Tag: new gTLDs

Get ready for .web, the domain extension that has been more than thirty years in the making

Launch of dot WEB

On July 22, the registry operator Verisign announced the delegation of .web. The news might almost have gone unnoticed during this sweltering summer, when the domain name industry was focused on the application window for the new ICANN round, which closed on August 12.

This delegation, which heralds the upcoming launch of .web, is a major event in the domain naming industry. Indeed, .web was seen very early on as having universal appeal and the potential to become a true alternative to .com.

Proposed even before ICANN was created, and later at the heart of the new gTLD program launched in 2012, this domain extension will finally hit the market in 2026, after more than ten years of proceedings and nearly thirty years of history.

A look back at an iconic case that profoundly influenced the rules of the latest round of new gTLDs.

A Top-Level Domain conceived even before ICANN

Few readers know that .web did not originate in 2012.

In fact, as early as 1996, the California-based company Image Online Design (IOD) proposed a .web domain on an alternative DNS system that was not integrated into the official DNS root. At that time, one of the Internet’s founding figures, Jon Postel, had already envisioned adding new extensions to the historic ones such as .com, .net, and .org. However, in 2000, when ICANN launched its first true selection process for new gTLDs, the .web extension supported by IOD was not selected bringing the project to an end.

2012: Seven applicants for a single Top-Level Domain

It wasn’t until 2012, when ICANN launched a series of new top-level domains with more open application rules, that proposals to create a .web top-level domain (TLD) resurfaced. While the .app TLD attracted a record 13 applications at the time, the .web TLD generated the most interest with seven applications, as most saw it as a potential alternative to .com.

The record-breaking auction that changed everything

In 2012, when multiple applicants competed for the same TLD, ICANN’s rules first called for a private resolution of the dispute. If no agreement could be reached, a last-resort auction would be held to decide between the applicants. For the .web extension, no agreement was reached, and the auction held on July 27 and 28, 2016, resulted in a victory for Nu Dot Co, which won the bid for $135 million—an amount that was unprecedented at the time for a new gTLD.

A few days later, Verisign confirmed that it had financed Nu Dot Co’s bid as part of an agreement stipulating that the registry contract could subsequently be transferred to it, subject to ICANN’s approval. This announcement marked the beginning of a new phase in the history of .web: several bidders challenged the process, while ICANN initiated the various review and resolution steps that would ultimately delay the launch of the domain extension.

Why did the launch take ten years?

One might assume that the launch of .web was subsequently delayed by technical difficulties. That was not the case. Following the 2016 auction, the process continued through a series of appeals, Independent Review Processes, and successive reviews by ICANN, focusing in particular on the terms of the transaction, the financing of Nu Dot Co’s bid, and the competitive issues related to the operation of the .web domain. Several decisions and reviews by the ICANN Board followed one after another before the matter could finally move forward.

2026: The launch at last

Finally delegated to the root zone in July 2026, the .web domain is now entering its launch phase, with a Sunrise period coming up, followed by a priority access period, and then its general availability on a date yet to be officially announced soon. Verisign is carefully preparing for this launch by drawing on the experience of its .com and .net infrastructure, which has been proven over decades.

One question remains—more commercial than technical: Is the context in 2026 favorable for such a launch? Since the launch of the first wave of new gTLDs, the domain naming landscape has changed significantly. More than a thousand new extensions have emerged, some of which have managed to establish themselves long-term—such as .xyz, .shop, and .online—while others are set to arrive next year as part of the 2026 round. As a result, .web now benefits from a much more mature market and evolving registration habits. Is it too late to shake up the market? It’s undoubtedly too early to say. But one thing is certain: after thirty years of waiting, .web finally has everything it needs to write its own story.

As the next round of new gTLDs enters the application review phase, the launch of .web symbolically brings to a close the cycle that began in 2012. After more than a decade of proceedings, the industry will finally be able to gauge the true potential of this domain extension, which has long been touted as the only one capable of rivaling .com. At the same time, the lessons learned from this process—which served as a true test case for ICANN—have shaped the rules of the new program, with the goal of making future launches faster, more transparent, and less contentious.

