Resources

ICANN has carefully followed its processes and bylaws for bottom-up consensus policy development with new TLDs. Starting with the original GNSO recommendation for new TLDs and developed methodologically over three years (and over 10 million dollars is analysis costs), this has resulted in the current Draft Applicant Guidebook. While not all constituencies will be happy with all aspects of this outcome, this decision is the concensus of the world Internet community and represents the best interests of that community as a whole. This page lists some answers pertaining to key issues surrounding the new round. Here is a response to some of the current objections to new TLDs.

Has anybody done a thorough study on the economic demand for new TLDS?

Yes. On June 6, 2009, ICANN posted two detailed reports on the Economic Demand for new TLDs, by doctor Dennis Carlton.   The very comprehensive (and independent) analysis concludes that “The benefits of free entry are well-recognized, and the introduction of new gTLDs is likely to benefit consumers by subjecting .com and other gTLDs to increased competition, widening choice available to consumers, and facilitating innovation”.

Is there any other quantifiable data showing demand for new TLDS?

In the month since Pool.com and Quintaris, partners in providing business and technical support for new gTLDs, began allowing consumers to pre-order Internet domain names in likely new registries that will compete with existing ones like .com, .net or .uk, the total number “spoken for” has averaged 10,000 per day.

Furthermore, as stated in Mr Vancouvering’s letter to the CEO, there is demonstrated demand for facebook vanity URLs. In a matter of weeks, Facebook registered 73 million personalized names, almost as much as “.com” has in its entire existence. While this does not prove that all TLDs will be succesful, it does show strong demand for web addresses with powerful communities attached to them. We suspect .facebook, .twitter, .myspace would all be mega hits.

But isn’t .com good enough for consumers?

Minds and Machines, a registry back end provider, has submitted a white paper detailing the inability to find inexpensive names in the popular .COM namespace, and how the new TLD process will help clean up the internet. Some points from that paper include:

Useful .COM names are phenomenally expensive. It is next to impossible to find a useful .COM domain name for under $100 – the “real price” of a .COM domain name

Even while not comparable to .COM, the numbers for some recently-introduced TLDs are quite large. With over 1 million .MOBI names, 5 million .INFO names, and 2 million .BIZ extensions, even new TLDs with a very attenuated semantic meaning have proven to have demand.

Won’t this be bad for Trademark holders?

While a few large, vocal multinational corporations have come out strongly against new Top Level domains, the vast majority of Trademark holders will benefit from new, pro-trademark features which are part of the new ICANN round.

In May 2009, the ICANN’s Implementation Recommendation Team (IRT), consisting of 18 experts on trademark protection on the Internet, released its Final Report on Trademark Protection in New gTLDs. According to ICANN, “The IRT was formed by ICANN’s Intellectual Property Constituency in accordance with the 6 March, 2009 ICANN Board resolution. The resolution was in response to the request by the community seeking solutions for potential issues for trademark holders in the implementation of new gTLDs. The team reflects experiential and geographic diversity and is comprised of 18 members and two alternates. In the process of developing its recommendations, the IRT consulted with WIPO and the broader community, and evaluated the public comments received in response to the posting of the Draft IRT Report on 24 April, 2009.”

The final report suggested a variety of innovative solutions to the concerns of trademark owners including:

  • The introduction of an IP Clearinghouse, Globally Protected Marks List and associated Rights Protection Mechanisms, and standardized pre-launch rights protection mechanisms

“The IRT recommends the creation of an IP Clearinghouse to support new gTLD registries, in general, and in operating cost-effective RPMs that do not place a heavy financial or administrative burden on trademark owners, in particular.

The IRT recommends the creation of a Globally Protected Marks List (GPML) to provide protection to Globally Protected Marks (GPMs) at the top and second levels.”

  • Uniform Rapid Suspension System

“The Implementation Recommendation Team (“IRT”) recommends that all new gTLD registries be required, pursuant to their contracts with ICANN, to take part in a Uniform Rapid Suspension System (“URS”). The purpose of the URS is to provide a cost-effective and timely mechanism for brand owners to protect their trademarks and to promote consumer protection on the Internet. The URS is not meant to address questionable cases of alleged infringement (e.g., use of terms in their generic sense) or for anti-competitive purposes or denial of free speech, but rather for those cases in which there is no genuine contestable issue as to the infringement and abuse that is taking place.”

  • Post delegation dispute resolution mechanisms

“After further consultation with WIPO and review of the public comments, the IRT remains convinced that a Post-Delegation Dispute Mechanism is a necessary rights protection mechanism.”

  • Whois requirements for new TLDs

“After carefully consideration, the IRT believes that the provision of WHOIS information at the registry level under the Thick WHOIS model is essential to the cost-effective protection of consumers and intellectual property owners. For this reason, the IRT recommends that ICANN amend the proposed Registry Agreement to include an obligation that all registry operators for new gTLDs must provide registry-level WHOIS under the Thick WHOIS model currently in place in the .info and .biz registries. In addition, the IRT recommends that ICANN immediately begin to explore the establishment of a central, universal WHOIS database to be maintained by ICANN. Such a Universal database would provide robust, publicly accessible WHOIS database covering all gTLDs. The IRT understands that ICANN requested that this initiative take place as part of the .net redelegation. However, the IRT is not aware that this project has ever been started.”

  • Use of algorithm in string confusion review during initial evaluation

The recommendations of the IRT in conjunction with the new gTLD application round provide trademark owners with powerful new weapons in the fight against online abuse of their marks. Presumably, if successfully implemented with new gTLDs, the recommendations would be applied to existing gTLDs as well.