.crypto domains launching on 12/11

[Unstoppable Domains]

Hi NamePros,

We’re announcing the launch of the .crypto domain extension on 12/11. 50,000 domains have already been registered. Go to https://unstoppabledomains.com/?ref=namepros to find available domains.

You’ve probably all heard about cryptocurrency, but may not be aware that new domain extensions are being launched on blockchains. These domains are not part of the ICANN system. They are stored by the owner, with their private key, not by a registrar like Godaddy. No one can transfer a domain or update it other than the owner. If you store website content on decentralized storage instead of Amazon Web Services, then no one can take down your website other than you.

A blockchain domain + Decentralized storage = An uncensorable website

This is the beginning of an entirely new internet built to protect free speech around the world.


Blockchain domain features

• No Renewals - Pay once and it’s yours ... forever
  
  
• No Custodian - Domains are stored by the owner. No third party can move or update them
  
  
• Payments - The domain can be used as a payment address for cryptocurrencies. Send Bitcoin, Ethereum, Litecoin, or any other currency all to the same domain
  
  
• Uncensorable Websites - Attach domains to content on decentralized storage and create an uncensorable website
  
  
• Transfers - Escrow agents aren’t needed. Transfer to anyone in the world in under 1 minute with no risk of being defrauded

We’ll be moderating this thread and we’d love to hear your thoughts!


Brad Kam, Co-founder

This was a promoted post.​

 

[bmugford]

Actually, it should be moved to a new category titled "Blockchain Domains."

This is the only conversation we will see in this space. Web3.0 is coming and we will see more users enter this space as the technology continues to develop.

@Eric Lyon - Can we set up a "Blockchain Domains" category?

It is clearly promoting a product. It is promotional.

https://www.namepros.com/forums/promotional.15/

Brad

 

[Unstoppable Domains]

Is a category the same as a discussion/forum? I know a lot of different folks that are working on this stuff would love to post and create threads on the topic. Might be helpful if general information about the industry was all in one place.

 

[Unstoppable Domains]

I'm happy not to promote any product. I'm just trying to identify where we should have the discussion around blockchain domains.

 

[Unstoppable Domains]

Hi Brad,

thanks for posting this information, and welcome to Namepros!

2 questions which immediatelly comes to mind:

1) How will you handle the situation when another company applies for .CRYPTO extension in standard ICANN process, and will get rights to operate the extension?

In another words, if person A now purchase your blockchain domain name, let's say example.crypto, and person B will purchase a standard ICANN domain name example.crypto (in case .CRYPTO is granted in standard ICANN process to some domain registry in future), which website will be resolved in standard brownser ? This is hypothetical situation, but given the popularity of keyword "crypto", there are chances someone might apply for .crypto.

2) How will you handle the situation when illegal content will be stored at webpages on blokchain .crypto domain name, and valid court order from major jurisdiction (USA, EU) will be issued to remove the content/website?

Many thanks for clarification

1) That process is at least 3 years away. By that time, we will already have many major applications resolving .crypto domains. We think it will be difficult for the ICANN tld to replace this actual usage. Also, what would be the point of such a .crypto ICANN tld? Who would use it if it actively competes with the entire crypto community and doesn't work for payments or censorship resistant websites (the whole point of blockchain domains)
2) A court order or injunction will I'm sure be issued at some point. However, we do not control the domain names or web content. The user does with their private key. The courts will need to physically get control of that key to take down the website. There's nothing we can do.

We of course don't condone illegal activity and will work to discourage it. Objectionable content will likely not be resolved by browsers and search engines so it will be much harder to find.

Thanks for the great questions and discussion!

 

[Unstoppable Domains]

That is fine. What is to stop endless other alternate root providers from launching their own .crypto then?
Nothing really.

Brad

Anyone can launch. That's easy. Not everyone can get their system supported. That's hard. Apps that already support our version of .crypto are not going to resolve a colliding version. .Crypto is already supported by top crypto apps.

 

[CJ6]

So, I have a question... wouldn't ICANN remove applications due to trademark violations? Or not really? Because Unstoppable Domains has the trademark on .crypto. So, couldn't this help to prevent another entity from claiming .crypto domain extension?
Link: http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4802:911225.2.12

(I'm not a trademark lawyer and don't have a clue.)

