COLLAPSE OF the MOBI & IDN MARKETS -- the aftermath

[DomainsInc]

http://idnblog.com/2009/12/03/exclusive-qa-chuck-gomes-verisign/

After 5 years of dealing with people like you I feel I can finally say this. Suck it!

That blog post is confusing...basically saying if someone owned an english .com then no one could register the idn.com? Then how do any idn.com's get registered since all of the good english .com's are long since taken?

 

[dn-101]

No wonder most Asian investors stay away from the hive with it's vicious police. And yet they sign up in droves at DNlocal :smilewinkgrin:

 

[bwhhisc]

That blog post is confusing...basically saying if someone owned an english .com then no one could register the idn.com? Then how do any idn.com's get registered since all of the good english .com's are long since taken?

FINALLY, VERISIGN SPEAKS ON IDNs

Read the transcript here (it is not that long, and give real life examples).
Chuck Gomes is VP at Verisign. Basically is summarizes how foreign language.com will be given rights to foreign language.idn (.com equivalent).

It appears they will be "mirrored" from the DNS at Verisign, and the IDN "registrant" of that particular foreign language .com will (most likey) pay to "activate". It would be nice if it was gratis, but not holding my breath for that one. Only the owner/registrant of the foreignlanguage.com can activate the cctld or gtold to mirror (alias) to idn.idn. If you choose NOT to activate, it will not be available to others to register. Same as I outlined above goes for .net is my understanding but anyone feel free to chime in after reading and absorbing.

http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-idng/msg00232.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: [gnso-idng] rethinking IDN gTLDs
To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [gnso-idng] rethinking IDN gTLDs
From: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 15:16:45 +0100
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks Chuck.

Stéphane
Le 2 déc. 2009 à 15:06, Gomes, Chuck a écrit :

> Stephane,
>
> Please see my responses below. And let we qualify all of this discussion with this caveat: VeriSign management is very firmly committed to the approach I am describing, otherwise we would not have communicated it publicly, but when it is actually implemented, the fine details will have to be worked, so please allow some flexibility in that regard. Also, please allow me a small margin of error in case I mistakenly describe some details because the approach is a work in progress and my understanding of it may not yet be perfect. At the same time, I am confident that I do understand
> the major aspects of the approach enough to describe it as an illustration.
>
> Chuck
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx]
>> Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 5:46 AM
>> To: Gomes, Chuck
>> Cc: icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: Re: [gnso-idng] rethinking IDN gTLDs
>>
>> Chuck,
>>
>> Your example makes very interesting reading. Thanks for take actual live Verisign examples to the list, that's very helpful.
>>
>> So I am right in understanding that no matter how many IDN variants of .COM Verisign launches, the intent is that the holder of an ASCII .COM name, say EXAMPLE.COM, would automatically be listed as the owner of the corresponding EXAMPLE.(IDN_COM)?
>
> Chuck: You are mostly correct. First, of all I think it is best to avoid the term 'owner'; registrant is a more accurate term. It is not correct to say that the holder of an LDH.com would "automatically be listed as the owner (registrant) of the corresponding" LDH.IDN_COM.

