ICANN
or confusingly similar strings, the Applicant Guidebook encourages applicants to resolve such issues among themselves prior to the string contention resolution stage of the application process. Indeed, since the announcement of the list of applied-for strings, some applicants have begun to engage in negotiations with other applicants to settle string contention issues.
In some cases, negotiations towards the resolution of string contention may result in a situation where ‘money talks and others walk’, with one applicant effectively buying out the rest, eliminating the need for an auction, and then being able to control the TLD alone. String contention is eliminated by one or more applicants withdrawing their applications.
Other applicants may find a way to reconcile their differences and successfully come to an agreement whereby multiple applicants manage and use the sought-aſter TLD. Such an agreement may consist of promoting the application of a selected applicant, with the understanding that those partnered with the successful applicant will be entitled to a level of involvement in the management of the new gTLD. Agreements of this sort are possible where a generic gTLD lends itself to a community-based approach to management, whether or not the applications were filed as such.
Where negotiations for multiple applicants
to own and run a TLD occur, dividing rights among applicants can be challenging. New gTLDs secured by groups of applicants may be effectively divided among these parties, each hypothetically having
the ability to
use the gTLD as part of a consortium of owners. However, there may be differences or conflicts in views regarding how the TLD should be organised or controlled.
As an example, many applicants could have applied for the generic TLD .learn (but did not). It is conceivable that one such hypothetical applicant could intend to use this TLD commercially for the promotion of
schools, 52
“NEW GTLDS SECURED BY GROUPS OF APPLICANTS MAY BE EFFECTIVELY DIVIDED AMONG THESE PARTIES, EACH HYPOTHETICALLY HAVING THE ABILITY TO USE THE GTLD AS PART OF A CONSORTIUM OF OWNERS.”
including who should control the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) function. Tese issues have slipped below the radar given the current blinkered focus on new gTLDs, but are forgotten at the peril of ICANN and others.
At
colleges, and universities. Other applicants might plan to dedicate the TLD to the pursuit of knowledge in general, to encourage students to pursue careers in particular areas, to encourage libraries to collect information, or
to make
education accessible in a particular field, to name a few examples. Tese conflicting views are difficult to reconcile among applicants, particularly where an applicant’s purpose in acquiring a gTLD is primarily commercial as opposed to charitable.
Over the coming months, it will be interesting to watch the jockeying and objections by applicants and others. However, the position of the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) on various applications will also be notable. Te GAC comprises national governments, governmental organisations and distinct economies, and is an adviser to the ICANN Board on public policy issues, particularly those pertaining to national laws and international agreements. How the GAC plays out in its advisory role over the expansion of the domain name system will be not only interesting but crucial to the success of the new gTLD programme. Particular attention must be paid to the advice of the GAC, and the public must ensure their views are heard by contacting their country’s representative.
ICANN has always been politically charged, and never more so than now. Te International Telecommunication Union (ITU), United Nations, Global Internet Community and others remain divided about the role ICANN should play in the expansion of the Internet,
Trademarks Brands and the Internet Volume 1, Issue 3 the next ICANN meeting in Toronto,
Canada in October 2012, in addition to further applicant negotiations, the project plan for the second round of new gTLDs will be discussed, as well as matters that continue to be important to brand owners, such as the status of the uniform rapid suspension (URS) and the Trademark Clearinghouse.
Jonathan C. Cohen is the senior managing partner of Shapiro Cohen in Ottawa, Canada. He can be contacted at
jcohen@shapirocohen.com
Jonathan C. Cohen is based in Ottawa, Canada. He has practised exclusively in trademarks since joining Shapiro Cohen as a founding partner in 1963 and has worked extensively with ICANN since its formation in 1998, serving two terms on the board of directors and twice on the board of CIRA, which administers .ca. Cohen was the founder and first president of the Intellectual Property Constituency (IPC) in 1999, and served on the first (DNSO) GNSO Names Council. He has spoken and written on ICANN and domain name issues for 15 years.
www.worldipreview.com
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56