In other announcements within the context of the new gTLD process, ICANN will require strict separation of entities offering registry services and those acting as registrars. No co-ownership will be allowed.

There was also support for the Clearinghouse and URS proposals that were posted on 15 February 2010 for public comment. Subject to amendments in response to the public comments the proposals are expected to be included in version 4 of the draft applicant guidebook, which is planned to be published in time for the Brussels meeting of ICANN in June 2010.

The resolutions are a positive outcome for brand owners, as it shows that ICANN is beginning to incorporate additional protections for brand owners, and to focus its resources on resolving the remaining issues prior to launch of new gTLDs.

Follow this link to view the complete list of ICANN Board resolutions from the Nairobi meeting

Given the reputation of these firms this indicates applications will receive a great deal of scrutiny and need to contain detailed and thoroughly documented support information.   For entities interested in applying for a new gTLD, this underscores the necessity of securing qualified assistance in preparing the application and operational plan.

The announcement with the current list of applicants can be viewed on the ICANN Website.

Specifically relating to the new gTLD initiative are the following comments:

The Internet has historically thrived whenever the system is opened up further to allow users to express their creativity and innovation. We are now working on opening up the top-level domains so that not only nations but also other peoples and groups can have a unique identity on the Internet.

For example, the chief of the Zulu tribe, His Majesty King Goodwill Zwelithini kaBhekuzulu, recently sent a letter notifying us of his intent to register the dot-zulu domain name so that different but related businesses and other groups can be linked by their domain name to the entire Zulu community. According to His Majesty, “We believe that the .Zulu TLD, as conceived and proposed by the Dot Zulu Project Inc. represents the best interests of the Zulu community and will be able to provide a viable structure for us as an evolving community.” New York City and the city of Berlin have expressed a similar interest in their own domain names. It is impossible to imagine the possibilities that could occur when these and a multitude of other TLDs are opened.

The ICANN responsibility to support methods for securely introducing new TLDs was specified in the original White Paper that led to our formation. And our original 1998 memorandum of understanding with the U.S. Government stated one of our key responsibilities this way: “Oversight of the policy for determining the circumstances under which new top level domains would be added to the root system.” It went on to say, “The Parties will jointly design, develop, and test the mechanisms, methods, and procedures that will achieve the transition without disrupting the functional operation of the Internet.” According to Chairman of the Board Peter Dengate Thrush, “We are declaring success on these points. It’s been 11 years. We have developed and tested those mechanisms, and we find that they work.”

Read the full article here

Members of the non-commercial user’s constituency were the most outspoken against the recommendations in general, calling for more detailed information and more precise descriptions of the types of abuse being targeted in the recommendations. On the other hand, The Government Advisory Committee (GAC) reported that it’s members benefited from the IRT briefings and the GAC believes that these are important issues that deserve focused attention to be resolved prior to the posting of the third version of the Draft Applicant Guidebook. Details of the presentations as well as a full transcript of the session are available by clicking here.

Summaries of Topic Discussions

The IP clearing house and IP claims concepts received strong support overall. As expected, there were many questions focused around who would create, operate and manage the clearing house and where the funding will come from. There were also discussions around other potential uses of the comprehensive database, and developing controls to ensure that the data wouldn’t be used for other than the intended purposes.

The proposed Globally Protected Marks List for protection of highly recognized names didn’t receive substantial support. The perception was such a list only benefits large businesses and offered no real benefit to the rest. Further, any minimum criteria likely would generate complaints from those who just miss making the list regardless.

The Universal Rapid Suspension System drew substantial criticism. More than a few saw the proposal as a replacement for the existing UDRP process. Several questioned the timing and mechanisms for notifying registrants of a dispute prior to a domain name being suspended. A number of opponents suggested considering URS elements as part of an overall review of the UDRP process. Ultimately there appeared to be a general willingness of agreement to improve the current dispute processes to assure mis-use by either respondents or complainants is avoided. The discussions between those for and against the URS made it clear that more detailed examples and cases of how the current system is being abused would help explain the reasoning for particular suggested changes.

ICANN is running further public forums to facilitate on-going discussions with the Internet community regarding workable solutions to some of the outstanding, overarching issues, particularly trademark protection and malicious behaviour. The forums will be in New York on July 13, London on July 15, Hong Kong 24 July, and Abu-Dhabi (tbd).

A number of key issues within the current applicant guidebook are yet to be resolved, but many proposed changes have been made and are now available for review and comment. The public review and comment period to the Revised Excerpts and Additional Explanatory Material on the changes opened on 31 May 2009 and extends through 20 July 2009.

