Korean trustbusters raid Google offices


The Korean Fair Trade Commission, that country's antitrust agency, raided Google's offices in Seoul today, CNET has learned.

Regulators are apparently interested in information about Google allegedly limiting access to rival search engines on its Android mobile operating system. In April, two Korean Internet companies--NHN, which operates the popular Naver search engine there, and Daum Comminications--asked the country's Fair Trade Commission to investigate Google's business practices regarding mobile search.

It's also possible that mobile-device makers, some of which are based in South Korea, may have raised concerns related to restrictions Google places on use of its Android mobile OS.
In a statement, Google defended its Android strategy and said that it intends to comply with Korean regulators.
"We will work with the KFTC to address any questions they may have about our business," the company said in a statement. "Android is an open platform, and carrier and OEM partners are free to decide which applications and services to include on their Android phones. We do not require carriers or manufacturers to include Google Search or Google applications on Android-powered devices."

The Google Seoul office was also the target of a raid in May, when South Korean police investigated suspicions that AdMob, Google's mobile advertising unit, had illegally collected personal location data without permission, according to a Reuters report. At the time, a Korean police official told Reuters that that the police suspected Google of collecting personal location information "without consent or approval from the Korean Communication Commission."
Today's raid, though, appears to focus on a different matter. And if the focus is on Android, Korean authorities aren't the only ones looking. In June, Google disclosed that the U.S. Federal Trade Commission had served the company with a civil subpoena. Last month, The Wall Street Journal reported that the agency was targeting Android, looking into concerns about Google preventing mobile device makers that use the operating system from also featuring services from Google competitors.

Yahoo's Bartz out as chief executive


The Carol Bartz era at Yahoo has ended.
Bartz, named Yahoo chief executive in January 2009, is no longer in the job. In a note sent to Yahoo employees this afternoon, Bartz noted that the board fired her.
"I am very sad to tell you that I've just been fired over the phone by Yahoo's chairman of the board," Bartz wrote. "It has been my pleasure to work with all of you and I wish you only the best going forward."

Yahoo said that Chief Financial Officer Tim Morse has been named interim CEO. The news was first reported by AllThingsD.

When Bartz took over the CEO role from co-founder Jerry Yang in January 2009, the company was struggling to become more competitive and profitable. One of her first tasks as CEO was a reorganization of Yahoo in an attempt to make the Internet pioneer faster, simpler, and more responsive to those who use its services. But Yahoo has continued to founder under her leadership, never regaining the ground it lost to Web leader Google.


Rumors that Yahoo's board was secretly considering replacing Bartz had been circulating for months. Yahoo Chairman Roy Bostock declined to address the rumors at the company's annual shareholder meeting in June but did say the board "is very supportive of Carol and the management team." A spokesperson was more adamant, saying at the time, "Rumors suggesting there is or has been any sort of search for a replacement to Carol are categorically untrue."
In a statement this afternoon, Bostock did not disclose the board's reasons for removing Bartz, though he noted the "very challenging macro-economic backdrop" in which she led the company. And he, not surprisingly, was bullish on the company's prospects.
"I am very sad to tell you that I've just been fired over the phone by Yahoo's chairman of the board. It has been my pleasure to work with all of you and I wish you only the best going forward."

--Carol Bartz
"The board sees enormous growth opportunities on which Yahoo can capitalize, and our primary objective is to leverage the company's leadership and current business assets and platforms to execute against these opportunities," Bostock said. "We have talented teams and tremendous resources behind them and intend to return the company to a path of robust growth and industry-leading innovation. We are committed to exploring and evaluating possibilities and opportunities that will put Yahoo on a trajectory for growth and innovation and deliver value to shareholders."
Bartz spent 14 years as Autodesk's CEO before becoming executive chairman in April 2006. Before Autodesk, she worked at Sun Microsystems, 3M, and Digital Equipment Corp.
Morse joined Yahoo in June 2009, a former General Electric executive who came to the company from chipmaker Altera. Before joining Altera in 2007, Morse spent 15 years at General Electric in a variety of senior management positions, including chief financial officer of GE Plastics. Morse has a bachelor's degree in finance and operations and strategic management from the Boston College Carroll School of Management.

