The conflict of interest that led to the resignation of ICANN’s Kurt Pritz, new generic Top Level Domain guru and officially known as Chief Strategy Officer, was with registry services provider ARI Registry Services according to a Domain Incite report.Last week in a letter to the ICANN community, the new CEO and president Fadi Chehadé wrote “regretfully … I have accepted the resignation of Kurt Pritz, who has served most recently as ICANN’s Chief Strategy Officer.”In the letter, Chehadé said “Kurt has submitted his resignation because of a recently identified conflict of interest, which he immediately communicated to ICANN. After analysing this conflict of interest, we decided that a change in Kurt’s role within ICANN would be appropriate. Kurt decided to resign his position and role as an officer of ICANN, to best serve the interests of the organisation. Kurt will be engaged as a subject matter expert where needed, but will have no access to new gTLD applicant information nor will he play a role in the new gTLD programme.”Domain Incite has “managed to uncover the basic facts of the story – more than enough to confirm that it’s a personal issue and to establish that there do not appear to be any financial conflicts.”Domain Incite “decided not to report the full details, other than to say the conflict relates to ARI Registry Services, a major provider of back-end registry services for new gTLD applicants.”Domain Incite understands “the conflict was voluntarily disclosed by Pritz” and that “he also appears to have been held to at least as high a standard of ethics as ICANN’s own board of directors.””While ICANN clearly determined that there was a risk of a perception of a conflict of interest, [Domain Incite] discovered no reason to believe there was any actual wrongdoing by ICANN, ARI or Pritz.”Domain Incite cannot find any evidence that Pritz gave any favourable treatment, rather that if anything “the evidence would most likely lead to the opposite conclusion.””For example, during recent Trademark Clearinghouse implementation talks, Pritz was staunchly opposed to key aspects of a community solution co-developed by ARI.”
ARI Registry Services last week announced the launch of a service to offer Top-Level Domain (TLD) DNS services for new TLD applicants and country code TLD (ccTLD) operators.
ARI Registry Services say they are now seeking to position their DNS service as an offering capable of providing greater flexibility and transparency in the marketplace for TLD registry operators.
At launch, the foundation clients for the service include in excess of 450 new TLDs, positioning ARI Registry Services to be the largest DNS provider, per TLD, in the world once delegation is complete.
Adrian Kinderis, CEO of ARI Registry Services, welcomed the launch, saying:
âDNS is a fundamental element of our growth strategy and a natural progression given our credentials in DNS management and registry services. We are not kidding around,â Mr Kinderis said.
âOur intention is to be the largest provider of Top-Level DNS in the world within a year â a bold statement I realise. However, with the support of our foundation clients we have shot out of the blocks.â
Kinderis said ARI Registry Services was aiming to achieve a clear point of differentiation in the DNS market.
âWhile we obviously tick all the boxes technically, we are not introducing a âme tooâ product that is differentiated on technical capability or specifications alone. ARI Registry Servicesâ DNS delivers more, including bespoke pricing models, complete data transparency and a greater overall flexibility for established, growing and yet to be launched TLDs.
âOur outsourced model has been developed from our own experiences as a registry operator and we pass this experience onto our clients. We are combining commercial insight and technical excellence which is something we feel to be extremely unique,â Mr Kinderis said.
âWe will change the way you think about DNS. I am absolutely certain of it.â
ARI Registry Services has more than 10 years of Top-Level DNS management experience through the construction, deployment and operation of registry and DNS services for various country code TLDs around the world.