Publication of the third, revised draft of the guidebook is pending resolution of overarching issues which has to happen before the first round of applications can begin. A key outstanding issue is protecting consumers and preventing abuse. A proposed measure that has ICANN support is the publication of a centralized, thick WHOIS database. This is seen almost universally as a way to lessen the burden on brand holders, law enforcement and others by helping to quickly and efficiently curb abuse in new gTLDs. In addition to recommending the thick WHOIS implementation, ICANN acknowledged the need for the development of an efficient mitigation processes at the registrar level and additional fine-tuning of proposed dispute resolution processes.

ICANN outlined plans to conduct consultative meetings on the numerous trademark issues beginning in Sydney in June, and continuing through July in other geographic regions on the effectiveness of proposals in addressing the overarching issues submitted by the IRT and others. The goal of the meetings is to resolve the outstanding issues in order to publish the final Applicant Guidebook in December 2009, allowing the first round of gTLD applications in the first quarter of 2010 as previously proposed. However, ICANN clearly stated there are no plans to launch the process absent resolution of the key outstanding issues.

ICANN’s Sydney meeting will be held 21-26 June 2009.

Click here to access the public comment analysis and the amended guidebook.

Allegations of cybersquatting by trademark holders continued to rise in 2008, with a record 2,329 complaints filed under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) administered by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Arbitration and Mediation Center.

In a report containing details on cybersquatting the WIPO Director General also took the opportunity to comment on the New gTLD process. “The creation of an unknowable and potentially vast number of new gTLDs raises significant issues for rights holders, as well as Internet users generally,” said Mr. Francis Gurry, WIPO Director General. “Cybersquatting remains a serious issue for trademark holders .”

This statement comes after ICANN has agreed to form a committee specifically to address these and other concerns of trademark holders before moving forward with approving new gTLDs.

Read the full WIPO release

• Tighter compliance requirements for Registry Operators, including rights for ICANN to audit some operations.
• Some lifting on restrictions on registry-registrar cross-ownership.
• The annual registry fee of $75,000 has been adjusted down to a minimum of US$25,000, and a US$0.25 transaction fee for registrations within more than 50,000 names.
• Refunds to the application fee if an applicant drops out at different stages in the process.
• Tighter definitions around geographic names.
• Auctions as a mechanisms of last resort to resolve contention between two parties wanting the same name – with any resulting funds being returned to the community via a separate foundation.
• Noted that it is unlikely that the application round will open before December 2009.

In addition ICANN has also identified issues that need more discussion before the Applicant Guidebook can be finalized.  These include:

• More work needed on protection of existing domain name registrants and end-user confusion.
• A technical analysis of the combined impact of the introduction of IPv6 records, DNSSEC, IDN-ccTLDs and new gTLDs (including IDNs) on the root zone.
• An analysis of specific types of malicious behaviour that may occur with new gTLDs.
• Enhanced protection for trademark holders.
• Economic study on the impacts of new gTLDs.

ICANN is now seeking feedback – both on the recent changes, as well as the major issues identified for further work.

The key concerns raised were:

• Brand protection issues and the impact on brands and trademark owners.
• Financial considerations, including evaluation fees, ongoing registry fees, and refund procedures.
• Various issues surrounding the proposed registry agreement, particularly price controls, registry/registrar separation, the management of future agreement amendments, equitable treatment, and others.
• General comments and concerns related to expanding the top level and its impact on the global marketplace, specific industries and Domain Name System stability.

ICANN will release a comprehensive analysis of the comments in early February 2009. ICANN also announced that it will be holding conferences in different global locations, and will be amending the draft RFP based on the feedback it has received. No date has been given for when the next release of the RFP will be available.

The Facts about the New gTLDs Webinar

•    “closed” gTLD – ICANN should identify a separate class of new gTLD where the applicant does not offer second level domains to third parties.

•    Application fees – provide a discount for applicants that apply for multiple names that are trademarks for the same legal entity (e.g product names)

•    Annual registry fees – for “closed” gTLD, allow brand owners to pay a lower annual fee for reserving the name as a brand protection mechanism (e.g $5,000).   For “closed” gTLDs reduce the annual fee for names that are trademarks for the same legal entity, and also reduce the fees as the volume of approved “closed” gTLDs increases.

•    Trademark protection at the second level – improve the protection for trademark holders at the second level, and match the level proposed to be offered at the top level.

•    Timeframe for the second round – announce a date for the start of the second round to be 6 months later than the date of publication of the applications for the first round.

Read Melbourne IT’s full submission to ICANN.