Yahoo's Tim Morse

For his part, Morse said in a statement that he intends to work with the board to "invest in the organization and continue to drive its ongoing growth plans."
Yahoo also appointed an Executive Leadership Council that will help Morse manage day-to-day operations until a permanent chief executive is appointed. The group will also oversee "a comprehensive strategic review" to improve growth prospects. That group includes Michael Callahan, executive vice president, general counsel, and secretary; Blake Irving, executive vice president and chief product officer; Ross Levinsohn, executive vice president, Americas; Rich Riley, senior vice president, EMEA Region; and Rose Tsou, senior vice president, APAC Region.
Bartz joined the embattled company after a rough year that saw Microsoft launch an unsolicited bid for the company but later walk away after a $33-a-share offer was rejected by Yahoo. The stock has lost more than half its value since then, never recovering to the price Microsoft offered.

The search pioneer was also the target of a proxy fight by shareholder activist Carl Icahn, who eventually joined Yahoo's board as part of a settlement with the company. He stepped down from the company's board in October 2009, and unloaded much of his Yahoo stake the following February.

Yahoo also tried to boost its revenue with an advertising search partnership with Google. But the search giant walked away from the deal when the U.S. Department of Justice notified the companies it would challenge such an arrangement under antitrust grounds. Shortly after the Google deal collapsed, Yang announced he would step down as CEO as soon as a replacement was found.

A tweet from former Yahoo executive Brad Garlinghouse after Carol Bartz was fired at Yahoo's CEO.

Her departure was hailed by at least one former Yahoo executive, Brad Garlinghouse. In 2006, he wrote the widely circulated Peanut Butter Manifesto, complaining that Yahoo was spreading itself too thin, not focusing on important strategy. Upon the news of Bartz's departure, Garlinghouse, now president of applications and commerce at AOL as well as the West Coast lead for its venture capital arm, tweeted: "ding dong the witch is dead."
The news of Bartz's firing came after the stock market closed. But the company's stock climbed in after-hours trading by 90 cents, or 6.97 percent, to $13.80.

Smartphones Unlocked: How cell phones get their names (column)

Welcome to Smartphones Unlocked, my new monthly column designed to explain the ins and outs of smartphones to help you better understand how they work. The world of smartphones is fast-paced and can sometimes be confusing and difficult to keep track of all the new technology in these devices, particularly if you're new to them, so if there are any topics you'd like to see covered here, please feel free to e-mail me at bonnie.cha@cnet.com.

Last month, my colleague Jessica Dolcourt wrote a great two-part series on how cell phones are born, along with some behind-the-scenes confessions from the handset designers. The articles provided a great insider's look at the cell phone design business, but there's another part that's always intrigued: how do cell phones and smartphones get their names?
In my seven years of reviewing phones, I've come across some great names and some that have come from the department of "What were they thinking?" Samsung has had its fair share of both, so for this month's column, I reached out to the handset manufacturer to shed some light on the subject. What follows is a Q&A session with Paul Golden, vice president of strategic marketing for Samsung Telecommunications America (Samsung Mobile).

Golden, whose responsibilities include coming up with brand and marketing strategy for new product launches, advertising, media, consumer and in-store promotions, walked me through how the company names its cell phones and smartphones. As I've learned since starting this column, the process is much more involved than I thought, so read on to see what's in a (cell phone) name.

Question: When do you begin the process of coming up with a name for a phone? Is it during the development process? Once a phone is complete? Somewhere in between?
Golden: As you might imagine, the product naming process and protocol is not the same for every phone Samsung manufactures. I can tell you that on average, the product naming process takes about five to seven weeks to complete, starting with the initial idea brainstorm and reaching completion once our team and our respective carrier partner for that device give their final approval.



Samsung Messager Touch

How do you come up with them? What influences the decision?
Golden: We develop a positioning statement for each product that articulates the consumer benefit and key support features. The positioning statement will act as a guideline to define the best product name.

