members looked up, as if they too were suddenly wondering how they had got themselves into the position of supporting unlimited new TLDs for the Chinese, but none for Americans. And what about Africans, South Americans, and Europeans who do use Roman characters but speak different languages. Are they not also disadvantaged by the limited choice of generic top-level domains?

How, I wondered, did DelBianco, a polished advocate, tie himself in such knots?

Cicero’s great question was cui bono? — whom does it benefit? — when trying to understand the motivation behind a speech in the Roman Senate. Understand who stands to gain, and you will understand much of the argument. DelBianco’s outfit, NetChoice, has a short list of members, which include big trademark holders, and, significantly, VeriSign. And while most big trademark holders would like to see no new TLDs — some of them would probably like to see the Internet disappear altogether — VeriSign wants to see new business, but only the kind which doesn’t threaten the dominant position of .COM. Privately, VeriSign representatives have told me that they want to see .COM replicated world-wide in IDNs, and I don’t believe that this is much of a secret.

From that point of view, but not from any other that I can discern, Mr. DelBianco’s testimony makes a kind of sense, which makes it all the more worrying that he is also known to be lobbying the ICANN Board. VeriSign already has considerable influence in ICANN, and has been part of the new gTLD process since the beginning and have had ample opportunity to argue their case through the good offices of Chuck Gomes, their Vice President of Policy and Compliance. I would be disheartened to learn that they are “triple-dipping” by also lobbying Congress and the ICANN Board.

Such actions take the debate away from ICANN, its proper venue, and into the shadowy back halls of Congress where campaign contributions may have more weight than reasoned arguments. If ICANN’s Board responds to this kind of influence, others will have no choice but to follow suit, and much of ICANN’s purpose will have been compromised.

[UPDATE Sept. 28: a malformed link in the 6th paragraph rendered this post unintelligible. Thankfully, no-one appears to have read it. Now fixed.]

This summer the number of registrars on the Espresso CC platform, jointly developed by CoCCA Registry Services and Minds + Machines, has steadily grown with the migration of several ccTLDs onto the platform.

Recent grants from Minds + Machines have enabled the development of several gTLD desired features including: one-step EPP server, WHOIS server and key retrieval configuration; transfer activity reporting; one-click database back up; banded volume discount settings, and many other easy-to-use features for TLD operators.

The Espresso system is EPP-compliant; supports IPV6, ENUM, DNSSEC; allows shadowed domains to combat botnet attacks such as Conficker; enables IDNs (internationalized domain names); and supports and multiple language files (15 so far) allowing registrars to manage their accounts in their native language.

Minds + Machines, as CoCCA’s partner, is offering a fully ICANN-compliant version of Espresso for new generic top-level domains in 2010. CoCCA (the Council of Country Code Administrators) is a member-owned organization that provides services to ccTLD operators. CoCCA began as a cooperative of three ccTLD operators, .CX (Christmas Island), .GS (South Georgia), and .NF (Norfolk Island) on a quest to build a better registry platform and to share resources as a way of achieving economies of scale. The more members, the less each has to contribute toward development, attorney fees, and infrastructure. In four years CoCCA has grown 700% , with twenty-one members now sharing resources using world-class EPP technology.

On behalf of its members, CoCCA accredits registrars that agree to follow best-practice recommendations in the registry-registrar-registrant business model. We warmly welcome the most recently approved registrars, who are now able to offer to their customers registrations in CoCCA member TLDs.

Here are the newly-accredited registrars, in alphabetical order. Welcome!

• 3w Media GmbH
  
  




• Bizcn.com, Inc.
  
  




• Blacknight Internet Solutions
  







• BRS Media, Inc.
  







• cctldnames
  







• Communigal
  







• Cybernaptics Ltd.







• DomainClub.com
  
  







• DomainersChoice
  







• Domain Monster
  







• Domain The Net Technologies
  







• Domaine.fr
  







• Enom
  







• Entorno Digital S.A.
  









• Gandi SAS
  







• Larsen Data
  







• Maridan Internet
  







• Moniker
  
  







• Networking4all
  







• Niceweb.eu
  







• NovaGroup
  







• Oxwell
  







• Register.eu
  







• Reg.Net.ua
  







• Todaynic.com, Inc.
  