ARI Registry Services, Neustar, Verisign and Demand Media have spent the past three months producing an alternative solution for the operation of ICANN’s Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH) for the new Top-Level Domain (TLD) program.This week they published the results in the form of three white papers that outline concerns with ICANN’s current TMCH proposal and provide recommendations for how ICANN can improve its model while meeting all the requirements outlined in the Applicant Guidebook.The white papers (along with a blog from ARI’s Chris Wright – which is also published below – about the subject) can be viewed at: www.ariservices.com/blog/community-support-required-for-alternative-trademark-clearinghouse-solution/Public feedback, comment and support for this alternative proposal are now being sought to demonstrate to ICANN that there is a consensus for change.See the article below for more information and/or follow the links included.Community support required for alternative Trademark Clearinghouse solution by Chris Wright, Chief Technology Officer at ARI Registry ServicesIt’s time for the community to demonstrate its resolve to see ICANN implement a successful and effective Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH).Let’s be clear here. The current ICANN implementation model and approach is flawed and needs attention.Following more than three months of consultation and negotiation, today I’m pleased to be able to present the domain name and trademark protection industries with an alternative solution for the operation of ICANN’s Trademark Clearinghouse for the new Top-Level Domain (TLD) program.ARI Registry Services – working in consultation with Neustar, Verisign and Demand Media – have developed three white papers for public review and comment.The white papers outline concerns with ICANN’s current TMCH proposal and provide an alternative model that addresses those concerns whilst meeting all the requirements outlined in the Applicant Guidebook and those further stipulated by ICANN.The white papers can be downloaded here:
- TMCH – Issues with the ICANN Proposed Model
- TMCH – Proposed Claims Model
- TMCH – Proposed Sunrise Model
I urge you to please read these documents and express your support.We need your supportThe approach outlined in the white papers above offer significant advantages for both trademark owners and new TLD registries. It is our concern that ICANN is simply stubbornly sticking with its original proposal for the TMCH, even in the face of justified consistent criticism from the community.We are now seeking action from the community on two fronts:
- Public feedback on the documents, especially from rights holders, to help us further refine the solution to meet the
- needs of all; and
- Support for this alternative proposal to demonstrate to ICANN that there is a consensus for change.
I encourage everyone involved or interested in the new TLD program to review the white papers and voice your opinion on the matter to ICANN. We anticipate ICANN will publish these documents on their website in the near future to facilitate community discussion. You can express your support by communicating with ICANN through public comments, and through your relevant constituencies and stakeholder groups. There will also be significant opportunity to give feedback to ICANN during the upcoming ICANN meeting in Toronto where there are two sessions on the agenda dedicated to the TMCH.Why is the Trademark Clearinghouse important?The TMCH is a crucial element of the new TLD program and it will impact everyone involved in the registration and operation of new TLD domain names. We can’t afford to get this wrong.The TMCH is a central database of verified trademark holders designed to provide enhanced rights protection mechanisms for the registration of domain names.Put simply, the aim of the TMCH is to minimise burdens on trademark owners by allowing them to deposit their trademark data with one centralised source, rather than with each new TLD registry. The idea is for new TLD registries to cross-check domain name registrations with the centralised data from the Clearinghouse.What’s wrong with ICANN’s TMCH proposal?There has been considerable opposition to ICANN’s proposal for the TMCH because it is too complex and burdensome in the way it achieves the objectives.As described in the white papers above, there are significant privacy and security concerns with ICANN’s current model. There are also disadvantages in ICANN’s model which prevent registries using trademark data during sunrise periods to, for example, restrict eligibility to certain classes of rights holders.The white papers outline how ICANN can improve its model to implement a more efficient and effective system.This cannot be a case of “we have already gone so far and don’t want to change”. The current approach is broken and requires review.With your help we can help ICANN see reason here and consider the alternatives.Let’s get mobilized and address this important issue.This article by Chris Wright, Chief Technology Officer at ARI Registry Services, was sourced with permission from www.ariservices.com/blog/community-support-required-for-alternative-trademark-clearinghouse-solution
The number of registered .AU (Australia) domain names passed the 2.5 million mark in late August, auDA and AusRegistry announced.Since passing two million registrations in March 2011, the .AU namespace has grown at a steady pace thanks, the regulatory and policy body and registry note, to the combined efforts of accredited registrars in promoting .AU as Australia’s home on the internet. Approximately 86 percent of all .AU domain names are registered under .com.au.According to Verisign’s latest Domain Name Industry Brief, .AU is the tenth largest ccTLD. The largest is .DE (Germany) with almost 15.19 million registrations today. Second is probably .TK (Tokelau) however the registry does not publish registration statistics for its free domain names, followed by .UK (United Kingdom – 10.2m), .NL (Netherlands – 5.03m), .RU (Russian Federation – 3.99m) .CN (China – 4.13m as of 31 July), .EU (European Union – 3.65m), .BR (Brazil – 3.05m), .AR (Argentina – figures unknown) and then .AU, currently with 2.51m registrations.