How difficult is it coming up with a name? What challenges are there?
Golden: It is definitely a challenge to match the right name with the right product. First, we have to make sure that the product name is not already taken by a competitor or a very similar version of that product name. It can also be difficult to find a product name that has a balance between being memorable and descriptive, while also being relevant, quickly understood, and recognizable to consumers.

How long does the process take? What are the different stages and who gives the final approval?
Golden: There are typically six stages that a product will go through over a five- to seven-week period before its final name is selected and confirmed. The first phase is creative development where hundreds of names are provided from an extended brainstorm period. In the second phase, we take those potential product names to a legal pre-screen to determine possible conflicts with current or future products from our competitors and make significant cuts to the initial list.
The third stage involves taking a list of about 10 to 20 leading product name candidates to our carrier partners to get their impressions. The fourth stage moves those 10 to 20 product names into a full legal search for any conflicts or potential liabilities and risks. From there, the list is whittled down to the fifth phase, which is an even shorter list of product names that are submitted to our legal team to ensure the remaining options are defensible and legally protected.

In the sixth and final phase, one product name emerges as the selected go-to market name, complete with the legal research findings and all of that information shared with the carrier for confirmation.

Do you have a team or is there a dedicated person whose job it is to come up with names?
Golden: Samsung does have a dedicated individual whose chief responsibility is to manage the product name process through the six phases, including the feedback from our legal team and the product naming/branding counterparts at each carrier Samsung works with. It's important to note that iconic devices, such as the Galaxy S, receive more product naming attention and research and go through a more in-depth approval process with our senior executives.
Are focus groups ever involved?

Golden: Focus groups are generally not used, but we do conduct market testing research with consumers to help identify which product attributes and features would likely resonate the strongest when people are shopping for a new phone. Our ultimate goals in naming a product are driving Samsung's business and building an emotional and loyal connection with consumers.



Samsung Droid Charge

What part do the carriers play in the naming process?
Golden: Some carriers do own product names that evolve into specific brands across multiple manufacturers, such as Verizon and its Droid brand. But more often than not, Samsung conducts the product naming process for our phones and accessories and own the intellectual rights to that product name and potential future generations of products that share all or part of a older product name.

How much influence do the OEM's have? Can you tell the carrier that you want a phone to keep its original name/branding (e.g., Samsung Galaxy S II) or if you don't agree with a name, can you push back?
Golden: Naming a product is definitely a collaborative process between Samsung and our carrier partners. Let's face it, if the carrier is a big fan of a product name that we choose to bring to market, the better our overall synergy will be with the carrier in marketing, launching and promoting the product both in advance and after retail availability begins.
How different is the naming process for the U.S. and other parts of the world? When do you change the name of the same phone for different countries?

Golden: Many of the phones that we sell in the U.S. are unique to the U.S. market. In those cases the names will also be unique. For global devices, our preference is to use common naming as much as possible in order to leverage global media. In today's media world, there are no real borders so consumers get exposed to online and social media that we do globally as well as in the U.S. The more consistent we can be in our naming globally, the better. In some cases, we may have different strategies for product branding in the U.S. than other parts of the globe.
Does Samsung check a proposed name to see what cultural or religious meanings it has in other countries or societies?

Golden: Being a global company, Samsung and our legal counsel are very sensitive and careful to avoid introducing product names that could offend consumers here in the U.S. as well as other parts of the world. That is one of the reasons that our product naming process goes through multiple waves of legal reviews. Our legal agency checks names against other languages (always Korean) to ensure there are no potential hidden meanings. The Samsung HQ intellectual property team also will ask the meaning of a name if it is a coined name, such as APTOS, which combines apt and operating system.

What are some of the legal issues you have to deal with with coming up with names?
Golden: Aside from the obvious problems associated with launching a product name that is the same as a competitor, we also have to be aware of product names that could unintentionally mislead consumers into thinking that our phone or tablet has a specific feature or capability that it does not actually possess. Also, the mobile phone product industry is growing with more manufacturers and products every day. More products in the telecom industry creates a smaller number of original product names for Samsung and our competitors to choose from.
Once you come up with a unique name, is that exclusive to Samsung? Do you own it or can other companies use them?