 

[CJ6]

It would be absolutely pathetic if .crypto was centrally controlled through ICANN.

 

[Unstoppable Domains]

So, I have a question... wouldn't ICANN remove applications due to trademark violations? Or not really? Because Unstoppable Domains has the trademark on .crypto. So, couldn't this help to prevent another entity from claiming .crypto domain extension?
Link: http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4802:911225.2.12

(I'm not a trademark lawyer and don't have a clue.)

I'm not an attorney either, but yes, legitimate use is a big part of TM claims. We can already demonstrate that use and will continue to demonstrate it for the next 3 years. I think we'll be in a pretty strong position. It definitely makes it difficult for ICANN to quickly and easily sell it to someone else. And while the ICANN process drags on, people will be using their .crypto domains.

 

[bmugford]

So, I have a question... wouldn't ICANN remove applications due to trademark violations? Or not really? Because Unstoppable Domains has the trademark on .crypto. So, couldn't this help to prevent another entity from claiming .crypto domain extension?
Link: http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4802:911225.2.12

(I'm not a trademark lawyer and don't have a clue.)

As far as I know you can't trademark a domain extension.
It has been tried in the past and did not stop ICANN from delegating any extensions.

If this was the case then anyone could just file a trademark for a non-existent extension and then block it on those grounds.

Brad

 

[bmugford]

It would be absolutely pathetic if .crypto was centrally controlled through ICANN.

That is what I expect to happen.

If there is another round of new extensions, I would expect the odds of that being an ICANN delegated extension to be about 99%.

Brad

 

[garptrader]

While current .ZIL or .CRYPTO domain holders do not have trademarks, if they are using them for legitimate business purposes (wallet to wallet transfers, crypto investments, etc), do they not already have a legit business use which would take precedence over any subsequent ICANN-launched equivalent? It would seem like any attempt to launch a non-blockchain .CRYPTO extension would be a marketing nightmare.

 

[CJ6]

As far as I know you can't trademark a domain extension.
It has been tried in the past and did not stop ICANN from delegating any extensions.

If this was the case then anyone could just file a trademark for a non-existent extension and then block it on those grounds.

Brad

However, they definitely have a business use and a working product. Therefore, UD may be able to take ICANN to court for a trademark violation, IMO, if ICANN issues a .crypto domain to another entity.

 

[Unstoppable Domains]

As far as I know you can't trademark a domain extension.
It has been tried in the past and did not stop ICANN from delegating any extensions.

If this was the case then anyone could just file a trademark for a non-existent extension and then block it on those grounds.

Brad

It is without precedent for sure. No one can be completely sure what will happen. However, the key to trademark claims in general is around legitimate use. If lots of people are already using a system, I think that's the most important thing.

 

[bmugford]

It is without precedent for sure. No one can be completely sure what will happen. However, the key to trademark claims in general is around legitimate use. If lots of people are already using a system, I think that's the most important thing.

It is not without precedent. New.net was using extensions on an alternate root and ICANN had absolutely no problem delegating them anyway.

There have been trademarks for other non-existent extensions on the primary root and ICANN has had no problem delegating them.

Brad

 

[Unstoppable Domains]

That is fine. What is to stop endless other alternate root providers from launching their own .crypto then?
Nothing really.

Brad

Applications integrating them. Apps don't want to go through this extra effort. They only did integrated us after thousands of their customers requested it. This is a huge barrier for new domain extensions to launch. We had to go through extensive technical evaluation as well as an analysis of the viability of the registry.

 

[bmugford]

However, they definitely have a business use and a working product. Therefore, UD may be able to take ICANN to court for a trademark violation, IMO, if ICANN issues a .crypto domain to another entity.

This has already happened with .MUSIC for instance.

An official Legal Rights Objection was filed by DotMusic Limited against .music applicants since DotMusic Limited had registered trademarks for ".music" and "dotmusic" in nearly 30 countries.

