NEW GTLDS


Donuts Inc, which put down $57 million for 307 TLDs, is rumoured to have a bank roll behind it of another $50 to $100 million that it can use at such auctions. It has proposed a novel solution to situations where there are multiple applicants for a string. In essence, winning bidders give money to their competitors, as the last remaining applicant pays whatever the second-highest bidder was willing to pay.


Other applicants are discussing the possibility of


joining one another to have


ownership of a string, rather than being forced to out-bid each other.


Some individuals are surrendering their application in return for their upfront fee and a small profit. This is the clearest instance of the monetisation of the domain name system at an ‘official’ level, yet no-one knows how it’s going to turn out. It is unclear which TLDs will be successful in the case of


those that


are designed to make money through public purchase of domains in that gTLD.


Tere are rumours circulating that Google may ultimately acquire a very large number of TLDs, but will not charge anything for users who want to own domain names in those TLDs. Tis has implications for other domain name providers, such as Go Daddy and others.


IP owners and advocates, such as the IP Constituency (IPC) of ICANN, have been vociferous in requesting improvements in the rights protection mechanisms (RPMs) in the agreements governing the operation of the new TLDs. Te objective is to deal expeditiously and inexpensively with what certainly could be a huge increase in the amount of IP cyber malefaction.


Te RPM issue has been a difficult battle which was spearheaded by a group called the Implementation Recommendation Team (IRT), formed by the IPC specifically to make a series of recommendations to the ICANN community for new RPMs.


Te IRT comprised a group of international trademark, domain name, and ICANN experts. Much of what they recommended has, in large measure, been adopted by ICANN into its applicant guidebook, which is the operational bible for new gTLD owners and operators.


However, even at this late date, discussions continue about amendments and improvements to the RPMs, and members of the IRT and IPC are continuing to speak out and generally advocate for improved RPMs, as suggested in their early report.


For those who have followed the growth and development of


48 ICANN, this is a particularly


interesting time. Te introduction of these new TLDs could be a watershed event in ICANN’s evolution.


Many of the applicants are famous brand owners who have decided that the best way to market their brands in the Internet era, and the best way to avoid cybersquatting and the need to purchase thousands of unwanted domains to prevent others having them, is to purchase and operate their own domain through a back-end registry.


Tere may be different versions of how this will be done, but essentially these registries will be closed and only those approved by the brand owner will be able to own domain names in those TLDs.


In some cases, the brand owner will educate consumers on the fact that unless material they receive, such as invitations, prizes and promotions, originates from the brand’s particular TLD, then regardless of what the second or third- level domains are, that material is not authentic. It then becomes a ‘buyer beware’ system.


For the time being, most of the other issues ICANN faces have received much less attention than usual. Te number of people attending meetings is up, as people with an interest in the outcome and selection process of new gTLDs are present to argue, negotiate, purchase, or otherwise try to achieve a desired result. When these matters are finally settled, ICANN will probably have a very large amount of money in its chest, giving it a greater degree of economic independence, and the ability to take on new roles or to fulfil better those it now has.


If, as expected, Trademarks Brands and the Internet Volume 1, Issue 4 an increasing number of corporations that are famous brand owners www.worldipreview.com shared


“WHEN THESE MATTERS ARE FINALLY SETTLED, ICANN WILL PROBABLY HAVE A VERY LARGE AMOUNT OF MONEY IN ITS CHEST, GIVING IT A GREATER DEGREE OF ECONOMIC INDEPENDENCE.”


obtain their best known trademarks as TLDs, it may change the landscape of ICANN. All these brand owners will then become registries and some will also become registrars. Instead of being able to join only the business constituency or the IPC, they will be entitled to join the registrar or registry constituency.


Te question, then, will be whether a number of companies will be able to dominate these constituencies. Bylaw changes have been made to prevent what ‘full-time’ or dedicated registrars or registries would believe to be unreasonable capture by these brand owner registries. Tere may be considerable friction in due course.


As usual, it is interesting times at ICANN. Reactions, including those from


the


Government Advisory Committee, confirm that the only thing that is certain about the introduction of this large number of new TLDs is that there is uncertainty. Stay tuned. 


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 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 of


directors and twice on the board


the Canadian Internet Registration Authority (CIRA), which administers .ca


Cohen was the founder and first president of the IPC in 1999, and served on the first council of the Domain Name Supporting Organization (DNSO), now Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO). He has spoken and written on ICANN and domain name issues for 15 years.


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