Yasmin Omer, ARI Registry Service’s Policy and Industry Affairs Officer, explains why ICANN should offer the Governmental Advisory Committee an extra meeting in January to avoid further delays in the new Top-Level Domain program.ICANN’s Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) – the special stakeholder group responsible for providing government advice to ICANN on issues of public policy – has an important role to play in the remaining evaluation and delegation phases of the new Top-Level Domain (TLD) program.For some applicants, the future of their new TLD projects may rest on the decisions of the 50 or so national government representatives that are active members of the GAC.So, it is understandable that any suggestion to provide the GAC with an extra meeting to assist them in making decisions that could be fatal to the delegation of a new TLD could be met with contempt.However, I believe most applicants will recognise that the success of the GAC, the new TLD program and therefore applicants is one and the same.So, why is it important for ICANN to offer the GAC an extra meeting?The risk of delayTo put it simply, the GAC require sufficient time to complete their part of the new TLD puzzle and there are serious implications for everyone involved if they don’t.In developing the program, ICANN built specific requirements into the process to enable members of the GAC to comment on and provide official Advice about specific applications they have concerns with.This process comprises of: 1) A GAC Early Warning which is a notice identifying an application as potentially problematic thereby allowing the applicant to withdraw and recoup a higher percentage of the application fee; and 2) GAC Advice to the ICANN Board indicating that it is the consensus of the GAC that a particular application should not proceed which almost certainly means an application will not be approved by ICANN.Whilst an Early Warning can be filed by any individual GAC member, GAC Advice requires general agreement amongst the GAC’s membership in the absence of any formal objection. Face-to-face meetings of the GAC are therefore critical in facilitating such agreement.It’s important to remember that this is a mandatory process. No new TLDs can be delegated until the GAC provide their Advice.As it currently stands, the GAC are scheduled to meet twice during the evaluation phase to review, collaborate and consider their potential Advice on the 1924 new TLD applications. These meetings are timed to coincide with the ICANN meetings in Toronto (October 2012) and Beijing (April 2013).ICANN’s tentative roadmap released last month indicates GAC Early Warnings are expected in November 2012 following ICANN Toronto, and GAC Advice is expected in late April 2013 following ICANN Beijing.With Initial Evaluation scheduled to finish in May 2013, results published in June 2013 and the first delegations to start in August 2013, there is little room to maneuver should a delay occur within the process.This is particularly concerning as any holdup related to GAC Advice could blowout the roadmap and create another embarrassing delay at a critical juncture.However, there is a rather simple solution.Offer for a January GAC meetingICANN must offer an extra meeting to the GAC in January 2013 to allow sufficient time for members to consult with their respective governments and ensure their Advice is delivered by April 2013.It’s simple. Applicants want ICANN to rollout the program without any further delays and ICANN has the ability to help achieve this objective by offering the GAC an extra meeting.ICANN needs to do the right thing by the GAC because it’s highly unlikely that GAC members would have critically reviewed the 1,924 new TLD applications in consultation with key stakeholders by next month, in time for Toronto. Therefore, the Beijing meeting in April 2013 will be the first opportunity for the GAC to discuss concerns raised and agree on the provision of GAC Advice.Restricting the discussion and agreement on GAC Advice to one meeting is inconsistent with the GAC representative’s roles; they do not operate autonomously, they need adequate time to consult with their respective governments. It is an unrealistic objective for GAC representatives that places unreasonable pressure on them.I think a reality check is in order because government processes involve red tape, bureaucracy and multi-layered approval procedures. Further, the success of the GAC intersessional meeting held prior to the ICANN Singapore meeting last year sets a precedent for this request.The hosting of an extra GAC meeting will give ICANN an opportunity to demonstrate it is responsive to applicant’s needs and provide greater confidence in ICANN’s ability to maintain their proposed roadmap – something all new TLD applicants will appreciate.Whilst ICANN’s efforts in developing GAC specific processes into the new TLD program are to be commended, the current meeting schedule does not allow for collaboration in the provision of GAC Advice on new TLDs – a process that is meant to be inherently collaborative.The last thing anyone involved in the new TLD program wants is further delays.It is for these reasons that I urge ICANN to offer the GAC an extra meeting in January 2013 to ensure that sufficient time has been allocated to provide GAC Advice.Not only will the GAC thank you for this, new TLD applicants will too.This article by Yasmin Omer, Policy and Industry Affairs Officer at ARI Registry Services, was sourced with permission from:
Melbourne ITâs involvement with ICANN dates back to 1999, when ICANN awarded it one of the first five registrar licenses to compete with the then-monopoly of Network Solutions Inc. in registering domain names under .com, .net and .org. It remains in the top tier of Internet registrars today, with 4.5 million domains under management. It is also involved with several .brand new gTLD applications, including those of Singapore-based StarHub and the Australian Football League, for which it provided domain strategy and application consulting services while ARI Registry Services(a division of AusRegistry, the .AU ccTLD registry operator) will provide technical backend services.