Let me use VeriSign.com as an example. VeriSign, Inc. is the registrant of VeriSign.com. VeriSign, Inc. would not automatically become the registrant of VeriSign.IDN_COM but VeriSign, Inc. is the only one that will be allowed to activate the IDN version; no one else could registrer VeriSign.IDN_COM even if VeriSign, Inc. has not activated it. BTW, the same principle would work for an IDN second level name; it does not have to iniitate with an LDH second level registration.
>
>> And is this automatic correspondence only valid for the direct equivalent of the 2nd level name? In other words, I am right in thinking that having EXAMPLE.COM does not entitle me to (IDN-EXAMPLE).(IDN_COM)?
>
> Chuck: Yes. Otherwise, as I stated in an earlier response to Avri, we would be put into a nearly impossible situation of making subjective judgements. It is up to the registrant to decide what variations of its name they consider equivalent and to register those. Again for example, the fact that VeriSign, Inc. is the registrant of VeriSign.com would not mean that only VeriSign_IDN.com or VeriSign_IDN.IDN_com would be protected; VeriSign would have to register VeriSign_IDN.com or VeriSign_IDN.IDN_com.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Stéphane
>>
>> Le 2 déc. 2009 à 00:34, Gomes, Chuck a écrit :
>>
>>> Mike,
>>>
>>> Let me use our own plans for IDN versions of .com and .net as an example. Our current plans that we have communicated to our customers and others is as follows:
>>> Second level registrants for any .com or .net domain names will have the right to activate their second-level name for any IDN versions of the corresponding .com or .net name and no one else will be allowed to do that. All second level registrations for IDN versions of .com or .net will be associated with their corresponding ASCII .com or .net as applicable. In essence, the result will be that all active second level domain names for .com or .net (ASCII or IDN) will have the same registrant. For any that are not activated, they will be unavailable to others.
>>> I don't think there should be any user confusion in the DNS in this approach. Do you?
>>>
>>> Chuck
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
>>>> [mailtowner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 3:40 PM
>>>> To: gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
>>>> Subject: RE: [gnso-idng] rethinking IDN gTLDs
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks Chuck, that helps a bit, but I would like to understand the details of how an existing gTLD registry might offer an IDN equivalent "in a way to minimize any confusion". I think I saw a mention of 'sharing a root zone file' but there was no explanation. If this is already explained somewhere, then maybe I just need to be pointed in the right direction.
>>>>
>>>> Mike Rodenbaugh
>>>> RODENBAUGH LAW
>>>> 548 Market Street

>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 10:19 AM
>>>> To: icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
>>>> Subject: RE: [gnso-idng] rethinking IDN gTLDs
>>>>
>>>> Mike,
>>>>
>>>> Maybe I should have said "minimized" instead of "null". It is probably impossible to completely eliminate all chances of user confustion.
>>>>
>>>> My point is this: if two strings are confusingly similar but are offered in a way that minimizes the risks of user confusion, they should be allowed. For example: if the chinese version of .asia is proposed, it is confusingly similar to the ASCII version of .asia; but if it is proposed by dotAsia, the same registry operator as for the ASCII version, and is offered in a way to minimize any confusion, there should be no problem with that. In a case like that, there should be no need for extended evaluation. Does that make sense?
>>>>
>>>> Chuck
>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
>>>>> [mailtowner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh
>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 12:51 PM
>>>>> To: gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
>>>>> Subject: RE: [gnso-idng] rethinking IDN gTLDs
>>>>>
>>>>> Chuck,
>>>>>
>>>>> How do you mean "the chances of user confusion are null"?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Mike
>>>>>
>>>>> Mike Rodenbaugh
>>>>> RODENBAUGH LAW
>>>>> 548 Market Street
>>>>> San Francisco, CA 94104
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
>>>>> [mailtowner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 6:59 AM
>>>>> To: Avri Doria; gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
>>>>> Subject: RE: [gnso-idng] rethinking IDN gTLDs
>>>>>
>>>>> Avri,
>>>>>
>>>>> One of the main purposes of the restriction on confusingly similar strings was to avoid user confusion. We talked about that a lot. If the chances of user confusion are null, why would the strings be a concern?
>>>>>
>>>>> Chuck
>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
>>>>>> [mailtowner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
>>>>>> Sent: Monday, November 30, 2009 9:37 PM
>>>>>> To: gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-idng] rethinking IDN gTLDs
>>>>>> Hi,

I do not remember any GNSO policy conversation that covered this point and always assumed that this would be the mechanism for rectifying such coincidences. Are there any of the discussions in the policy recommendations that give this impression?

>>>>>> On 30 Nov 2009, at 19:04, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> An extended evaluation shouldn't even be needed in cases like this. It was never intended that the confusingly similar restriction would be used for variations of the same name by the same operator.
>>>>>>> Chuck
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>> From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
>>>>>>>> [mailtowner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
>>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, November 30, 2009 9:45 AM
>>>>>>>> To: gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-idng] rethinking IDN gTLDs

>>>>>>>> hi,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Would/could this not be dealt in the extended evaluation stage where one requests an extended review of the rejection on the basis of Confusing Similarity because there is no risk of
>>>> adverse effect? Or do you think it should be a complicating factor in the initial evaluation? Do we need a stmt somewhere in the doc allowing for this possiblity? Personally I think that using standard process for the 80% case and the extended review and other review/appeals processes for the complicated questions (20%) is one of the more clever things in the GNSO recommendations that has been adequately, I think, translated into the DAG. I think one of the places where we run into problems is where people with the 20% concerns don't want to have to resort to the review processes, be it confusingly similar or geo names.

