A series of recent applications for national trademark rights in terms that correspond to likely strings for new top-level domain names, or TLDs, (e.g., ".BLOG") highlight just one way in which ICANN's new generic TLD (gTLD) application process is likely to be "gamed." But it is also a strategy to which some trademark holders may feel compelled to resort to defend their rights to that string. Unfortunately, it does not appear that ICANN is addressing these important public policy considerations.
I outline the implications for value presented by ICANN's proposed introduction of new Top-Level Domains (TLDs) on user search and navigation, companies, and registries... For the new tools to be value adding they should facilitate navigation, reduce search cost, or provide actionable branding information through marketing. Unfortunately, the new TLDs bring in a mixed bag of value-adding and -destroying tools.
I recently learned about a meeting that took place between ICANN staff and Noncommercial Users Constituency (NCUC) members Kathy Kleiman and Konstantinos Komaitis regarding the Implementation Recommendations Team (IRT) recommendations for the protection of intellectual property rights in new generic Top-Level Domains (gTLDs). My comment relates to the White Paper published by Ms. Kleiman and Mr. Komaitis with respect to the notion of having multiple Regional Trademark clearinghouses (TMCs). For the reasons stated in this comment, the KK Proposal fails a number of the benchmarking checklists used by the IRT in evaluating proposals.
The new Top-Level Domain (TLD) process is occupying a lot of people in the domain name industry at present. While some people are obviously very much against the entire concept of new TLDs, there are plenty of people and organisations who support the project. But what happens when you have more than one organisation vying for the same namespace? ...Seemingly the competition between two rival bids for .eco (doteco) has been getting more than a little dirty in the past few weeks.
ICANN has announced that three more domain name registrars have lost their accreditation due to non-compliance with the RAA. The three registrars have been informed that their agreements with ICANN will not be renewed. South American Domains (NameFrog), Simply Named and Tahoe Domains have been sent letters by ICANN outlining the decision and the reasons for it. So what now?
In my previous article I showed that ICANN expects to recover a lot of money from the first round of applications for new generic Top-Level Domains (gTLDs) -- $92.5 million, to be exact -- and that even that dramatic figure is probably substantially underestimated. For that reason, I argued that ICANN probably will recoup a windfall from the first round of gTLD applications and pointed out that ICANN's promise to consult with the Internet community before spending such a windfall is unsatisfactory because it has failed to say beforehand what surplus revenues might be spent for.
First off all, still unknown to the masses, this newly proposed $185,000 USD generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD) scheme is in reality a suffix-less, custom-made, designer, globally exclusive domain name. Well done ICANN, as it is what the world needs now. However, ICANN has never mentioned this special marketing feature to date, as this suffix-less quality alone brings a major and a very positive revolution in cyber branding architecture for the net savvy marketers and dramatically changes the global thinking which has been primarily locked into a suffix based mentality when trying to reach for anything on the net; what name and what suffix?
Introducing new generic Top-Level Domains represents, as ICANN says, "the biggest change in the Internet since its inception 40 years ago." Among the least understood aspects of this change is its potential to alter the economic power of ICANN as an institution. To see how that might happen, let's follow the money as it is expected to flow from the gTLD application process. ICANN expects to get a lot of money from gTLD applications: $92,500,000, to be exact.
At the recent ISOC Asia conference in Kuala Lumpur a rather innocuous coffee break question was raised: could any one around the table name some of the major Top-Level Domains (TLDs) still delinquent in their IPv6 support? Nobody could answer on the spot but the question intrigued me. A logical place to start looking for an answer was ICANN.
ICANN has operated on the fundamental principle that there should be separation within the domain name marketplace between registries (wholesale) and registrars (retail). This fundamental principle has been a pillar upon which ICANN has provided registrants (consumers) with increased choice, innovation, and price savings. Therefore it was with great surprise when ICANN staff unilaterally undertook this initial vertical separation analysis through exclusive consultation with ICANN contracting parties (registrars and registries), while totally excluding non-contracting parties (individual, business and non-commercial registrants)...