Last, but certainly not least, Melbourne ITâs Chief Strategy Officer, Bruce Tonkin, who formerly Chaired ICANNâs GNSO Council (the policy arbiter for gTLDs), was elevated to the position of Vice Chair of ICANNâs Board of Directors in June 2011. (We note for the record that Dr. Tonkin recused himself from voting on all matters involving new gTLDs even before MITâs involvement with the above-referenced .brand applications, and due to potential conflicts does not serve on ICANNâs recently established New gTLD Program Committee.)
All of which adds up to say that we take any policy proposal coming from Melbourne IT very seriously â especially its new suggestions for further strengthening of the rights protection mechanisms (RPMs) for new gTLDs. On August 16th, MIT âreleased a Community Discussion Paper, entitled âMinimizing HARMâ which outlines a policy alternative whereby organizations with âHigh At-Risk Marks’ should be afforded greater protections at the second level (ie. names to the left of the dot), which ICANN could adopt to boost consumer protection.â (See www.melbourneit.info/news-centre/Releases/Melbourne-IT-Urges-ICANN-to-Consider-Stricter-Protections-to-Minimize-Consumer-and-Business-Harm-in-new-gTLDs for the related press release.) MIT is promoting its HARM proposal fairly aggressively â an open forum will be held to discuss it in Washington, DC on the afternoon of Tuesday, September 18th Â which any interested party can attend, although MIT requests that an RSVP be sent to RSVP@melbourneit.com by September 13th; MIT also plans to simultaneously webcast the discussion. And MIT also intends to promote further discussion of the HARM proposal at the upcoming Toronto ICANN meeting scheduled in October.
ICA has significant concerns about any reopening of the debate on RPMs for new gTLDs, as the existing ones â the Trademark Clearinghouse (TMC) and Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) â were only agreed upon after two years of contentious debate within the ICANN community, and ICANNâs Board has since succumbed twice to pressure from the heavily-lobbied Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) and further scaled back certain registrant protections in the URS. Also, while we accept at face value MITâs contention that the HARM proposal is motivated by a perception among some organizations that they will need to engage in substantial defensive registrations at the 1400 unique new gTLDs which may be added to the root over the next few years, there are many trademark interests which have repeatedly sought any opening to turn the URS into a cheap substitute for the UDRP by lowering the required burden of proof and adding a domain transfer option, while WIPO has been unremittingly hostile to the URS as presently constituted and would prefer an alternative that looks to us like the DNS version of SOPA. We also canât help but note that that the very same trademark interests who keep pushing for additional protections at new gTLDs are the same ones who have blocked any near-term consideration of UDRP reform — despite the fact that the UDRP is the only major ICANN policy that has never been reviewed, and the mind-boggling fact that ICANN accredits UDRP providers to cancel or transfer domains without any contractual controls or obligations.
Nevertheless, now that the initial launch date of the first new gTLDs has been pushed back to at least the first quarter of 2014, this reopened debate was probably inevitable and perhaps it is best that it be focused on a relatively restrained proposal such as that proffered by MIT. The full details can be found in the Discussion Paper, but the gist of the HARM proposal is:
- Â·Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â HARM designation would be available to established global trademarks that match the rights holderâs second level domain name, and which are distinctive and do not match dictionary words in any of the six official UN languages.
- Â·Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â The rights holder must demonstrate that the trademark has been subject to misleading and deceptive online conduct as demonstrated by multiple successful UDRPs, court actions, or similar evidence.
