INTA ON ICANN


“THESE NEW GTLD APPLICANTS HAVE MADE SIGNIFICANT INVESTMENTS IN ACQUIRING .BRAND GTLDS, AND SHARE THE CONSUMER PROTECTION


CONCERNS COMMON TO THE ENTIRE INTA COMMUNITY.”


Probably the most discomforting of all has developed in recent years with the increased scrutiny—and criticism—of ICANN over its introduction of


of Internet infrastructure. Other organisations, such as ICANN’s IPC and Business Constituency (BC), the US Department


of Commerce the new generic top-level


domain (gTLD) programme. With several unintended glitches and unpredictable course changes in developing the programme, questions about ICANN’s governance raise the spectre of the crippling of the Internet’s stability.


How did we get to this point, and what can trademark owners and organisations such as the International Trademark Organization (INTA) do to mitigate the problems?


Trademark owners weigh in on new gTLDs


As a founding member of ICANN’s Intellectual Property Constituency (IPC), INTA supports ICANN as the appropriate technical coordinator of the Internet’s system of unique identifiers, aka domains, and works within ICANN’s multi-stakeholder model to represent the views and interests of trademark owners. ICANN’s previous expansion of the TLD system in the early 2000s occurred within an environment where cybersquatting and malicious use of domain names was eroding consumer trust in the Internet marketplace.


Consequently, in 2009 INTA’s board of directors adopted a Resolution on the Creation of New gTLDs and Trademark Protection which unequivocally stated that


the introduction of


new gTLDs should be responsible, deliberate and justified.


INTA was not alone in its concerns, which included the continued stability and security


38 Trademarks Brands and the Internet


and the European Commission admonished ICANN on what was considered a highly risky initiative.


ICANN’s shortcomings prompted


its Government Advisory Committee (GAC) to express concerns regarding inadequate consumer protections at a special consultative meeting held in 2011 between the GAC and the ICANN board of directors.


In an effort to address these widespread concerns and in particular those related to inadequate trademark protections in its programme, ICANN requested the IPC to form an implementation recommendation team (IRT). Although the IRT provided a comprehensive set of recommendations for protecting IP, referred to as rights protection mechanisms (RPMs), ICANN struggled to implement the measures effectively.


To address trademark protection concerns, ICANN mandated that all new gTLDs implement a minimum of two RPMs to safeguard IP rights. The RPMs consist of a sunrise period and a trademark claims service. On the advice of the IRT, the Trademark Clearinghouse was developed as a central repository for trademark rights that would be used to implement such RPMs. However, to date, the Trademark Clearinghouse remains underused by many trademark owners, while they continue to weigh the costs against the potential benefits.


It remains to be seen whether recent enactments to the RPMs will increase or decrease the popularity or


effectiveness of Volume 2, Issue 2 olume 2, Issue 3


the Clearinghouse. Furthermore, a number of applicants for new gTLD registries are seeking to


offer additional registration


periods and rules that may interfere with the established RPMs. ICANN must ensure that


the trademark protections embedded


in its new gTLD programme are not devalued or rendered ineffective during the implementation process.


New gTLD programme is launched, but concerns persist


Fast forward to August 2013, and ICANN is facing mounting and difficult security, stability and legal rights issues as the various provisions of the new gTLD programme are being implemented.


Exacerbating the


situation are the shifting positions of various stakeholders. The GAC issued its Beijing and Durban Communiqués providing advice on certain new gTLDs. These included objections to a number of applied-for strings that some in the Internet community argued were without basis in generally accepted principles of law. In a first move to help inform this process, the ICANN board solicited comments on the Beijing Communiqué from the community on how it should address some of the issues raised by the GAC.


One of these issues relates to ICANN’s central mission to preserve and enhance the operational stability, reliability, and security of the Internet’s domain name system. On August 5, 2013, ICANN released a study on ‘name collisions’ that identified two strings that, given their high frequency of appearances in queries to the Internet root zone, would likely cause problems if delegated. Tese strings are .home and .corp;


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