Stay tuned for our upcoming announcements to know the dates and terms of the .web launch. Your account managers are here to assist you.

dot WEB - key dates

ICANN76, Sally Costerton, the new interim president of ICANN, makes her mark

Candidate in March 2020 and then in March 2021, the city of Cancun finally had to wait until March 2023 and the end of the COVID pandemic to see a new edition of an ICANN summit in person. 2023, a very important year for the organisation. It will indeed celebrate its 25 years of existence while it is going through a risky period with an interim presidency after the resignation of its former President on 22 December 2022.

ICANN76, Sally Costerton, the new interim president of ICANN, makes her mark

Two women at the head of ICANN

Sally Costerton from the UK, who has been Vice President of Global Stakeholder Engagement (GSE) in charge of stakeholder engagement and awareness of ICANN and its mission worldwide since 2012, has been appointed interim Chief Executive Officer of ICANN following the departure of Goran Marby at the end of 2022. She is supported by Tripti Sinha who serves as ICANN’s Board Chair. Tripti is also Associate Vice President and Chief Technology Officer at the University of Maryland, in the Information Technology Division. This is the first time ICANN has had two women leaders. However, the situation echoes the creation of ICANN. As it was recalled at the opening ceremony, in 1998, when the US government gave ICANN the task of managing the DNS addressing system, a woman also held the position of Chair of the Board. This was Esther Dyson.

While leadership interims are rare at ICANN, this situation led to the organisation of a special session called “The Future of ICANN and the Next President and CEO”. A session where participants would have expected to interact with the new Board. This was not the case, as this session was like a kind of open mic without a direct interlocutor to express expectations towards the new Management of the organisation.

An interim presidency for a governance organisation also means a risky period, especially as there is no shortage of issues to address and the geopolitical context is tending towards increased fragmentation. However, although we do not know how long the interim presidency will last, Sally Costerton quickly made her mark at the start of the summit, when she declared, among other things, “I do not know everything, but I can rely on experts“. These words were reassuring and showed a pragmatic approach.

Transparency tested by experience

ICANN is a well-established organisation, as it has been holding summits for 25 years. The trend in recent years has been for the Supporting Organisations (SOs) and Advisory Committees (ACs) that make up the organisation to move towards greater transparency by opening up almost all their sessions to the participants. The most significant transformation has been in the GAC, the body representing governments, whose sessions were closed for many years before being fully open to all participants. This is an opportunity to salute the work of Manal Ismail, who after nearly six years at the head of the GAC is leaving her place to the Paraguayan Nicolas Caballero. A global tendency, therefore, of a nature to generate confidence, a key value to respond to the more and more numerous detractors of the ICANN governance mode.

But this tendency was reversed during this summit because many sessions were closed, “Closed sessions” to which even some affiliated participants could not have access neither in face-to-face nor in remote. Some of the participants were very upset and did not fail to point this out during the traditional Public Forum which usually closes the week of meetings.

Progress at a forced march?

The consensual approach, typical of ICANN, is both a strength for federating players around new obligations that are adopted, but also a weakness because it considerably slows down the progress of important work.

A striking example is the DNS abuse. Malicious use is indeed a real problem given the damage suffered by the affected Internet users. The GAC did not fail to recall this once again during a session where external experts were invited, such as a representative of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the FBI. The latter indicated that in the United States, in 2022, more than 800,000 domain names were the subject of complaints causing losses of more than 10 billion US dollars. While the topic of DNS abuse has been a recurring theme at every ICANN summit over the years, it is clear that the consensus has shown its limits. Stakeholders in the GNSO, the generic name policy body, have never been able to agree on a way forward, whether it be a Policy Development Process or contract negotiations to revise stakeholder contracts with ICANN. After recent consultations with stakeholders, the GNSO finally decided on the second option, and the least we can say is that at ICANN76, the will was to reach a result quickly. An amendment to the registry and registrar contracts is being drafted and is expected to be presented in June and voted on by the parties concerned in October.  

The GNSO intends to build on the momentum of another contract amendment being voted on by stakeholders: an “RDAP” amendment. RDAP is an alternative protocol to Whois that provides access to domain names registration data. The outcome of the votes and thus the adoption of these contract revisions remained uncertain at the end of the ICANN summit as different thresholds of participation and favourable votes must be reached.