- Â·Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â A trademark meeting these criteria could, for an additional one-time fee of $1-2,000, receives certain additional protections.
MIT estimates that a few thousand global marks would meet the screening criteria. However, we assume that many trademark interests will use the HARM proposal as a jumping-off point and seek to expand the range of eligible marks and associated protections while reducing the registration cost.
That is why it is critical that consideration of any new RPM proposal such as HARM go through ICANNâs standard Policy Development Process (PDP) with full involvement of the GNSO Council. This goes far beyond mere tweaks or implementation details of existing RPMs, and should only be considered by the Board if there is strong community consensus. And there is plenty of time for such formal review, given that we are at least sixteen months away from the launch of the first new gTLD.
We also have strong concerns in particular about one of the additional proposed protections, which is that a HARM-related domain at issue in a URS be suspended within 48 hours if the registrant has not paid a response fee within that period. That is an extremely short turnaround time, especially given that complainants control the timing of filings and can choose holidays and other periods when registrant responses are more likely to be delayed. ICANNâs Board has already bowed to GAC pressure and shortened the standard URS response time by a week, and we would oppose any further truncation for disputes that only involve allegations of trademark infringement absent strong evidence of ongoing criminal activities such as phishing, malware distribution, or payment system fraud.
Finally, we have pointed out to MIT that the discussion panel listed for the DC event does not contain any identifiable proponents of registrant rights, and they have advised us that additional participants will be added.
ICA intends to attend the DC HARM forum and to remain actively engaged on this and all other proposals for alterations of new gTLD RPMs. Our top priority will be to assure that nothing in HARM does any material harm to the due process rights of registrants at new gTLDs, and that the collective weight of adopted RPMs does not so discourage registrations at new gTLDs that their potential for competition and innovation is substantially undermined.
With applications finally closing for good on ICANN’s troubled application process for new generic Top Level Domains, the big guns, and some smaller ones too, have come out trumpeting their achievements in submitting their applications.In total there were just over 1900 applications, although a small number of these will be applications for the same gTLD string, and ICANN have yet to release an exact number.But when the applications closed, a number of the major players were quick to trumpet their applications submitted.The most prominent and newsworthy was possibly Google. Commenting on the Google Blog, the former ICANN chair and now chief internet evangelist for Google said that “despite the great opportunities the web has enabled for people around the world, there is still a lingering question about the diversity of the domain space (given that the number of generic TLDs has only increased by 14 in the last 28 years).”Google submitted a total of 50 applications for gTLDs in four categories:
- trademarks, like .GOOGLE
- gTLDs related to their core business, like .DOCS
- domains to improve user experience, such as .YOUTUBE, which Google believes can increase the ease with which YouTube channels and genres can be identified
- domains Google think have interesting and creative potential, such as .LOL.
One of the biggies when it comes to the number of applications submitted is ARI Registry Services. ARI Registry Services signed contracts to provide back-end domain name registry services for 161 gTLDs. This breaks down to 85 generic, 70 brand and six geographic TLDs. However ARI has taken a cautious approach and stated that non-disclosure statements restrict them from revealing their full client list until the Big Reveal day on 13 June.”When applications opened in January, our target was to secure around 100 TLDs, so to reach 161 has far exceeded our expectations. Our goal was never to become the biggest, but we did want to be the best. I believe the results of our efforts and the caliber of our clients demonstrates that we are well on the way to becoming a force to be reckoned with,” Adrian Kinderis, CEO of ARI Registry Services, said.”Our numbers are pleasing, but they will become even more significant when the global brands and high profile entrepreneurs we are supporting are made public in a couple of weeks.””Non-disclosure statements restrict me from revealing our full client list at this point in time, but what I can say is