Golden: Once a product name is registered as Samsung's intellectual property, our rights typically extend to exclusivity among the consumer technology industry. However, other consumer product industries, from cars to food or airlines all have the ability to use a name of one of our products, as long as their legal counsel can prove there is minimal to no chance that a consumer will confuse our product with the product from a completely unrelated industry.
Why do you use the model number for some devices?
Golden: We still use numbers on some entry-level feature phones where consumers are looking more for economy and basic functionality.



Samsung BlackJack II

Any names that have been favorites among customers, as well as within Samsung? Least favorite?
Golden: The Samsung BlackJack and its successors, the BlackJack II and the Jack, both seemed to resonate with consumers. More recently, our Galaxy S and Galaxy Tab portfolio of products have been very successful in branding Samsung as a provider of premium, durable, and powerful smartphones and mobile tablets. Out of fairness to our naming team and to keep me out of trouble, I should probably plead the Fifth on the least favorite product name.
Any fun brainstorming sessions or war stories you'd like to share?
Golden: Again, probably in my best interest to keep quiet on that question to keep myself out of trouble.

Finally, I have to ask about the Samsung :) (Smiley) and Messager. The use of an emoticon is novel, but got a bit of ribbing in the press. And Messager isn't technically a word. Can you share how these two names came about and provide some thoughts on some of the criticism?
Golden: For Smiley, I can confirm that T-Mobile owned the rights to that product name, so their marketing team would be the best place to start. In this case, the carrier had a very strong interest in the name.

On the Messager, you are correct that its not a proper word in the technical sense, but it Messager did a great job of conveying its primary use case in a very straight-forward way. The Messager had a slide-out full QWERTY keyboard and was marketed to teenage/young adults as a phone that was great for text messaging.

Dutch firm linked to many more fraudulent Net certificates




The number of fraudulent security certificates issued by a hacked Dutch firm has ballooned from the 247 reported last week to 531, and the main purpose of the attack appears to have been to spy on Iranian dissidents.

The list of domains for which fraudulent Secure Sockets Layer (SSL) certificates were issued by DigiNotar, a root certificate authority, now includes sites such as the CIA, MI6, Facebook, Microsoft, Skype, Twitter, and WordPress, among others, according to a list released this weekend by the Dutch Ministry of Justice. In the wake of the new revelations, the Dutch government has reportedly expressed a lack of confidence in the Netherlands-based company and taken control of it.

DigiNotar representatives did not respond to a request for comment.
The intrusion was revealed late last month when Google said Gmail users in Iran were at risk of having their log-in credentials stolen after someone broke into DigiNotar to steal the digital equivalent of an identification card for Google.com. The problem first surfaced on a Google support site on August 28. However, DigiNotar only acknowledged last week that it had detected an intrusion into its Certificate Authority infrastructure on July 19.
During the intrusion, someone issued fraudulent certificate requests "for a number of domains," but DigiNotar said earlier--when the list of affected domains was smaller--that it had revoked them. A fraudulent certificate allows someone to impersonate the secure versions of those Web sites--the ones that are used when encrypted connections are enabled--in some circumstances.
The Gmail incident affected mostly Iranian users, and it now appears the certificates might have been issued for the purpose of spying on Iranian dissidents, perhaps by the Iranian government. The Tor Project's Jacob Appelbaum, who published the list of affected domains, notes that one domain certificate on the list is "a calling card from a Farsi speaker," the language spoken by most Iranians:

RamzShekaneBozorg.com is a bogus address, and Appelbaum reported that "RamzShekaneBozorg" translates from Farsi to "great cracker," while "Hameyeh Ramzaro Mishkanam" translates to "I will crack all encryption" and "Sare Toro Ham Mishkanam" translates to "i hate/break your head."
Ot van Daalen, director of Bits of Freedom, a Dutch group that defends digital privacy rights, said the hacking put Iranian dissidents "at grave risk."

"It's horrible to say, but it's entirely possible that the hacking attack has endangered lives in Iran," Van Daalen told Radio Netherlands Worldwide."There is a real chance that the Iranian authorities have used these certificates to eavesdrop on users. And it can't be ruled out they will continue doing so with other certificates."

