27,652
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 109:
Line 109: − + Line 122:
Line 122: + + + + + + + +
no edit summary
ICANN estimated that the new drawing/lottery system should speed up the implementation of new gTLDs, with delegation estimated to begin in the second quarter of 2013, rather than the earlier estimate of the fourth quarter of 2013/first quarter of 2014. Initial evaluation results will be released at a rate of about 150 per week starting in March, 2013. Contracts and pre-delegation testing will be done at a rate of about 20 per week, which allows for about 1,000 new gTLDs to be introduced in any given year. [[IDN]] new gTLD applications will be given priority in the process, which ICANN has explained to be in the interest of better diversifying the Internet internationally.<ref>[http://domainincite.com/10729-new-gtld-winners-will-be-decided-by-lottery-after-all New gTLD Winners Will be Decided by Lottery After All, DomainIncite.com]</ref>
ICANN estimated that the new drawing/lottery system should speed up the implementation of new gTLDs, with delegation estimated to begin in the second quarter of 2013, rather than the earlier estimate of the fourth quarter of 2013/first quarter of 2014. Initial evaluation results will be released at a rate of about 150 per week starting in March, 2013. Contracts and pre-delegation testing will be done at a rate of about 20 per week, which allows for about 1,000 new gTLDs to be introduced in any given year. [[IDN]] new gTLD applications will be given priority in the process, which ICANN has explained to be in the interest of better diversifying the Internet internationally.<ref>[http://domainincite.com/10729-new-gtld-winners-will-be-decided-by-lottery-after-all New gTLD Winners Will be Decided by Lottery After All, DomainIncite.com]</ref>
==ICANN 45==
==ICANN 45 & Further Developments==
At [[ICANN 45]] in Toronto, Canada, in October 2012, [[Kurt Pritz]] provided some updates on the new gTLD program.
At [[ICANN 45]] in Toronto, Canada, in October 2012, [[Kurt Pritz]] provided some updates on the new gTLD program.
* [[GAC]] Early Warnings should be expected shortly after the close of the meeting.
* [[GAC]] Early Warnings should be expected shortly after the close of the meeting.
The most notable failure to hold to these points was delaying the release of the [[String Similarity Panel]] until March 1st. This caused anxiety given that ICANN was unable to produce a clear rubric for how strings are being categorized as similar, and also given the fact that the ruling of the String Similarity Panel is final with no appeals process built-in.<ref>[http://www.circleid.com/posts/20130121_a_serious_bug_in_the_similarity_check/ A Serious Bug in The Similarity Check, CircleId.com]Pub 21 Jan 2013, Retrieved 6 Feb 2013</ref>
The most notable failure to hold to these points was delaying the release of the [[String Similarity Panel]] until March 1st. This caused anxiety given that ICANN was unable to produce a clear rubric for how strings are being categorized as similar, and also given the fact that the ruling of the String Similarity Panel is final with no appeals process built-in.<ref>[http://www.circleid.com/posts/20130121_a_serious_bug_in_the_similarity_check/ A Serious Bug in The Similarity Check, CircleId.com]Pub 21 Jan 2013, Retrieved 6 Feb 2013</ref>
===Closed Generic Strings===
After ICANN published information on its 1,930 applications it was immediately noted that some companies had applied for a number of generic terms relevant to their business, writing in their applications that they intended to be the sole registrant for the TLD. There was no [[Brand TLD]] distinction in this round, though there were guesses that ICANN would create rules for such TLDs in any future round. Thus, the closed generic terms violated no rules as developed through the [[GNSO]] process and as included in the Applicant Guidebook. Some noted that this was in fact an intentional byproduct of the program that had been considered while others disagreed.<ref>User Summary, AM</ref>
The largest applicant for closed gTLDs is [[Amazon]], and many worried that their applications to control a large number of generic terms would result in them circumnavigating traditional navigation for shopping online and give them an unfair competitive advantage. Another notable portfolio client with multiple applications for closed generic terms is [[L'Oréal]].<ref name="WTR">[http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/Detail.aspx?g=7be56061-2229-412c-8f71-55bc20932cd8&utm_source=buffer&buffer_share=c3e5d WorldTrademarkReview.com]</ref> In late 2012, Amazon and other companies that applied for closed-generic strings received a [[GAC]] Early Warning from GAC Chair, [[Heather Dryden]]. The early warning system is the work of an individual GAC member but signals that the larger GAC organization may later issue official advice recommending the rejection of the TLD application as-is by the [[ICANN Board]]. Those applicants that receive warnings are encouraged to work with the objecting representative. The German representative also raised issues with regards to closed generics.<ref>[http://www.name.com/blog/ntlds/2013/01/the-gtld-land-grab-controversy-google-amazon-and-the-gac-part-ii/ The gTLD Land Grab Controversy Google Amazon and the GAC Part II, Name.com] Pub 14 Jan 2013, Retrieved 6 Jan 2013</ref><ref>[https://gacweb.icann.org/display/gacweb/GAC+Early+Warnings GAC Early Warnings, GACweb.ICANN.org]</ref>