that our technology will support some of the world’s largest and most recognised brands within the electronics, media, telecommunications, automotive and banking segments.”However some of the gTLDs that ARI has gone public with include .AFL, .SYDNEY, .MELBOURNE, .BRAND, .ARAB .IINET and .STARHUB.However ARI are topped by Verisign who announced back in April they have applied for over 230 gTLDs. These are 14 gTLDs including 12 transliterations of .COM and .NET as well as being selected to provide back-end registry services for approximately 220 new gTLDs.Top Level Domain Holdings (TLDH) submitted 92 applications through their registry services business Minds + Machines on behalf of itself and its clients which includes a wide range of generic words as well as specific cities including .LONDON, .MIAMI and .BAYERN.”We are very pleased with the momentum of the new gTLD program,” said Peter Dengate Thrush, TLDH Chairman. “We have applied for a substantial and diverse portfolio of new gTLDs and are excited about the prospects for the Group.”TLDH submitted five gTLD geographic applications for or in association with the cities of London, Miami, and Budapest, together with the German States of Bayern and Nord-Rhein Westfalen, all with the backing of each city or region’s governing body. The company is also providing back-end registry services for a further 18 applications made by clients of the company’s wholly-owned subsidiary, Minds + Machines, including .RUGBY (which should please Dengate Thrush being a New Zealander and keen rugby fan) by the International Rugby Board and .BASKETBALL with FIBA, the International Basketball Federation.TLDH has submitted a further 68 gTLD applications on its own behalf, and one application as a joint venture in .music. In aggregate, the company’s application fees amounted to $13,597,500. However this will only be a small portion of the development fees associated with getting the expected new gTLDs online. A complete list of the gTLDs TLDH has applied for on its own behalf are below.Another of the bigger players is Directi, a developer of innovative mass-market web products serving millions of customers worldwide. Directi have applied for 31 generic strings, which are listed below.The gTLDs that TLDH has applied for on its own behalf are:
67. 购物 (“SHOPPING”)
68. 网址 (“SITE”).The gTLDs that Directi has applied are:
14. .HOME .SITE
26. .INSURANCE .LOANS
[news release] The Telecommunications Regulatory Authority (TRA) of the Sultanate of Oman, with the support of ARI Registry Services, officially relaunched the .OM country code Top-Level Domain (ccTLD) today in a move to ensure the ongoing stability and growth of the Internet within the country and greater Gulf region.
ARI Registry Services was selected by the TRA in March 2011 to provide domain name registry software and supporting services to revitalise the .om ccTLD.
The project will also include the launch of Ø¹Ù Ø§Ù. (.OMAN), the Arabic script IDN ccTLD for Oman.
Mohammed Al Kindy, Senior Manager Technical Affairs for the Oman TRA, said the project was important to the ongoing development of the Internet in Oman.
âThe relaunch of .om and launch of Ø¹Ù Ø§Ù. (.OMAN) will provide Internet users in Oman with a stable and reliable piece of infrastructure that is based on best practice domain name registry operation. This will provide an opportunity to expand the reach of the Internet in Oman and reinforce its importance as a national asset.
âWe thank ARI Registry Services for their support on this project,â Mr Al Kindy said.
Adrian Kinderis, CEO of ARI Registry Services, congratulated the TRA on the relaunch.
âThis project represents a significant advancement of the Internet within Oman and reinforces the Governmentâs commitment to provide the best possible Internet experience to its people. We congratulate the TRA for their foresight and dedication to developing the Internet in their region,â Mr Kinderis said.
âThe introduction of Ø¹Ù Ø§Ù. (.OMAN) will position Oman as one of only a few Arabic speaking countries with the capability to allow its citizens to navigate the web in their native language. This is something Oman should be proud of.
âThis has been a tremendous project for the team at ARI to be involved in. We have completely customised our solution to address the needs of the TRA and assist them in the revitalisation of a national asset. Our work has included the development of customised registry software to handle the various policy and business requirements that are specific to the region, the purchase and configuration of hardware along with the deployment of staff to implement our licensed product and educate the TRA on its management,â Mr Kinderis said.
With the new infrastructure the TRA has acquired, Oman will be open to more registrars and this will help further develop the .OM and Ø¹Ù Ø§Ù. (.OMAN) namespaces.