Appelbaum, who noted that DigiNotar's audit trail is incomplete, said the list includes certificate authority (CA) roots that should probably never be trusted again.
"The most egregious certs issued were for *.*.com and *.*.org while certificates for Windows Update and certificates for other hosts are of limited harm by comparison," Appelbaum wrote in a Tor Project post. "The attackers also issued certificates in the names of other certificate authorities such as 'VeriSign Root CA' and 'Thawte Root CA' as we witnessed with ComodoGate, although we cannot determine whether they succeeded in creating any intermediate CA certs."

The latest versions of Internet Explorer, Chrome, and Firefox have revoked trust in DigiNotar certificates, and users will see warnings if they visit Web sites that use that root authority's certificates.

This is the second time this year that the Iranian government has been linked to attempts to obtain fraudulent certificates to impersonate major Web sites. Comodo, a Jersey City, N.J.-based firm that issues digital certificates, said in March the nine certificates were fraudulently obtained. The Internet Protocol addresses used in the attack were in Tehran, Iran, said Comodo, which said that because of the focus and speed of the attack, it was "state-driven."
Kaspersky Lab's Roel Schouwenberg wrote in a blog post that the DigiNotar attack may prove to be more of a watershed moment than Stuxnet, a worm code discovered last year that is widely believed to have been designed to sabotage a uranium enrichment facility in Iran.
"The attack on DigiNotar doesn't rival Stuxnet in terms of sophistication or coordination," Schouwenberg wrote. "However, the consequences of the attack on Diginotar will far outweigh those of Stuxnet. The attack on DigiNotar will put cyberwar on or near the top of the political agenda of Western governments."

Verizon workers soon to be back on duty!


Verizon Communications said today its workers are heading back to work August 22 without a contract, signaling some progress on a new contract.
The New York telecommunications provider said the company and the two unions representing the workers--the Communications Workers of America and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers--have made headway in their talks over a new contract.

The workers, who are based in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic regions, are returning after striking for nearly two weeks. The strike was a distraction for the company, which had to fill the empty positions with replacement workers, retirees, and managers.

The workers returning will have no new contract. They will be temporarily working under the terms of the old contract.

"We agreed to end the strike because we believe that is in the best interest of our customers and our employees," said Marc Reed, head of human relations for Verizon. "We remain committed to our objectives, and we look forward to negotiating the important issues that are integral to the future health of Verizon's wireline business."

The unions said the two sides have agreed on the new structure of the talks, but warned that the sides were still far apart.

Indeed, the unions appeared to have been blindsided by Verizon's official statement on the temporary arrangement.

Not long after that statement was released, the CWA and IBEW sent out an updated response lashing out at Reed's comments.

"We are disappointed to see this quote from Marc Reed, Verizon's executive vice president for human resources, that the company hoped 'to convince the unions to begin bargaining with us in good faith.' It is both inaccurate and insulting," the unions said in a statement.

"We agreed with management not to claim victory in changing the process, re-instituting the contract, or shaping our goals," they said. "We will live by that commitment."

But the unions warned that if Verizon doesn't retract the statement, they would continue to "fight and fight hard," likely complicating the talks.

CNET has not yet heard back from Verizon about the unions' response to Reed's quote.

The strike began August 7, with the unions claiming Verizon was dragging its feet on negotiating.

The strike had turned bitter over the past two weeks, with Verizon taking legal action to curtail its workers' protests. The company claimed that union members prevented replacement workers from entering the building, harassed managers, and engaged in acts of sabotage. It said the company was working with the FBI to investigate the damage done to its telecommunications equipment.


Earlier this week, Verizon said it would soon strip away the striking employees' health benefits and medical coverage.

The union, meanwhile, said Verizon managers were being too aggressive in their driving, and claimed two dozen reports of strikers getting clipped by cars.

Verizon is attempting to change the terms of the contract to better reflect the realities facing the older landline business. Executives have said the changes are necessary given the competitive pressures from cable rivals and wireless providers.

Verizon is seeking changes that would allow it to more easily fire employees, tie pay to performance, and require workers to pay for a share of health benefits.