Partial adoption of recommendations for future rounds of new gTLDs

Another issue that some would like to see move forward more quickly is that of future rounds of new generic extensions. Indeed, the last window for applications for generic extensions dates back to January 2012. Since then, a policy development process has been conducted since 2015 to define a set of recommendations for the holding of new application windows. The Final report of this process was submitted to the ICANN Board in February 2021. In the autumn of 2021, ICANN surprised the community by announcing a scoping phase, an ODP (Operational Design Phase), which ultimately lasted until the beginning of this year. The board had not yet decided on the Final report of recommendations, a prerequisite to be able to start the implementation work of the recommendations. So the new interim president of ICANN was also very much expected on this subject.

And she quickly warned that the time was also for action on this subject: “You will see that things will be clarified” (editor’s note: on the next series of generic extensions), she declared during a session during the week. At the end of the week, at a Board meeting, 98 recommendations from the policy development process were adopted, with a further 38 put on hold as requiring further information. An implementation plan is also expected with a deadline set to 1st of August with a focus on internationalized domain names and extensions that ICANN organisation wants to focus on in future rounds and the need to clarify whether closed generic extensions will be offered.

Comments from NAMESHIELD

We can regret a return to a certain opacity in the decision making during ICANN76 where no less than 25 closed sessions were held. Nevertheless, this is perhaps where the progress made on subjects that were not progressing well came from, such as DNS abuse, a very important subject for NAMESHIELD, which offers several solutions to defend your online assets, and the holding of a forthcoming series of new generic extensions, where NAMESHIELD experts can also accompany you.

The other question was how the new interim ICANN President Sally Costerton, would handle her new role in a risky period for ICANN whose model is also increasingly challenged by States, international organisations and even technological alternatives. On this point, the new president appeared to be proactive, joining words to deeds, as on the subject of further series of new generic extensions. Sally Costerton seems to have already started to trace her way towards a full term CEO role for the organisation.

Image source : ICANN’s website

ICANN72, between prioritisation needs and fragmentation risks

ICANN72, between prioritisation needs and fragmentation risks

At the end of October, the 72nd ICANN summit was held, devoted to the development of policies that impact the domain name system (DNS) and the global Internet community. As already announced during the past summer, this latest annual meeting was to be held by videoconference in the time zone of Seattle in the United States. “Sleepless” were therefore not in Seattle but rather in Europe.

ICANN72, between prioritisation needs and fragmentation risks

The thorn in the side of the next round of new generic extensions

A month before this summit, ICANN announced the schedule for the Operational Design Phase (ODP) for one of the most anticipated topics by the contracting parties: the organisation of a future round of applications for new generic extensions. The ODP is a new mechanism now linked to the policy development process (PDP). It is similar to a project scoping exercise as it aims to identify the steps, risks, costs and resources to be allocated to implement a project, in this case a new round of generic extensions. The PDP was conducted between 2015 and 2020, with the submission of a final recommendations report to the ICANN Board in March of this year. However, it is not until February 2023, almost two years later, that the Board should consider these recommendations, the time to let the ODP conduct. Indeed, ICANN confirmed before the opening of ICANN72 that this scoping phase should last sixteen months in its entirety, including ten months for the conduct of the ODP, three months upstream to initiate the latter and in particular to constitute the teams that will conduct it and three months downstream to conclude the work. This timetable surprised many of the contracting parties and gave rise to much discontent. These discontents were particularly expressed through the Brand Registry Group that represents and promotes the interests of its members, dotBrand owners. For most members, things are not moving fast enough and the ODP would even be partly useless since some aspects overlap with the work already conducted during the previous PDP. Another aspect pointed out was the cost of the ODP estimated to $9 million, which is not a small amount.

The clouds are gathering as are the processes underway

As the other sessions scheduled during the week-long summit progressed, it was clear that the clouds continued to gather in the weather of ICANN’s policies. For example, the announcement of the launch of an expedited policy development process (ePDP) to review the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), which allows for the recovery of disputed domain names, caused a great deal of misunderstanding, given that a review of all rights protection mechanisms (RPMs) has already been conducted between 2016 and 2020 and its final recommendations have not yet been examined by the ICANN Board. Now this review to validate the recommendations is scheduled to take place at best in the summer of 2022, by which time the aforementioned ePDP should be finalised. This example illustrated the gap that is being created between the community’s expectations for decisions and ICANN’s decision-making bodies, which seem to be overwhelmed by the policy negotiation processes that are piling up and stretching out over time, risking rendering decisions obsolete if they are made too late. According to some participants, this even affects ICANN’s ability to continue to carry out its mission as set out in its founding documents: To preserve and enhance the operational stability, reliability, security and global interoperability of the Internet.