Following further questions ICANN's New gTLD Program Committee looked at the issue. Information on their January meeting that was released in February 2013 shows that they were unclear how to even define a closed generic, what are the common attributes, what an appropriate remediation strategy would be, and further note that there is no violation taking place between the applications and the Applicant Guidebook, and they therefore have no room to comment or change policy without further direction from a policy development process started in the [[GNSO]]. Still, they opened up a public comment period on February 5th, 2013, to ascertain opinions on what a closed generic is, and what are the criteria for which a proposed registry can operate a "closed" or "open" string.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-05feb13-en.htm Announcement, ICANN.org]5 February 2013</ref>
Objections to closed generics have come from [[Microsoft]], who notes the danger they pose to competition on the Internet, and an online petition started by Tom Gilles of NewgTLDsite.com.<ref name="WTR"></ref><ref>[http://www.thedomains.com/2013/02/06/microsoft-is-latest-to-come-out-against-closed-generic-new-gtlds-in-letter-to-icann/ Microsoft is Latest to Come Out Against Closed Generic New gTLDs in Letter to ICANN, TheDomains.com] Published and Retrieved 6 Feb 2013</ref>
==Opposition==
==Opposition==
A number of high profile opponents have come out against ICANN and its new gTLD program, including: [[Association of National Advertisers]] (ANA), the [[Coalition Against Domain Name Abuse]] (CADNA), the [[Coalition for Responsible Internet Domain Oversight]] (CRIDO), the National Retail Federation,<ref>[http://www.nationaljournal.com/tech/icann-facing-growing-pressure-over-new-domain-name-plan-20111025 ICANN Facing Growing Pressure Over New Domain Name Plan, NationalJournal.com]]</ref> and others. Major corporations involved with these organizations include: Adidas, Dell, Toyota, Wal-Mart, Kraft Foods, and other prominent American and internationally known brands.<ref>[http://www.ana.net/content/show/id/22399 ANA.net]</ref> ICANN's new gTLD program also recieved negative Op-Eds by the editorial boards of the New York Times and Washington Post.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/26/opinion/expanding-internet-domains.html?_r=3&ref=internetcorpforassignednamesandnumbers Exapnding Internet Domains, NYTimes.com]</ref><ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/whats-the-rush/2011/12/09/gIQA5Ms9nO_story.html What's the .rush, WashingtonPost.com]</ref> ICANN was also the subject of the hearings within the [[U.S. Congress]], detailed below, and consequently received letters from Senators and Congressmen asking them to delay or reevaluate the program. Other government criticism included a petition for delay by the [[FTC]].<ref>[http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2011/12/icann.shtm ICANN, FTC.gov]</ref> Many of these critics were not explicitly anti-ICANN, but anti-new gTLDs. The most common complaint came from trademark owners and their lobbying groups, who believed that the new program would create significant costs for them via defensive registrations without adding any value to their marketing and commercial outreach programs. However, some saw this as a result of miseducation given that many trademark protections are built into the new gTLD program. Other concerns, such as those from former ICANN Chair [[Esther Dyson]], were focused on potential confusion for the end-user.<ref>[http://commerce.senate.gov/public/?a=Files.Serve&File_id=c81ce454-f519-4373-a51d-234c61755e39 Testimony of Esther Dyson, Commerce.Senate.gov]</ref>
A number of high profile opponents have come out against ICANN and its new gTLD program, including: [[Association of National Advertisers]] (ANA), the [[Coalition Against Domain Name Abuse]] (CADNA), the [[Coalition for Responsible Internet Domain Oversight]] (CRIDO), the National Retail Federation,<ref>[http://www.nationaljournal.com/tech/icann-facing-growing-pressure-over-new-domain-name-plan-20111025 ICANN Facing Growing Pressure Over New Domain Name Plan, NationalJournal.com]]</ref> and others. Major corporations involved with these organizations include: Adidas, Dell, Toyota, Wal-Mart, Kraft Foods, and other prominent American and internationally known brands.<ref>[http://www.ana.net/content/show/id/22399 ANA.net]</ref> ICANN's new gTLD program also recieved negative Op-Eds by the editorial boards of the New York Times and Washington Post.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/26/opinion/expanding-internet-domains.html?_r=3&ref=internetcorpforassignednamesandnumbers Exapnding Internet Domains, NYTimes.com]</ref><ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/whats-the-rush/2011/12/09/gIQA5Ms9nO_story.html What's the .rush, WashingtonPost.com]</ref> ICANN was also the subject of the hearings within the [[U.S. Congress]], detailed below, and consequently received letters from Senators and Congressmen asking them to delay or reevaluate the program. Other government criticism included a petition for delay by the [[FTC]].<ref>[http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2011/12/icann.shtm ICANN, FTC.gov]</ref> Many of these critics were not explicitly anti-ICANN, but anti-new gTLDs. The most common complaint came from trademark owners and their lobbying groups, who believed that the new program would create significant costs for them via defensive registrations without adding any value to their marketing and commercial outreach programs. However, some saw this as a result of miseducation given that many trademark protections are built into the new gTLD program. Other concerns, such as those from former ICANN Chair [[Esther Dyson]], were focused on potential confusion for the end-user.<ref>[http://commerce.senate.gov/public/?a=Files.Serve&File_id=c81ce454-f519-4373-a51d-234c61755e39 Testimony of Esther Dyson, Commerce.Senate.gov]</ref>