The workers point to the record profits of the company and have dismissed the need for changes in their contracts. They also argue that they are responsible for the fixed-line infrastructure necessary to run the higher growth wireless business.

Advertising groups lambaste Net address expansion


Advertisers and the Internet's overseers seem unable to reconcile a profound disagreement about the future of Internet addresses.

Three prominent groups representing advertisers--the Association of National Advertisers (ANA), Internet Advertising Bureau (IAB), and the American Association of Advertising Agencies (4A)--have come down hard on a program to dramatically expand the number of Internet addresses beyond .com and .net to a new class that could include everything from .berlin and .movie to .plumber and .pepsi. The International Corporation for Names and Numbers (ICANN), which oversees Net addresses globally, approved in June the program to expand these so-called generic top-level domains (GTLDs) starting in 2012.

The three groups urged ICANN to reconsider the domain-name expansion program. The strongest terms came from the ANA, which outlined its concerns in an August 4 letter to ICANN that threatens broader and "far more expensive" action than just strongly worded correspondence.

"Should ICANN refuse to reconsider and adopt a program that takes into account the ANA's concerns expressed in this letter, ICANN and the program present the ANA and its members no choice but to do whatever is necessary to prevent implementation of the program and raise the issues in appropriate forums that can consider the wisdom, propriety, and legality of the program," ANA said in its letter.

It sent copies to senior officials at White House, Commerce Department, and House and Senate judiciary committees. And in July, it sent a letter (PDF) to the Commerce Department's National Telecommunications and Information Administration saying "ICANN has violated its own Code of Conduct and abrogated its Affirmation of Commitments with the Department of Commerce," saying it shouldn't be taken for granted that the department will renew its contract with ICANN to manage Internet names.

But ICANN itself vigorously defends the program, dismissing many criticisms as ill-informed.

"The assertions in your letter are either incorrect or problematic in several respects," said ICANN CEO Rod Beckstrom in his response (PDF). After taking six years to come up with the program, ICANN shows no sign of giving an inch.

ICANN's tagline is "One World. One Internet." But the dispute reflects how hard it is to squeeze opposing agendas into a single globe-spanning technology.

GTLD expansion plan
Under the generic top-level domain expansion plan, registrars would apply to operate new domains that could include generic terms such as .movie or .eco. Registrars would control the new domains and potentially sell others rights to register their names, much as Network Solutions sells rights to use .com today. ICANN plans to accept the first applications from January 12, 2012, to April 12, 2012, and ICANN could add the new domains to the Internet itself before the end of 2012.

It's not cheap to participate: ICANN charges registrars an $185,000 application fee and $25,000 a year to operate a new generic domain registry.

One company that's expressed an interest is camera and copier maker Canon; .canon e-mails and Web addresses bring an opportunity to reinforce the brand and provide some assurance to a customer that communications aren't with a fake entity.

But it's possible that a registrar could set up the .camera domain, at which point Canon might feel compelled to pay that registrar for canon.camera. There could be different reasons for that move: Consumers might try to load that Web address, or companies might want to ward off cybersquatters--those who register a brand name address in hopes of selling it at a premium to a trademark holder.

Another possible problem: the financial uncertainty of auctions to decide who gets to operate a particular domain registry. That's not the sort of problem Coca-Cola would have, but there are plenty of cases where companies in different industries have the same or similar names.

To deal with these potential problems, ICANN has established a trademark clearinghouse to track trademarks and a mechanism to unplug trademark-infringing domains.

"We've created a brand-new system to allow...a very rapid takedown" of a domain found to be infringing trademarks, outgoing ICANN Chairman Peter Dengate Thrush said in June. "The tradeoff is...if someone brings a case, it's got to be argued and proved to a pretty high standard."

Dissatisfied advertising groups
That's not enough to satisfy the advertising groups. ANA, which says its 400 members have 10,000 brands and spend more than $250 billion a year in advertising and marketing, launched the current round of objections with its August 4 letter. Chief Executive Robert Liodice said:

By introducing confusion into the marketplace and increasing the likelihood of cybersquatting and other malicious conduct, the Program diminishes the power of trademarks to serve as strong, accurate and reliable symbols of source and quality in the marketplace. Brand confusion, dilution, and other abuse also poses risks of cyberpredator harms, consumer privacy violations, identity theft, and cybersecurity breaches...