>>> On 30 Nov 2009, at 08:57, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:

Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Here's what I think is a simpler way to make my point: If the problems anticipated by offering confusingly similar strings are avoided, then the restriction of offering the strings is unneccessary.

Agree.

We're not doing string comparison for the mathematical pleasure of describing the algebraic structure of semi-groups and their generators, but because some non-algebraic property exists outside of the universe of character repertoires and the strings generated over them, some property with a lawyer attached.

More broadly, some, if not all of the IRT issues are dealt with if the application is not considered in an artificial vacuum. There's not a lot more gained by lawyering in the abstract than from string manipulation in the abstract.

So, restrictions are context dependent, not absolute.

Eric

 

[DomainsInc]

Read the transcript here (it is not that long, and give real life examples.
Chuck Gomes is VP at Verisign. Basically is summarizes how foreign language.com will be given rights to foreign language.idn (.com equivalent).

It appears they will be "mirrored" from the DNS at Verisign, which owner of foreign language .com will (probably) pay to "activate". No one else will be given the rights to the idn.idn version except the owner of english language.com. Same as I outlined above goes for .net is my understanding but anyone feel free to chime in after reading and absorbing.

Eric

I think idn's in general could lead to a lot of problems. Say I have a popular site at whatever.com. So someone buys the chinese language equivilant and rips off my site. That doesn't seem very fair. Should apple get the rights to apple.com in every language? Seems like a clusterf*ck.

 

[bwhhisc]

I think idn's in general could lead to a lot of problems. Say I have a popular site at whatever.com. So someone buys the chinese language equivilant and rips off my site. That doesn't seem very fair. Should apple get the rights to apple.com in every language? Seems like a clusterf*ck.

Verisign started registering IDN.com and IDN.net back in 2000', so pretty hard to tell people that have been paying registration fees for 10 years that. If anyone wanted to take cause, it should have been done in 2000' when IDN.com and IDN.net names came available for registration.

Unfortunately, too many vocal "domainers" continued for years to spreading rumors that IDN.com were BS and worthless, and they would be replace by IDN.IDN...that not to waste your money because "real IDNs" that would be released sometime in the future. They were corrected at about every turn, and athough the information to the contrary was there and available to read, the vast majority of people continued to believe them and not take time to do their own research.

Even DCG, owner of DNForum wrote to all members here in 2006 and RECOMMENDED they buy IDNs

DCG knew the facts, he even spoke about IDNs at one of the major domain meetings back in 06' or 07' if I am not mistaken. He put his money where his mouth is and registered a large huge portfolio of top IDN.com names. Meanwhile, others continued to spread disinformation and basically told members to "wait" for the release of "real IDNs".

Regarding trademark, there is discussion that trademarks that own the english version of their name...ie apple might be able to get an idn gtld.

apple(english).idn(foreign language).

 

[mjnels]

dn-101 = batshit crazy and a troll..

his replies never make any sense, its like he's on a permanent acid trip.

 

[Gerry]

I think idn's in general could lead to a lot of problems. Say I have a popular site at whatever.com. So someone buys the chinese language equivilant and rips off my site. That doesn't seem very fair. Should apple get the rights to apple.com in every language? Seems like a clusterf*ck.

It is the same with de, it, fr, nl, and all the other 260 extensions.

Apple does not own every word or phrase with the word apple in it in any and every language as it is now.

If someone owns ringo.jp and that site is featuring photos of apples for sale, does Apple computer have the rights to that name as it is the Japanese-Anglo spelling for Apple?

And if someone owns 奈.com right now, why would apple have the rights to it when the .com will be mirrored to represent all Japanese script.

I would imagine the same rules apply to ownership and TM violations - if someone owns 奈.com, don't be stupid and sell apple computers on that site.

 

[Sarcle]

Adam: Congrats on the arrival of baby boy!
I would've done it at the hive, but the gestapo police there is too vicious :smilewinkgrin:
[/I]

Take Bill's advice. Take a step back. Breathe. Cool off. And I hope to see you at IDNF soon.

But thank you for the congrats.

It is the same with de, it, fr, nl, and all the other 260 extensions.

Apple does not own every word or phrase with the word apple in it in any and every language as it is now.

If someone owns ringo.jp and that site is featuring photos of apples for sale, does Apple computer have the rights to that name as it is the Japanese-Anglo spelling for Apple?