They lost the objection.

http://domainincite.com/14332-roussos-loses-last-music-lro

Brad

 

[Unstoppable Domains]

It is not without precedent. New.net was using extensions on an alternate root and ICANN had absolutely no problem delegating them anyway.

There have been trademarks for other non-existent extensions on the primary root and ICANN has had no problem delegating them.

Brad

Hey Brad,

I meant it's without a 'favorable' precedent. But I think that the decisions previously made around ICANN super-ceding other roots was pretty sensible. Prior to the viability of decentralized networks like Ethereum, it was important to trust a centralized group like ICANN to establish what the legitimate and official registries are. Now that we can put such systems on public blockchains for anyone to look at and review the code, it makes more sense to let apps and users decide what systems they think are legitimate or want to use.

 

[Internet.Domains]

Legal discussions will always bring disagreement. Although, most will agree that lawyers love new technology.

Anyone who knows about the browser wars will agree to that. While companies were battling for legal position most users remained unaffected.

 

[griff]

This has already happened with .MUSIC for instance.

An official Legal Rights Objection was filed by DotMusic Limited against .music applicants since DotMusic Limited had registered trademarks for ".music" and "dotmusic" in nearly 30 countries.

They lost the objection.

http://domainincite.com/14332-roussos-loses-last-music-lro

Brad

More recent update on that it seems:

https://twitter.com/mus/status/1118553249445863426
https://music.us/press-releases/global-music-community-wins-music-domain-extension-rights/

 

[bmugford]

More recent update on that it seems:

https://twitter.com/mus/status/1118553249445863426
https://music.us/press-releases/global-music-community-wins-music-domain-extension-rights/

Right. There is a difference between a community application and legal rights objection.
The discussion was talking about legal rights.

Also, I am pretty sure they were the successful bidder for it. It was not just awarded to them.
That is a big difference.

Brad

 

[CJ6]

Right. There is a difference between a community application and legal rights objection.
The discussion was talking about legal rights.

Brad

And its a great discussion... hopefully not needed.

 

[griff]

Also, I am pretty sure they were the successful bidder for it. It was not just awarded to them.

Yep you're right, separate case including their own application - looking at a few examples it seems they're pretty consistent with these kinds of things even in more vague cases like the .amazon one with regard to applications vs objections, quite interesting stuff

 

[Brands.International]

1) That process is at least 3 years away. By that time, we will already have many major applications resolving .crypto domains. We think it will be difficult for the ICANN tld to replace this actual usage. Also, what would be the point of such a .crypto ICANN tld? Who would use it if it actively competes with the entire crypto community and doesn't work for payments or censorship resistant websites (the whole point of blockchain domains)
2) A court order or injunction will I'm sure be issued at some point. However, we do not control the domain names or web content. The user does with their private key. The courts will need to physically get control of that key to take down the website. There's nothing we can do.

We of course don't condone illegal activity and will work to discourage it. Objectionable content will likely not be resolved by browsers and search engines so it will be much harder to find.

Thanks for the great questions and discussion!

You are welcome and thank you for your answer!

Regarding .crypto ICANN new gTLD, I would tend to agree with some other members here that there might a certain likehood that it might be granted to another company in future new gTLD rounds.

So imagine I buy your blockchain domain name, let's say lolwarrior.crypto, and I will spend time and effort to build a nice website on it. What is your guarantee that scenario with .crypto ICANN tld will not happen?

Because if that happens, then logically there would need to be a decision whether either blockchain .crypto domains or standard ICANN .crypto domains are resolved in browsers of typical internet users...and if that would be in standard ICANN .crypto favour, my blockchain .crypto domain name could still be used for another functions, like crypto payments, but it will loose it's ability to serve me as an domain name because the content will simply not be resolved in browsers of typical internet users.. is this correct understanding?

 

[Not a robot]

@Unstoppable Domains , what action will be taken against .crypto Web site that post child porn or sell human organ? If you will not govern the address, how is it not dark web or alternative web?

 

[Keith]

This idea reminds me of PayPal.me and them allowing people to get things like PayPal.me/deposit. It hasn’t went well or better yet, isn’t needed.

When people want to send funds via PayPal, they use an email address. Nobody asks what your cute PayPal.me address is.