When it comes to the issue of registering domain names South Africa is doing well, with some 60% of the continent’s total of registered domain names. The rest of Africa, more than 50 countries, shares the continent’s other 40% of about a million top level domains.
There are currently 107.9 million registrations of generic top level domains (gTLDs) in the world, and some 74.1 million of country codes top level domains (ccTLDs), Vika Mpisane, GM of .za DNA (.za Domain Name Authority), announced yesterday, Wednesday 29 July 2009, at a media workshop on domain names held in Rivonia, Johannesburg.

Africa, however, only accounts for fewer than 1 million of ccTLDs, while South Africa (co.za) has at least 60% of that figure, which translates at some 492 164 registrations.

“Setting up a domain name registration project is not an expensive exercise, but many African governments take the digital divide as an excuse to sit back and do nothing, further exacerbating the problem,” Mpisane said.

“Until we sort out the issue of infrastructures, including networks, regulations and broadband, as a continent we will always remain behind,” Mpisane added, citing the lack of political will as a fundamental obstacle.

China has some 12 million ccTLDs, while Germany and UK have 11 million and 6 million, respectively.

According to Mpisane, .com, .org, .net, .gov, .edu, .mobi, .biz, and .travel are listed as gTLDs, which have no geographic limitations and do not account to national governments, but to ICANN, a US government-managed organisation.

.com the most dominant

“.com alone has more than 80 million registrations, making it is the most dominant domain of the gTLDs, which use second-level registrations (e.g. yourname.com or myhouse.org) and their disputes are resolved through ICANN-UDRP.”

He said ccTLDs (.za, .au, .fr, .uk, .zw, .ke, .ng and so on) serve a particular country, use between second- and third-level registrations (eg simone.co.za or simone.za), and are usually operated by a local entity, have locally driven policy development process and are subject to own country’s jurisdiction and do not account to ICANN.

ccTLDs are managed by profit and not-for-profit entities – government-sponsored and totally independent from government, which generate revenue generation from registration and renewal fees. “Unfortunately in Africa, re-delegation is still an issue, as African ccTLDs are still far back in registration figures.”

.za DNA is an organisation established in early 2000 and is funded by the Department of Communications (DoC) to the tune of R1.5million per year. In SA, org.za is second at around 14 000 registrations.

Mpisane pointed out that initially SA should have an .sa instead of .za. “But Saudi Arabia outsmarted us way before 1990 and we ended up with .za.”

A warning – holding a domain name is a licence, not a right

He warned: “Many people take domain names for granted, by saying for instance ‘I want to have my own website’, but let me tell you that you cannot have a website without registering a domain name.

“And if you fail to renew you domain name by a few minutes, somebody might grab it and register it as his or hers, and that is where the dispute occurs, and some people might say ‘it is my name’.

“Holding a domain name is a license – not a right,” Mpisane pointed out. “Registration is on first-come first-served basis. Registry does not sit watching against name theft or abuse.

“Registration and renewal process is usually automated. Exceptions exist for restricted domains (e.g. ac.za). And lastly, registration and renewal is done through registrars or ISPs.

“Failure to renew makes name available for registration. Be careful of domainers who wait to register expired names and make money.”

He also said that his organisation provides financial assistance to those who want to lodge a domain name dispute but cannot afford the R10 000 to do so.

For more, go to www.zadna.org.za.

VeriSign, operators of .COM, .NET, .NAME, and service provider to .EDU, .JOBS, .CC, and .TV, today placed a “Registry Service Request” in to ICANN that proposes that a registrar can swap a .net domain name for another .net domain name, if the request comes from the same registrar.

The premise is that registrars are faced with losses from customer abandonment or other ‘shrinkage’ that leaves them holding a registration through to its annual term, because domain names are billed in a minimum of one year increments.

Within a 365 day calendar, this would conceivably allow, for the price of 1 .net domain, 12 different domains to be reviewed for the inherent traffic that a domain gets.

The challenge for UDRP Complainants is that an infringing domain name can appear or disappear in 30 day windows, so watch for some interesting comments in the registry services commentary, which have already begun.

UPDATE 02/18/2010 12:47pm: We have confirmed these findings to be correct.

It has often been asserted by trademark holders that the new round of gTLDs will have a major and catastrophic financial impact on brands.

But beyond these alarmist statements, is there any empirical evidence to either back this up, or to prove it false?

After examining all UDRP cases done by WIPO and the NAF, sorted by TLD, the evidence shows that new gTLDs play a very minor role in UDRPs, and that to the extent that a TLD matters, .com more prone to infringement than other, newer gTLDs. Infringements, as measured by UDRPs filed (regardless of outcome), show that infringement broadly correlate to the number of domains registered in a TLD zone, and not to the newness or recency of a TLD.

The study also predicts that if 300 new TLDs were created (an estimate made by several observers, including ICANN), there would be 316 new additional UDRPs filed. When combined with the new Uniform Rapid Suspension provisions that will be required for new gTLDs, these cases would result in a total additional cost to trademark holders of $869,000, or less than $.10 per trademark registered worldwide.

The data shows that, for enforcement via UDRP and URS, assertions that brand holders would be faced with enormous costs have been substantially overestimated.

Read the study.

Hard copy notice to respondents in UDRP proceedings will become a thing of the past shortly, based upon a change that was voted into effect at the Seoul ICANN meeting last October.

From the icann.org website:

On 30 October 2009, the ICANN Board approved a modification to the Implementation Rules for the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“Rules”). The modified Rules now require UDRP claimants and respondents to provide documents to UDRP Providers in electronic form. The modified Rules also change UDRP Provider obligations in forwarding hard copy notice to respondents in UDRP proceedings: the original Rules required Providers to forward a hard copy of the UDRP complaint; under the new Rules, Providers do not have to forward a hard copy of the entire complaint. Providers are now only required to forward a hard copy notice that a UDRP complaint has been filed.

The modified Rules will become mandatory for all UDRP proceedings filed on or after 1 March 2010.

The requirements to file will change, and some providers may already allow this now.

Until 1 March 2010, UDRP Providers may elect to follow the hard copy notice (without complaint) requirement as set forth in the modified Rules. For all UDRP proceedings filed on or after 1 March 2010, all UDRP Providers must follow the updated requirements. At that time, even if a UDRP Provider’s supplemental rules contain provisions conflicting with the modified Rules, the modified Rules will guide the proceedings.

Providers may allow, but must not require, UDRP complainants and respondents to submit complaints and responses in electronic form prior to 1 March 2010. For all UDRP proceedings filed on or before 28 February 2010, complainants and respondents may elect to submit their documents in hard copy form, as set forth in the original Rules.

According to the Board agenda for February 21, Sao Paulo, Brazil has been designated as the location for the 2006 ICANN Annual Meeting. The meeting is tentatively scheduled for the first week of December. Brazil served as host of the March 2003 ICANN meeting.

When Latin America comes up on the rotating schedule again in 2008, Mexico would make a great location for an ICANN meeting.

The 2007 schedule includes meetings in Europe, North America and Asia. My wish list: Barcelona in March, New York in June, and Korea in October.

In today’s blog post, Bret Fausett notes that a location for the October 2006 ICANN meeting has not yet been published. He also makes a plug for an ICANN meeting in Mexico. This is a great idea. Way back on April 8, 2005, I made a similar recommendation on this blog for Merida, Mexico. Even if the meeting is held in a different location in October, Mexico would be a good candidate for a future meeting.

At the ICANN Annual Meeting in Vancouver, the Government Advisory Committee launched a Public Forum section on the GAC website. To date, there have been only been four comments posted to the Public Forum, all by ALAC members, none by GAC representatives themselves. The last comment was posted on December 17, 2005.

According to the introductory note from GAC Chair Mohamed Sharil Tarmizi, “I encourage the Internet community and the general public, world-wide to make use of their GAC representatives and to work with us, as part of the ICANN process, to facilitate the development of a comprehensive international public-private partnership in this important area of management of the global Internet infrastructure.”

The Wellington meeting is fast approaching. It would be beneficial for all interested parties if GAC representatives and members of the Internet community were making greater use of the GAC Public Forum.

Welcome to .CAT, the newest sponsored TLD on the internet. PuntCat joins .travel and .jobs (and .EU) as new registries.

Anyone interested in registry obligations to provide registrar certificates for domain names in ACPA actions should read Continental Airlines Inc. v. ContinentalAirlines.com and ContinentalExpressAirlines.com, 390 F. Supp. 2d 501 (E.D.Va. July 13, 2005).

The Court says in a footnote that “because Verisign, the registry of the domain names [and is the .com and .net registry], is located in this judicial district, it is irrelevant that Verisign declined to submit a registrar certificate or other documentation with the Court to establish the Court’s authority over the domain names. See CNN, 177 F. Supp. 2d at 514 n.17. The registrar certificate merely serves to establish the domain name’s situs, an unnecessary step where, as here, the domain name registry is within the Court’s jurisdiction. (Emphasis added) See 15 USC §1125(d)(2)(C)(i)-(ii).”

This is a very useful decision for anyone with non-US registrar issues involving .com and .net domain names.

Two new letters have been posted on the Correspondence page of the ICANN website, one by Yahoo and one by Fish & Richardson on behalf of U. Inc. Both companies are in support of the release of single letter domain names.

If you traveled to Vancouver for the ICANN Annual Meeting, you might have also seen representatives from Overstock.com giving away “O” hats. Overstock had previously written to ICANN in support of the release of O.com. ICANN has also received a letter on the release of K.com.

If single letter domain names are to be released, I’d like to see more information on how these names are going to be made available (via auction, first come, first served release, select reservation or other methods). Companies are already claiming trademark rights in domain names that have yet to be made available.