• Web Solutions ApS
  







• Webworkers Internet Consultants
  







• Xin Net Technology
  

Minds + Machines has signed a long-term deal with Packet Clearing House (PCH) to supply Machines customers with world-class DNS with full support for IPv6, DNS Security, and Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs). DNS will be supplied to Minds + Machines customers at no additional cost. In addition, PCH will assure that Minds + Machines DNS are carbon and energy neutral, and do not contribute to global warming.

Here’s the press release:

Minds + Machines signs long-term agreement with Packet Clearing House (PCH) to supply high-quality DNS

Sydney, Australia, June 20, 2009 – Minds + Machines, a leading provider of top-level domain registry services, and Packet Clearing House (PCH), a leading provider of DNS services, today announced a long-term arrangement to provide DNS for Minds + Machines clients. The combination of Minds + Machines’ newly-built DNS centers and PCH’s existing DNS constellation will provide world-class DNS with full support for IPv6, DNS Security, and Internationalized Domain Names. Local and global service will be provided from more than fifty locations throughout the developed and developing world. DNS will be provided to Minds + Machines customers at no additional cost.
As part of the agreement, PCH will implement Minds + Machines commitment to the environment by ensuring that DNS services provided to Minds + Machines are carbon and energy neutral, and do not contribute to global warming.

“PCH is the gold standard for DNS,” said Antony Van Couvering, CEO of Minds + Machines. “We are delighted to have been able to reach this comprehensive agreement to provide the best DNS to our customers while keeping to our commitment to protect the environment. We look forward to a long relationship with an outstanding organization.”

“In reaching a long-term agreement with Minds + Machines, we are teaming up with an innovative company that cares about its customers and the future of both the Internet and the planet,” said Bill Woodcock, Director of Research at PCH. “We were impressed by their level of commitment and delighted to have this opportunity to build the first carbon and energy balanced DNS network. We are very pleased to be working with Minds + Machines.”

Minds + Machines works internationally with companies, cities, not-for-profits and entrepreneurs to secure and operate new web addresses, known as top-level domains (TLDs). Minds + Machines provides the comprehensive application preparation services necessary to acquire a new TLD, as well as a robust, scalable registry hardware and software platform, used by over twenty TLDs worldwide today. Minds + Machines is know for its customer-friendly approach that is specifically designed to make the process of acquiring and operating new TLDs more accessible, more reliable and less expensive.

Packet Clearing House is a non-profit research institute that supports operations and analysis in the areas of Internet traffic exchange, routing economics, and global network development. Originally formed in 1994 to provide efficient regional and local network interconnection alternatives for the west coast of the United States, PCH has since grown to become the leading proponent of neutral independent network interconnection and provider of services at exchange points worldwide.

Yesterday, I sent ICANN my comments about the draft recommendations from ICANN’s Implementation Recommendation Team (IRT), which has been tasked with coming up with a trademark protection scheme for new top-level domains. For the most part, I think they did an excellent job.

From the perspective of an Internet user (which we all are), having a clean namespace — no parked pages, no domains used for phishing, spam, malware, etc. etc. — is pretty important for having a good experience with your email and web browsing. Right now, .com and .net are cesspools, filled with garbage, and we all have to live in the filth, because more than half of all domain names are in the .com and .net zones. From the perspective of a business owner (which I am), having a clean namespace means that my domain names and associated businesses are more valuable. For everyone who is not a polluter, the less garbage, the better.

Cleaning up trademark abuse is part of cleaning up the neighborhood. I’m not supporting an erosion of fair use, or condoning the cynical reverse hijacking that some trademark owners engage in, or trying to expand trademark rights beyond what the law provides for. But everyone working in the domain name field has seen plenty of clear instances of someone registering someone else’s trademark as a domain name, then profiting from it, to the detriment of both the trademark owner and the Internet user who was fooled. There’s no reason these cases shouldn’t be treated separately from edge cases where the facts aren’t so clear. In fact, there’s a good reason to do so — it makes the neighborhood a nicer place to live.

I’m hopeful that new TLD registries will regulate themselves better than the current crop of gTLDs has done, and some of the trademark protection rules proposed by the IRT provide some tools to make that easier.

It’s not all good news: the IRT produced some ill-considered attempts to usurp some of ICANN’s authority, and I don’t agree with everything they’ve done. Nonetheless, I think they went a long way to removing what has been the Number One obstacle to the introduction of new TLDs.