“Prioritisation”, the word is out

On the first day of the sessions, ICANN CEO Goran Marby defended himself against the idea that the Board was slow to make decisions. He pointed out that the Board had recently examined 228 recommendations from the Competion Consumer Choice & Consumer Trust (CCT), which had just conducted a review to assess the extent to which the expansion of generic TLDs, gTLDs, had promoted competition, consumer confidence and consumer choice. 166 have been approved to date, 44 placed on hold and 18 rejected. Many of these measures are correlated with research and data collection to better understand market trends for new gTLDs.

Goran Marby also justified the delays in decision-making by the large number of ongoing and overlapping issues and by the fact that ICANN sometimes needs additional expertise to make decisions. In response to the criticisms, he also indicated that ICANN is now working on some form of prioritisation, a wish expressed by NAMESHIELD that seems to have been heard. However, Marteen Botterman of the Board nuanced this by specifying that prioritisation is not the Board’s responsibility, as it must ensure that the multi-stakeholder model is respected and must therefore maintain a certain neutrality on the subjects submitted to it.

A risk of fragmentation

From an organisation that has difficulty in making decisions, to its questioning, there is only one step. From the first day of the sessions, Goran Marby, who was particularly involved in the exchanges, spoke of “threats to ICANN”. ICANN is working on a risk management framework for the organisation. He also spoke of the need to talk more closely with governments as the current governance model is being challenged. Indeed, one only has to look at Russia to see that in November 2019, the Russian government introduced new regulations that create a legal framework for centralised state management of the internet within Russia’s borders. Russia has also proposed to hand over the management of the root servers to BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) member states. Proof that the States are going on the offensive in terms of their legislation, recent European directives also have an impact on the governance model, such as the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the forthcoming NIS2 (Network and Information Systems) directive, subjects which were also recalled at the summit. In China, for example, a law strengthening controls on digital services operated in China has just been adopted.

The failure of the ICANN governance model, if confirmed, could lead to a fragmentation of the DNS as we know it today, a fragmentation which takes shape as ICANN becomes bogged down in sterile debates. This summit has highlighted that the community and ICANN leadership have identified this major risk. The challenge for the future is to address it. We will watch the next ICANN summit scheduled in March 2022.

The observation that DNS regulation policies are bogged down, particularly at ICANN72, was widely shared by NAMESHIELD well before this summit. In particular, NAMESHIELD had expressed the need to prioritise topics in agreement with the community during the ICANN72 preparatory sessions. NAMESHIELD, which participates in working groups working on recommendations in the context of the periodic reviews conducted by ICANN, also advocated for re-enchanting voluntary work and helping diversify representatives in these working groups, in particular from small structures. Indeed many volunteers are now overwhelmed by the increasing volume of topics to be considered as the processes accumulate and decisions do not follow. New participants are discouraged from taking an interest in these topics by lengthy and cumbersome processes.

Image source : David Mark via Pixabay

New document : 5 minutes to understand domain names extensions (TLD)

5 minutes to understand - Domain names extensions (TLD) - Nameshield

The “Top Level Domains” also called TLD or extensions, are defined by the IANA (Internet Assigned Numbers Authority) which depends on ICANN since 1998.

ICANN and IANA are in charge of allocating Internet protocol (IP) addresses space, assigning protocol identifiers and managing the top level domain names system, i.e. the “Top Level Domains”.

Find out in this “5 minutes to understand” document, available for download on the Nameshield’s website, the different types of top level domains.

Download the document

.SBS : Sunrise phase opening

.SBS : Sunrise phase opening

The .SBS (side by side) is a short, thoughtful, three-letter domain extension, perfect for social causes, charitable organisations and other philanthropic initiatives, and any progressive business, individual, or community that believes in social and financial inclusion.

It is important to note that a part of the profits linked to the registration of .SBS domain names will be donated by the ShortDot registry to a non-profit organization.

Here is the launching schedule:

  • Sunrise Phase: May 6, 2021 – June 7, 2021
  • EAP (Early Access Period) : June 8 – June 15
  • General Availability: June 8, 2021, on a first come, first served basis

For more information about your .SBS registration conditions, please contact your Nameshield consultant.

Image by truthseeker08 from Pixabay