NEW gTLDs AND THE ROLE OF ICANN JURISDICTION REPORT: CANADA
Jonathan Cohen Shapiro Cohen
It is not possible to cover everything that is happening at the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) with the new generic top-level domains (gTLDs) in a short article. More than 400 new gTLDs have been approved and are live today. It
is too early to tell which will be successful, but preliminary observations suggest that .com remains, for most, the TLD of choice when conducting business. Te general view is that the most successful of the new gTLDs will be the .brands such as .apple. A .brand gTLD is an efficient way of marketing a brand: it ensures
people get to the website and teaches consumers that if the website name ends in .apple, for example, they can be confident about with whom they are dealing. Te problem with .brand gTLDs at this point is that the cost of purchasing and operating a gTLD is estimated to be between $300,000 and $500,000. Tat is prohibitively expensive, other than for companies of considerable size and whose brand is sufficiently well known by consumers to justify both the expense and the initiative. Tere is speculation in the marketplace about a fresh round of new
gTLDs. Informed rumours suggest there will be no more new gTLDs offered until the current round is complete and the appropriate review of the process/results has been completed. It is seen as prudent to carefully assess the success/failure of what was a very lengthy process, before opening up the system to further gTLDs. Informal comments indicate that the board of ICANN would prefer
not to have more rounds of new gTLDs, but rather that people will simply apply for new gTLDs as they become interested in them. Tis will not happen soon. Tere are always rumblings in the background about alternatives to the current domain name system (DNS) and ICANN.
Many countries continue to express concern about the undue influence the US exercises over the root zone and, indirectly, over ICANN. In particular, the exasperation of a number of European companies over ICANN’s refusal to block domain names and gTLDs that comprise geographical locations’ names has created political ripples extending to the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), a United Nations agency. Two other factors have created an environment in which there is some
uncertainty about the direction of internet governance and ICANN’s fitness for being the principal player in this field: 1. Te decision by the US government to remove its oversight of ICANN. Many countries are very uncomfortable with this decision. Several have expressed the view that this is too important a resource to be leſt in the hands of an independent non-governmental organisation, and it
www.worldipreview.com
ought to be in the hands of an organisation such as the ITU that is part of the UN (and moved to Switzerland to be free of the US legal system).
2. Somewhat related, there is again ‘talk’ of some countries separating from the internet and creating their own intranet, following the current difficulties in relations between certain nations, including Russia, and some of the countries in the Middle East. Tere are many counties where the content generally available on the World Wide Web is considered highly objectionable. In most of those countries, efforts are made to block sites that are
considered to be offensive, but it is difficult to do so. A local intranet could be closely controlled and would cut most people off. However, with satellites and other technology it is becoming extremely difficult for governments to effectively shut down what they do not want their people to see. For this reason, a lot of governments have said publicly and privately
that UN control of the DNS could more effectively address content issues, as ICANN has essentially little or nothing to do with that issue. It appears ICANN will survive and maintain its role in the internet
world. However, it must establish to the satisfaction of the US government and the members of the ICANN community that it has instituted an acceptable method for being held accountable. Te issue of establishing reasonable accountability for its decisions is crucial for the US to approve ICANN’s independence.
Jonathan Cohen is a senior partner at Shapiro Cohen. He can be contacted at:
jcohen@shapirocohen.com
World Intellectual Property Review May/June 2015 75
“A LOT OF GOVERNMENTS HAVE SAID PUBLICLY AND PRIVATELY THAT UN CONTROL OF THE DNS COULD MORE EFFECTIVELY ADDRESS CONTENT ISSUES, AS ICANN HAS ESSENTIALLY LITTLE OR NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT ISSUE.”
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 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100