My comments to ICANN are more specific:

Minds + Machines, a registry services operator with several clients participating in the new gTLD process (including, “.eco”, the environmental Top Level Domain application backed by Al Gore and the Sierra Club) thanks ICANN for the chance to comment on the new draft from the the Implementation Recommendation Team (IRT), and we commend the IRT on a well-thought-out and timely report.

In general, Minds + Machines supports new TLDs and namespaces that have semantic coherence and meaning, such that a TLD string informs an Internet user about the content likely to be found on websites within that TLD. We believe the restoration of semantic meaning to the top- level domain namespace will increase the usefulness and use of the Web and as a consequence make the Internet more valuable to both producers and consumers. We are concerned that the meaningless effluvium now proliferating within many current gTLDs harms the experience of Internet users and therefore reduces the value of Web sites within those TLDs. We expect that the new round of TLDs will be better regulated and more trusted than the current crop. Protecting the legitimate rights of intellectual property holders, while preserving the freedom to innovate with and within a new TLD, is an important step in that direction.

We therefore welcome and support most of the recommendations from the IRC, with some caveats.

First, we are strongly in favor of a rapid takedown mechanism for clearly abusive domain names, whether used for phishing, spam, malware, trademark abuse or other illegal behavior. We thank the IRT for spelling out a mechanism to deal with these obvious cases and encourage ICANN to empower registries to act in similar fashion against abusive domain name use beyond the trademark arena. We note that the IRT’s recommendations in this regard are similar to policies used to great effect by CoCCA, Minds + Machines’ cousin in the ccTLD world. While we recognize that the system of watch lists and alerts may add some burden to registries and registry operators, we feel that this is small cost to pay to if it means a cleaner namespace — we note, however, that registries should be able to charge a reasonable price to cover costs.

Further, we strongly support the establishment of a centralized IP clearinghouse be set up as an outsourced agency under a long-term contact with ICANN. We thank Bart Lieben of Lada for championing this innovative solution. This solution will make new TLD launches far more economical for all parties and will significantly reduce errors and their associated expense.

We also support, albeit with some trepidation, the IRT’s findings that a list of Globally Protected Marks should be established. We understand that the compilation of such a list will be fraught with controversy, but we are hopeful that the limits of the list and its uses will soon be established by the courts. A list for exact matches will make it easy for registries and registrars to combat trademark abuse in a programmatic way. Registries cannot, however, be expected to police “confusingly similar” matches or other inspections that require intervention by a human with trademark expertise.

We strongly agree with the proposal that applicants be able to apply for more than one string in an application, without an additional application fee, providing such strings represent IDN variants of the same .BRAND in different alphabets. We furthermore recommend extending this concept to geographical TLD’s with multiple spellings and variants in different languages and IDNs (“Mumbai”, “Bombay” and the IDN variants of that city name for example).

Finally, we fully support the idea of “thick” whois. In our view, the “thin” whois is an artifact of a commercial ploy dating from the formation of ICANN and plays no useful role. A “thin” whois endangers the security of registrant data by spreading it across multiple registrars, some percentage of whom can be expected to run sloppy or shady operations, causing registrant data to go missing or to be held hostage in a registrar’s negotiations with ICANN. The “thin” whois is an idea whose time never was, and we would be pleased to see it piled on the scrapheap of rejected mistakes. We note, however, that the TLD registry must retain the right to create the policy regarding disclosure of contact data in order to ensure privacy protection. As a global operator, a registry should not be forced by ICANN rules to violate national privacy laws (in Europe, for instance) without complete indemnification.

Sadly, in one important area, we find that the IRT team has produced an unrevivable Frankenstein. Especially insofar as it relates to second-level domain names, the proposed “Post-Delegation Dispute Mechanism” mandates a scheme that undercuts ICANN’s authority, imposes impossible duties on registries, and, despite various safeguards proposed by the IRT, is an invitation to abuse. While the proposed mechanism may be viable (with amendment) for abuses relating to the TLD string itself, we feel that when applied to second-level domains names it will require registries to police the TLD namespace for potential infringements, which they are neither competent nor empowered to do, while leaving them without any enforcement mechanism. Instead, any diligence in regard to preventing trademark abuse will simply invite multiple punitive administrative actions by ICANN, in which the registry is set up as the “defendant.” Furthermore, the recommendation does not specify a date of registration of a trademark for a complainant, so that anyone could get a trademark after the fact for the purpose of filing complaints. Finally, we note that the language of the “ten point test” for this section is full weak wording: it is “probably” scalable; “we think it could”; “possibly”; and “may be workable.” This language indicates that the authors do not really believe this is the proper solution for ICANN enforcement of registry contracts, and neither do we. Minds + Machines strongly recommends striking this entire section; if ICANN is not doing its job properly, then the proper avenue is complaint to ICANN.