And if someone owns 奈.com right now, why would apple have the rights to it when the .com will be mirrored to represent all Japanese script.

I would imagine the same rules apply to ownership and TM violations - if someone owns 奈.com, don't be stupid and sell apple computers on that site.

You are correct. It all depends on the use of the domain or how much trouble the WIPO judge is having with their hemorrhoids.

 

[bwhhisc]

IDNs are WORTHLESS!!!!!!!!! :smilewinkgrin:

Sale at SEDO 12-10-2009

http://okok.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/idn.png

Büromöbel.de

Translation: Office Furniture

69 000 Euros = $101,657 U.S. dollars

 

[italiandragon]

I can`t read all of the thread but in the first page someone wrote .us is useless?

Ok, they don`t know they have a ccTld but saying its useless is way too far...

By the way.....@ Kate : type in "carsales.com.au" on your mobile and see what happens

Also....WHAT is this story about ".cell" ???? Is it a joke?

 

[jaugusto]

IDNs are WORTHLESS!!!!!!!!! :smilewinkgrin:

Sale at SEDO 12-10-2009

http://okok.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/idn.png

Büromöbel.de

Translation: Office Furniture

69 000 Euros = $101,657 U.S. dollars

Willard, that's not really an IDN, it's simply a German domain name.

The main reason this domain is worth so much is that Germans never tagged their domains with umlauts (ä, ö, and ü) with the "IDN" stigma.

It's just a simple German domain name.

Thank God SEDO also changed this a few days ago. They are now calling these domains Multi-Lingual.

Seems like they read my forum posts... I have been saying this all along.

Go to eBay and do a search for "IDN", to find out why we all need to get rid of the "IDN" tag.

 

[Fearless]

IDNs are WORTHLESS!!!!!!!!!

I agree with you on that.

 

[Sarcle]

I agree with you on that.

What is your deal? All I see is anti-IDN statements from you.

The Internet is moving on. And this time it is without you.

So what is it that really bothers you about IDN?

 

[Gerry]

That blog post is confusing...basically saying if someone owned an english .com then no one could register the idn.com

Think of it backwards.

If you reg a spanish IDN dot com, then that same spanish IDN.IDN will not be available for regging.


Then how do any idn.com's get registered since all of the good english .com's are long since taken?

The reason I mention think of it backwards (in relation to what you are thinking and posting, is the basic concept,

Which came first?

In this case, it is the IDN dot com which came first and now the IDN dot IDN will be reserved for those that hold the IDN dot com (or net)

 

[Fearless]

What is your deal? All I see is anti-IDN statements from you.

The Internet is moving on. And this time it is without you.

So what is it that really bothers you about IDN?

IDN and mobee fanatics are so sensitive.

 

[Gerry]

IDN and mobee fanatics are so sensitive.

And in this case, they are correct.

 

[Sarcle]

IDN and mobee fanatics are so sensitive.

In no way is the ability to use your own language comparable to a single ext.

So what exactly is it again?

 

[dn-101]

Willard, that's not really an IDN, it's simply a German domain name.
The main reason this domain is worth so much is that Germans never tagged their domains with umlauts (ä, ö, and ü) with the "IDN" stigma.
It's just a simple German domain name.
Thank God SEDO also changed this a few days ago. They are now calling these domains Multi-Lingual.
Seems like they read my forum posts... I have been saying this all along.
Go to eBay and do a search for "IDN", to find out why we all need to get rid of the "IDN" tag.

Jose is, probably, the last idn man standing since the Hydra kicked poor kid Olney out of this biz. He proposed, and SEDO embraced the Multi-Lingual concept.
And yes, umlauts are part of the extended Latin Alphabet.
Read more about it at DNlocal

 

[Fearless]

And in this case, they are correct.

You need a life raft. The mobee ship is sinking. Front page of Pool has these deletions for tomorrow.

coupon.mobi
rates.mobi
visit.mobi
adults.mobi
concerts.mobi
prices.mobi
dvds.mobi

A couple of these look better than flowers.mobi. Not worth renewing.

 

[Sarcle]

You need a life raft. The mobee ship is sinking.

No, you do. Who brought up mobi? You.

I've asked you a direct question and you refuse to answer with anything. Instead you, again, redirect the spotlight towards something that hasn't been asked.

Eh, whatever.