Brand owners are essentially being forced to buy their own brands from ICANN at an initial price of $185,000. For companies with robust trademark portfolios considering multiple TLDs, the application costs can be exorbitant because a separate application must be filed (and paid for) for each separate name. At the end of this name-selling application process, if there are two applicants seeking TLDs with confusingly similar strings, ICANN determines the winner by auction, at costs to brand owners that could be staggering.

Then, on Monday came the IAB's criticisms. Among other concerns, the group said the GTLD expansion will offer cybersquatters "an opportunity to harm a brand's integrity and/or profit greatly from their bad-faith domain registrations." IAB CEO Randall Rothenberg said:

ICANN's potentially momentous change seems to have been made in a top-down star chamber. There appears to have been no economic impact research, no full and open stakeholder discussions, and little concern for the delicate balance of the Internet ecosystem, This could be disastrous for the media brand owners we represent and the brand owners with which they work. We hope that ICANN will reconsider both this ill-considered decision and the process by which it was reached.

And 4A CEO Nancy Hill criticized the ICANN plan in these words:

"We are very disappointed in the position taken by ICANN concerning the assignment and sale of new domain names. These changes would cost brand owners billions of dollars, severely, if not irreparably, diluting the value of trusted and respected brand names, as well as abrogate the good work 4A's members have done on behalf of their clients.

All marketers share the goal of a stable global marketplace, served by an Internet system that consumers can rely on to accurately reflect the quality and history of a product or service. ICANN's actions would remove that trust and place consumers at a significant disadvantage in making marketplace choices and decisions.

ICANN appears willing to risk the advertising groups' wrath, though.

In its response to ANA, ICANN said the GTLD process has safeguards that eliminate the need for companies to apply for domains defensively, merely to protect trademarks rather than to actively use them with a new domain. It defended its process as very much bottom-up, taking into account abundant feedback.

And Beckstrom--who will leave his role at ICANN on July 1, 2012--said ICANN won't bow to the views of a single group, even if it's one as powerful as major advertisers.

"Please be advised that ICANN will vigorously defend the multi-stakeholder model and the hard-fought consensus of its global stakeholder participants, its duty to act in accordance with established bottom-up processes, and its responsibility to the broad public interest of the global Internet community, rather than to the specific interests of any particular group."

Microsoft lists 'App Store' as a Windows 8 feature


An app store is officially among the features Microsoft is working to include in Windows 8, much like Apple's App Store for OS X.

The revelation, which confirmed months of rumors, came today from Microsoft President Steven Sinofsky in a Building Windows 8 blog titled "Introducing the team." Among a list of teams associated with building the forthcoming operating system was "App Store."

Sinofsky said that work on the new OS is organized by feature teams, of which there are about 35, each containing 25 to 40 developers.

"Many of the teams listed below describe features or areas that you are familiar with or that you can probably figure out based on the name," he said. "As we post more, team members will identify themselves as part of these teams."

Microsoft representatives did not immediately respond to a request for further comment.

Rumors that Microsoft was developing an app store for Windows have been around for more than a year. Based on a series of Windows 8 documents leaked June 2010, Microsoft has reportedly been eager to match Apple at its own game by offering its own dedicated app store.

An app store appeared in a demonstration of Windows 8 that Sinofsky gave at the All Things Digital D9 conference in late June. Included in the start-up menu tiles was a direct link to a Microsoft Store, suggesting that Microsoft was working it own version of an online application store, similar to Apple's App Store.

The company has also been working hard to keep Apple from winning a U.S. trademark for the phrase App Store. Microsoft argues the phrase is too generic to register and would restrict competitors' ability to use of the term to describe their own services.

Microsoft has not officially announced when the new OS would be released, but CEO Steve Ballmer said in May that the new OS would reach consumers in 2012, although the company later said Ballmer misspoke. In June, Vice President Dan'l Lewin hinted that Windows 8 would launch during the fall of 2012.