Despite this one area of disagreement, we congratulate the IRT team on their hard work and creativity, which has obviously yielded substantial results and promises to settle many long-standing arguments, and again thank ICANN for the chance to comment.

Sincerely,

Antony Van Couvering, CEO
Minds + Machines

MINDS + MACHINES SIGNS EXCLUSIVE ARRANGEMENT WITH COCCA — MOST WIDELY DEPLOYED OPEN-SOURCE REGISTRY PLATFORM FOR COUNTRY-CODE EXTENSIONS TO BE ADAPTED TO NEW TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS FROM ICANN

MEXICO CITY (March 1, 2009). Minds + Machines has been granted the rights to the CoCCA registry software and the CoCCA brand for generic top-level domains. Minds + Machines will enhance the core code and features for new top-level domains and brand the platform as “Espresso,” which will be available in both hosted and locally-installed versions. CoCCA’s highly-praised work with country-code extensions will continue to be developed and made available to members of CoCCA to manage a ccTLD registry as a royalty-free open-source package.

The exclusive arrangement will mean very low prices for Espresso customers. By adding any of Minds + Machines’ consulting and marketing services, or services from Minds + Machines partners, new TLD applicants will be able to work with Minds + Machines to build their TLD cost-effectively.

“I’ve been watching use of CoCCA explode in country-code top-level domains. They’ve been winning because of their superior technology, low prices, and customer-first way of doing business,” said Antony Van Couvering, CEO of Minds + Machines. “After seeing that other registry offerings were expensive and confusing, I was convinced that a partnership with CoCCA was the solution. I am very pleased to be able to begin from this great open-source foundation.”

“We are delighted with the arrangement,” said Garth Miller, head of Cocca Registry Services (NZ) Limited, the entity responsible the for development of the CoCCATools software on behalf of CoCCA Members “because it provides additional funding resources that will ensure that our software meets the challenges posed by the deployment of IDN TLDs, DNSSEC and other technologies required by our members.”

Minds and Machines will develop the CoCCA code and provide relevant improvements back to the open-source CoCCA codebase.

“More TLDs currently operate directly on CoCCA’s code than any other registry service provider,” said Minds + Machines COO, Jothan Frakes. “It is written in Java and adheres to the RFCs for registration, resolution, and whois information, works with IDN, IPv6, and DNSSEC over Anycast for DNS resolution and is secure and standards-based. It adds ease and elegance to registry operations, can be configured in an afternoon, has an existing channel of major registrars who are already contractually and technically integrated, and can be configured to work with any currency or language.”

For more information, contact Elaine Pruis at elaine[at]mindsandmachines.com

The GAC and ccNSO met this afternoon in response to the earlier ccNSO meeting in which ICANN announced that a contract between themselves and ccTLDs was a precondition for acceptance of fast-track IDN applications.

The GAC responded in an email following the meeting, regarding the relationship between ICANN and ccTLD operators, as well as ccTLD financial contributions.

Relationship between ICANN and IDN ccTLD Operator

• IDN ccTLDs should be similarly treated as ASCII ccTLDs.
• A documented relationship between ICANN and IDN ccTLD operators should be kept voluntary.
• A documented relationship on the basis of the proposed “Documentation of Responsibilities”, either as it stands today or in a modified format, may be encouraged but should not be a condition for IDN ccTLD delegations.
• As it has always been the case, it’s in the best interest of ccTLDs operators and the entire IDN community to adhere to all relevant IETF standards including IDNA protocol, IDN Guidelines and commit to complying with future protocol updates.

Financial Contributions

• IDN ccTLDs should be similarly treated as ASCII ccTLDs.
• Financial contributions should be calculated on a cost recovery basis. Full disclosure and breakdown of the costs involved in the IDN program would be desirable for better understanding of possible cost recovery models.
• Financial contributions should be kept voluntary and should not be a condition for IDN ccTLD delegations.
• Further information, from ICANN staff, on the different possible cost recovery mechanisms and concrete proposals would help advance positions on the subject.