This ARI Registry Services news release was sourced from:
The South Australian government and its capital, the city of Adelaide, have declined to apply for the .ADELAIDE top level domain citing they cannot justify the costs involved, saying they are too high.South Australian Information Economy Minister Tom Kenyon says the figures don’t stack up. “The benefits promoted by ARI do not amount to a compelling business case,” he told Adelaide’s Advertiser newspaper.”It’s difficult to justify the additional cost of the TLD registration and the required ongoing management when there does not appear to be a problem in locating information.”A spokesperson for the Adelaide City Council, meanwhile, said that in addition to the application fee to ICANN, a further $50,000 to $100,000 has to be paid out for consulting fees, the Advertiser also reported.And on top of that figure, the spokesperson says, there are annual operating costs of around $125,000-to-$175,000 to be taken into consideration.”The process is very expensive and does not provide council with significant value for money,” she added.”Council currently owns a number of regular domain names which align with businesses as well as specific marketing of council strategies, initiatives and programs.”Offering a different point of view though was Ben Murray, the director of branding consultancy BMD Brands, who told The Advertiser that destination domains are a branding “dream come true” and thinks local governments are being short-sighted.”For South Australia or Adelaide to be able to attach itself to the businesses and activities that people come to our state for, is an outstanding branding opportunity,” he says.”The State Government needs to remove its tinfoil hat, show confidence in our state and make this small investment – ‘.ADELAIDE’ or ‘.SOUTHAUSTRALIA’ would assist our businesses in competing nationally and internationally.”ARI Registry Services CEO Adrian Kinderis also spoke to The Advertiser and said his organisation has been trying to convince the State Government and the council of the benefits of TLDs since 2009.”It’s disappointing – especially for a city like Adelaide, which puts great effort into putting itself on the global map through its various branding exercises,” chief executive Adrian Kinderis told The Advertiser.”It could be three years before this opportunity is offered again and what Adelaide risks is that there could be another Adelaide somewhere in the globe that could take that name.”Mr Kinderis also said that owning a domain allows governments to create an official one-stop shop to promote their cities, link local businesses and boost their online identity.And while it is costing interstate governments $US185,000 to apply for each new suffix, Mr Kinderis believes the operating costs would be recouped by NSW and Victorian businesses wishing to align their own websites with the official government domains.
[news release] In an announcement set to shake up the domain name industry, ARI Registry Services has announced it has been appointed as the exclusive registry services provider for Radix, a new entity within the Directi Group, that will be focussed on obtaining and running new generic TLDs. The Directi Group runs multiple successful businesses in the web services space including ResellerClub, LogicBoxes, BigRock and WebHosting.info.
Under the arrangement, Radix will aim to secure Top-Level Domains, under ICANN’s program to expand the Internet’s addressing system. ARI Registry Services will provide back-end registry and technical consulting services to Radix.
This latest in a string of new TLD appointments for ARI Registry Services will bring two of the domain name industry’s most successful entrepreneurs together.
Adrian Kinderis, CEO of ARI Registry Services, welcomed the appointment.
“This is one of the largest and most enterprising new Top-Level Domain initiatives ever announced,” Mr Kinderis said. “ARI Registry Services shares the entrepreneurial spirit shown by Radix and this latest appointment shows we are uniquely placed to support entrepreneurs seeking to tap into the multi-billion dollar domain name industry.”
“Radix needed a registry solution that is capable of handling high volumes and millions of domain names. They also required an operator with expertise, security, reliability and entrepreneurial grit. That’s why ARI Registry Services was selected as the successful candidate.”
“Directi runs some of the largest and most successful domain name registrars and web hosting companies in the world and I’m proud they have selected ARI Registry Services to support their ambitious new Top-Level Domain plans. This latest client win not only positions us as a leader in the registry services space, but reinforces the fact that you don’t have to be an existing gTLD registry in order to be successful in this program. The game is certainly changing.”
Bhavin Turakhia, Founder of Radix, said ARI Registry Services was clearly the candidate for the project following an extensive evaluation process.
“Directi is well known for breeding and nurturing highly successful business models and our plans for the new Top-Level Domain program are no different,” Bhavin said. “We have set ambitious goals as part of this new Top-Level Domain project and as such we went to the market seeking a provider with the flexibility to handle our demanding business requirements and the technical capability to guarantee streamlined operation. We found many registry providers were not capable of adjusting their offerings to suit our unique project. This is why we selected ARI Registry Services for this project because their approach to business mirrors ours.”
The exact TLD strings Radix will apply for with ARI Registry Services support will remain confidential until the May 1st public unveil.
This ARI Registry Services news release was sourced from: