Jump to content

.eco: Difference between revisions

From ICANNWiki
← Older editNewer edit →
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 41: Line 41:
# [[Top Level Domain Holdings Ltd.]], one of 68 applications submitted by the company on its own behalf. This applicant submitted a [[PIC|Public Interest Commitment]], which can be downloaded [https://gtldresult.icann.org/application-result/applicationstatus/applicationdetails/1523 here].
# [[Top Level Domain Holdings Ltd.]], one of 68 applications submitted by the company on its own behalf. This applicant submitted a [[PIC|Public Interest Commitment]], which can be downloaded [https://gtldresult.icann.org/application-result/applicationstatus/applicationdetails/1523 here].


==Community Priority Evaluation and Result==
===Early Contention===
On 6 October 2014 the Economist Intelligence Unit, ICANN's community priority evaluator, awarded Big Room Inc.'s .eco application priority, [https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/eco/eco-cpe-1-912-59314-en.pdf scoring the application 14/16 points].  On October 24, 2014, approximately 2 weeks after passing the community priority evaluation, the status was changed to "on-hold" pending the resolution of ICANN accountability mechanisms, including a reconsideration request<ref>https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/14-46-2014-10-22-en</ref> submitted by Little Birch, LLC (Donuts) and Minds + Machines Group Limited (née Top Level Domain Holdings Ltd). On 18 November 2014 the ICANN Board issued a [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/determination-little-birch-minds-machines-18nov14-en.pdf final determination] denying this reconsideration request.
 
On February 20, 2015 Big Room Inc. also submitted a reconsideration request <ref>[https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/reconsideration-15-2-big-room-inc-2015-02-23-en]</ref> to ICANN pertaining to delays associated with the [[Cooperative Engagement Process]]. The request stated: "Big Room Inc. (“Big Room”) respectfully requests Board reconsideration of ICANN staff inaction in connection with its failure to terminate the ongoing Cooperative Engagement Process (“CEP”) pertaining to the .ECO generic top-level domain (gTLD) subject matter." The request was withdrawn prior to ICANN Board consideration of the matter as a result of the CEP being terminated.
 
Subsequently, an [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/various-v-icann-eco-hotel-2015-09-02-en independent review panel] was convened to consider whether the ICANN Board Governance Committee acted appropriately in issuing a [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/determination-little-birch-minds-machines-18nov14-en.pdf final determination] denying Little Birch, LLC and Minds + Machines Group Limited's reconsideration request.
 
A hearing was held on December 7 2015. A final declaration was issued on February 12 2016 <ref>https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/various-v-icann-eco-hotel-2015-09-02-en</ref>. The determination upheld Big Room's .eco application CPE evaluation result, noting: "And, "[a]s for the .eco IRP, it is clear that the Reconsideration Request [14-46] was misconceived and was little more than an attempt to appeal the CPE decision. Again, therefore, the .eco IRP was always going to fail." (Final Declaration at ¶ 156.)"<ref>https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/irp-despegar-online-et-al-final-declaration-12feb16-en.pdf</ref>. The ICANN Board adopted the final declaration March 10 2016 <ref>https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2016-03-10-en</ref>. The .eco domain was delegated on August 29th, 2016.
 
==Objection==
An official Legal Rights Objection was filed by the applicant planet.ECO, LLC, against fellow applicant [[Top Level Domain Holdings Ltd.]].<ref>[http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/lro/cases/ LRO Cases, WIPO.int]</ref>
 
A Legal Rights Objection, as defined by the ICANN approved mediator, [[WIPO]], is when, "third parties may file a formal objection to an application on several grounds, including, for trademark owners and Intergovernmental Organizations (IGOs) [..] When such an objection is filed, an independent panel (comprised of one or three experts) will determine whether the applicant’s potential use of the applied-for gTLD would be likely to infringe [..] the objector’s existing trademark, or IGO name or acronym."<ref>[http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/lro/ LRO, WIPO.int] Retrieved 25 March 2013</ref> The objection was rejected by a WIPO panelist on August 26, 2013. See: [http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/amc/en/domains/lro/docs/lro2013-0053.pdf Expert Objection Legal Rights Determination PDF] . The Determination noted: "However, even assuming that, in view of the substantial identity of the applied-for string and the mark .ECO, there could be a likelihood of confusion between the two, the Panel finds that it would not be “impermissible”, since there is no evidence that the public would perceive it as a source identifier as opposed to as a descriptive term or prefix relating to ecology or environment."
 
==Application Details==
===Big Room, Inc.===
One public applicant, [[Big Room Inc.]], announced a partnership with [[Afilias]] for their back-end and technical needs, and has applied for .eco as a [[Community gTLD]] for the environmental community. They have been working with a Council of 12 environmental groups on a Policy Charter for .ECO since 2008. The Council is currently chaired by the World Wildlife Federation (WWF) International and Akatu Institute (Brazil). Other members include Greenpeace, Green Cross International, and Green Belt Movement International. In addition, over fifty other environmental groups, including 350.org, Ocean Conservancy, Amazon Watch and others support the effort, making it one of the largest environmental coalitions ever assembled. The Executive Directors of the United Nations Environment Programme and the United Nations Global Compact also included letters supporting a community-designated .eco domain and welcoming a multi-stakeholder approach to administering it on behalf of the environmental community.
 
The goal is to demonstrate the requisite community support and define a purpose and policies for .ECO for the greater good.<ref>[http://doteco.org/]</ref>
 
An excerpt from its Community Priority Application: "In 2009, Big Room, itself a Certified B Corporation obliged to consider environmental, social and financial interests, launched an international multi-year stakeholder consultation process with the Community on the potential for .ECO to exist as a Community TLD. The process included 7 in-person consultations on 5 continents. Draft policies were published for 3 public comment periods of at least 30 days each...Since establishment, this international multi-stakeholder community council, made up of leading environmental organizations including WWF International, Greenpeace International, Green Cross International and others, has worked to define the mission, purpose and policies for a .ECO Community TLD that reflects the Community’s interests. The council’s work included 2 in-person meetings (Brussels ⁄ Washington, DC) and more than 20 conference calls between members. In September 2010, the council unanimously adopted a charter for the .ECO Community TLD - the .ECO Policy Consensus. The purpose and principles outlined in the .ECO Policy Consensus define what .ECO will mean as an active expression of the goals, values and interests of the Community. The Consensus has been reviewed and affirmed by the Big Room board of directors."
 
Eligibility for registration will be based on responses to questions about the environmental performance, commitments and actions of registrants, within the context of the purpose, type and location of the registrant. Responses will be compiled and posted into a public ".ECO-Profile". The .ECO profiles will be aggregated into a common online platform called the ".ECO System". This process is described in detail in Big Room's application and was designed in collaboration with and approved by the global environmental community. The process is designed to encourage action in support of environmental goals, foster environmental transparency, and allow for broad participation in registering .ECO domains.<ref>Application 1-912-59314</ref>
 
==Contention==
.eco was identified as a contentious TLD early on, with the main parties being [[Big Room Inc.]], and Dot Eco LLC. Dot Eco LLC was aligned with former Vice-President of the USA, [[Al Gore]], and the Alliance for Climate Protection, the Sierra Club and Surfrider Foundation. Big Room Inc. was, at that time, largely associated with Mikhail Gorbachev, the Russian ex-president, Green Cross International and WWF International. In August 2009, Dot Eco LLC released a 'green paper' critiquing Big Room Inc.'s approach. Big Room did not respond to the critique other than that it was  'unfortunate'. <ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8199802.stm Green Domain Sparks War of Words, BBCNews.com]</ref>
.eco was identified as a contentious TLD early on, with the main parties being [[Big Room Inc.]], and Dot Eco LLC. Dot Eco LLC was aligned with former Vice-President of the USA, [[Al Gore]], and the Alliance for Climate Protection, the Sierra Club and Surfrider Foundation. Big Room Inc. was, at that time, largely associated with Mikhail Gorbachev, the Russian ex-president, Green Cross International and WWF International. In August 2009, Dot Eco LLC released a 'green paper' critiquing Big Room Inc.'s approach. Big Room did not respond to the critique other than that it was  'unfortunate'. <ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8199802.stm Green Domain Sparks War of Words, BBCNews.com]</ref>


Line 76: Line 52:
[[planet.ECO LLC]], a small disadvantaged business based in Connecticut is the registrant and exclusive trademark holder of .ECO®.  The small business is also a gTLD contender for the ".eco" string and filed an infringement case against gTLD contenders Big Room Inc. and Dot Eco LLC on March 2, 2012. The complainant asked the court to order Big Room and Dot Eco LLC to stop infringing on their mark, submitting further documentation and withdraw their application for the .eco string with ICANN. Dot Eco LLC responded to the complaint with an argument that the trademark was obtained illegally by planet.ECO and it should be cancelled by the court. In total, five trademark cancellation attempts were made by Big Room Inc. and Dot Eco LLC, all of which were dismissed without prejudice.<ref>[http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=92051924&pty=CAN&eno=21 USPTO Cancellation number 92051924]</ref><ref>[http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=92055469&pty=CAN&eno=11 USPTO Cancellation number 92055469]</ref><ref>[http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=92055197&pty=CAN&eno=13 USPTO Cancellation number 92055197]</ref><ref>[http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=92060403&pty=CAN&eno=12 USPTO Cancellation number 92060403]</ref><ref>[http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=92060403&pty=CAN&eno=18 USPTO Cancellation number 92060403]</ref>. Dot Eco LLC also argued that the complainant is is trying to prevent competition. On the other hand, Big Room filed a motion to dismiss because of lack of jurisdiction. Big Room's motion to dismiss was granted. Planet.eco withdrew the case against Dot Eco LLC.   
[[planet.ECO LLC]], a small disadvantaged business based in Connecticut is the registrant and exclusive trademark holder of .ECO®.  The small business is also a gTLD contender for the ".eco" string and filed an infringement case against gTLD contenders Big Room Inc. and Dot Eco LLC on March 2, 2012. The complainant asked the court to order Big Room and Dot Eco LLC to stop infringing on their mark, submitting further documentation and withdraw their application for the .eco string with ICANN. Dot Eco LLC responded to the complaint with an argument that the trademark was obtained illegally by planet.ECO and it should be cancelled by the court. In total, five trademark cancellation attempts were made by Big Room Inc. and Dot Eco LLC, all of which were dismissed without prejudice.<ref>[http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=92051924&pty=CAN&eno=21 USPTO Cancellation number 92051924]</ref><ref>[http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=92055469&pty=CAN&eno=11 USPTO Cancellation number 92055469]</ref><ref>[http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=92055197&pty=CAN&eno=13 USPTO Cancellation number 92055197]</ref><ref>[http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=92060403&pty=CAN&eno=12 USPTO Cancellation number 92060403]</ref><ref>[http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=92060403&pty=CAN&eno=18 USPTO Cancellation number 92060403]</ref>. Dot Eco LLC also argued that the complainant is is trying to prevent competition. On the other hand, Big Room filed a motion to dismiss because of lack of jurisdiction. Big Room's motion to dismiss was granted. Planet.eco withdrew the case against Dot Eco LLC.   


===Early Criticism===
===European Commission Communiqué===  
There has been early speculation by Matthew Rimmer, an academic from the Australian National University that the creation of a .eco TLD, while potentially helping some ecological causes, could have the effect of "greenwashing" non-eco-friendly companies and efforts. Greenwashing is defined as companies making deceptive or misleading claims that their services and products are environmentally friendly.<ref>[http://au.finance.yahoo.com/news/academic-sets-sights-eco-label-080457302.html Academic Sets Sights Eco Label, Au.Finance.Yahoo.com]</ref> That academic has stated that it is essential that ICANN award the dot eco bid with strong enviromental credentials and support to deter green washing. [https://twitter.com/#!/DrRimmer/status/167413957861195776]
 
==European Commission Communiqué==
The [[European Commission]] flagged all applications for .eco outside of ICANN's defined remediation processes.
The [[European Commission]] flagged all applications for .eco outside of ICANN's defined remediation processes.


Line 86: Line 59:
The Commission specifically notes that this objection is not a part of the GAC Early Warning process, and goes on to note that "the Commission does not consider itself legally bound to [ICANN] processes," given that there is not legal agreement between the two bodies.<ref>[http://domainincite.com/docs/20121127093808906.pdf DomainIncite.com/Docs] Published 27 Nov 2012, Retrieved 11 Dec 2012</ref><ref>[http://domainincite.com/11130-europe-rejects-icanns-authority-as-it-warns-of-problems-with-58-new-gtlds Europe Rejects ICANNs Authority As it Warns of Problems with 58 New gTLDs, DomainIncite.com] Published 27 Nov 2012, Retrieved 11 Dec 2012</ref>  
The Commission specifically notes that this objection is not a part of the GAC Early Warning process, and goes on to note that "the Commission does not consider itself legally bound to [ICANN] processes," given that there is not legal agreement between the two bodies.<ref>[http://domainincite.com/docs/20121127093808906.pdf DomainIncite.com/Docs] Published 27 Nov 2012, Retrieved 11 Dec 2012</ref><ref>[http://domainincite.com/11130-europe-rejects-icanns-authority-as-it-warns-of-problems-with-58-new-gtlds Europe Rejects ICANNs Authority As it Warns of Problems with 58 New gTLDs, DomainIncite.com] Published 27 Nov 2012, Retrieved 11 Dec 2012</ref>  


==Economic Cooperation Organization Complaint==
===Economic Cooperation Organization Complaint===
An international governmental organization, the Economic Cooperation Organization, sent a letter of complaint to ICANN in February 2013 given that they use the 'eco' acronym for their work. In its letter the ECO states that it “expresses its disapproval and non-endorsement to all the applications for .ECO gTLD and requests the ICANN and the new gTLD application evaluators to not approve these applications.”<ref>[http://domainincite.com/11934-iranian-org-not-happy-about-eco-bids Iranian Org Not Happy About Eco Bids, DomainIncite.com] Published & Retrieved 20 Feb 2013</ref>. However, neither the Economic Cooperation Organization nor any of its member states objected to any .eco application via the ICANN Governmental Advisory Committee or as part of the new gTLD program.
An international governmental organization, the Economic Cooperation Organization, sent a letter of complaint to ICANN in February 2013 given that they use the 'eco' acronym for their work. In its letter the ECO states that it “expresses its disapproval and non-endorsement to all the applications for .ECO gTLD and requests the ICANN and the new gTLD application evaluators to not approve these applications.”<ref>[http://domainincite.com/11934-iranian-org-not-happy-about-eco-bids Iranian Org Not Happy About Eco Bids, DomainIncite.com] Published & Retrieved 20 Feb 2013</ref>. However, neither the Economic Cooperation Organization nor any of its member states objected to any .eco application via the ICANN Governmental Advisory Committee or as part of the new gTLD program.
===Legal Rights Objection===
A Legal Rights Objection was filed by the applicant planet.ECO, LLC, against fellow applicant [[Top Level Domain Holdings Ltd.]].<ref>[http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/lro/cases/ LRO Cases, WIPO.int]</ref> A Legal Rights Objection, as defined by the ICANN approved mediator, [[WIPO]], is when, "third parties may file a formal objection to an application on several grounds, including, for trademark owners and Intergovernmental Organizations (IGOs) [..] When such an objection is filed, an independent panel (comprised of one or three experts) will determine whether the applicant’s potential use of the applied-for gTLD would be likely to infringe [..] the objector’s existing trademark, or IGO name or acronym."<ref>[http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/lro/ LRO, WIPO.int] Retrieved 25 March 2013</ref> The objection was rejected by a WIPO panelist on August 26, 2013. See: [http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/amc/en/domains/lro/docs/lro2013-0053.pdf Expert Objection Legal Rights Determination PDF] . The Determination noted: "However, even assuming that, in view of the substantial identity of the applied-for string and the mark .ECO, there could be a likelihood of confusion between the two, the Panel finds that it would not be “impermissible”, since there is no evidence that the public would perceive it as a source identifier as opposed to as a descriptive term or prefix relating to ecology or environment."
===Community Priority Evaluation and Result===
On 6 October 2014 the Economist Intelligence Unit, ICANN's community priority evaluator, awarded Big Room Inc.'s .eco application priority, [https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/eco/eco-cpe-1-912-59314-en.pdf scoring the application 14/16 points].  On October 24, 2014, approximately 2 weeks after passing the community priority evaluation, the status was changed to "on-hold" pending the resolution of ICANN accountability mechanisms, including a reconsideration request<ref>https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/14-46-2014-10-22-en</ref> submitted by Little Birch, LLC (Donuts) and Minds + Machines Group Limited (née Top Level Domain Holdings Ltd). On 18 November 2014 the ICANN Board issued a [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/determination-little-birch-minds-machines-18nov14-en.pdf final determination] denying this reconsideration request.
On February 20, 2015 Big Room Inc. also submitted a reconsideration request <ref>[https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/reconsideration-15-2-big-room-inc-2015-02-23-en]</ref> to ICANN pertaining to delays associated with the [[Cooperative Engagement Process]]. The request stated: "Big Room Inc. (“Big Room”) respectfully requests Board reconsideration of ICANN staff inaction in connection with its failure to terminate the ongoing Cooperative Engagement Process (“CEP”) pertaining to the .ECO generic top-level domain (gTLD) subject matter." The request was withdrawn prior to ICANN Board consideration of the matter as a result of the CEP being terminated.
Subsequently, an [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/various-v-icann-eco-hotel-2015-09-02-en independent review panel] was convened to consider whether the ICANN Board Governance Committee acted appropriately in issuing a [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/determination-little-birch-minds-machines-18nov14-en.pdf final determination] denying Little Birch, LLC and Minds + Machines Group Limited's reconsideration request.
A hearing was held on December 7 2015. A final declaration was issued on February 12 2016 <ref>https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/various-v-icann-eco-hotel-2015-09-02-en</ref>. The determination upheld Big Room's .eco application CPE evaluation result, noting: "And, "[a]s for the .eco IRP, it is clear that the Reconsideration Request [14-46] was misconceived and was little more than an attempt to appeal the CPE decision. Again, therefore, the .eco IRP was always going to fail." (Final Declaration at ¶ 156.)"<ref>https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/irp-despegar-online-et-al-final-declaration-12feb16-en.pdf</ref>. The ICANN Board adopted the final declaration March 10 2016 <ref>https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2016-03-10-en</ref>. The .eco domain was delegated on August 29th, 2016.


==References==
==References==

Revision as of 00:20, 1 February 2017


Over half of global online consumers in 60 countries say they want products and services that are better for people and the planet[1].

The new .eco domain is for organizations, businesses and people committed to this positive change.

Further information is available at www.home.eco.

Launch Schedule[edit | edit source]

The .eco domain will launch with a 60 day end date sunrise, followed by a two week quiet period. Launch will begin with a 7 day early access window, followed by general availability.

  • February 1 to April 2, 2017 - Sunrise (end-date)
  • April 18 - 25, 2017 - Early Access Program
  • April 25, 2017 - General Availability

Registrars can participate by signing up at: www.home.eco/registrars

Eligibility[edit | edit source]

.eco is open to organizations, businesses and people committed to positive change for the planet. Every .eco registrant is offered free membership in the .eco Community Organization, allowing them to join the community online.

Our community includes:

  • Not-for-profit mission-based organizations, both small and large, that work for the good of the planet.
  • Businesses of all sizes committed to providing products and services that encourage positive environmental change.
  • Government bodies that support sustainability through programs, infrastructure, and funding amongst other policies and actions.
  • People who participate in and support environmental change.

The .eco community welcomes those that have been working toward positive change for years or even decades, as well as those who are ready to get started today.

Review registry and launch policies at: www.home.eco/registrars/policies

Contention History[edit | edit source]

Original Applicants[edit | edit source]

Prevailing Applicant

  1. Big Room Inc. - Community-designated Application. This applicant submitted a Public Interest Commitment, which can be downloaded here.

Other Applicants

  1. Donuts (Little Birch, LLC), .eco is one of 307 TLDs submitted by the company. This applicant submitted a Public Interest Commitment, which can be downloaded here.
  2. planet.ECO LLC - A US-based Small Disadvantaged Business, (SBA-SDB).ECO gTLD applicant, and the exclusive owner of the only US-based .ECO® trademark. [2]
  3. Top Level Domain Holdings Ltd., one of 68 applications submitted by the company on its own behalf. This applicant submitted a Public Interest Commitment, which can be downloaded here.

Early Contention[edit | edit source]

.eco was identified as a contentious TLD early on, with the main parties being Big Room Inc., and Dot Eco LLC. Dot Eco LLC was aligned with former Vice-President of the USA, Al Gore, and the Alliance for Climate Protection, the Sierra Club and Surfrider Foundation. Big Room Inc. was, at that time, largely associated with Mikhail Gorbachev, the Russian ex-president, Green Cross International and WWF International. In August 2009, Dot Eco LLC released a 'green paper' critiquing Big Room Inc.'s approach. Big Room did not respond to the critique other than that it was 'unfortunate'. [3]

On September 28, 2011, Al Gore's organization, the Climate Reality project dropped its support to the Dot Eco LLC bid to give way to the application of Big Room Inc., which is supported by Michael Gorbachev's Green Cross International. A spokesman from Gore's camp explained that Climate Reality as a non-profit organization has limited resources and they decided to focus their campaign on global climate issues. [4] Despite losing Gore's support, Minds + Machines announced its intentions to apply for a .eco TLD whether they would do that under their own name or through a client or separate company was initially unclear.[5]

Top Level Domain Holdings Ltd., the parent company of Minds + Machines which held 25% stake on Dot Eco LLC, confirmed that the company will apply for the .eco gTLD. Peter Dengate Thrush, Executive Chairman of Top Level Domain Holdings said,"...We believe the Dot Eco LLC consortium is exceptionally well placed to compete in every respect of its .eco application and run that gTLD in a meaningful manner. We are therefore delighted to continue give it our full infrastructural and financial support." [6] However, they did not apply through the Dot Eco LLC venture, but instead applied on their own behalf.[7] Antony Van Couvering previously stated that applying for a community gTLD is too risky. He believes that the .eco TLD will not pass ICANN's Community Priority Evaluation, which means the company's application for .eco TLD will not be under community gTLD category.[8]

planet.ECO LLC, a small disadvantaged business based in Connecticut is the registrant and exclusive trademark holder of .ECO®. The small business is also a gTLD contender for the ".eco" string and filed an infringement case against gTLD contenders Big Room Inc. and Dot Eco LLC on March 2, 2012. The complainant asked the court to order Big Room and Dot Eco LLC to stop infringing on their mark, submitting further documentation and withdraw their application for the .eco string with ICANN. Dot Eco LLC responded to the complaint with an argument that the trademark was obtained illegally by planet.ECO and it should be cancelled by the court. In total, five trademark cancellation attempts were made by Big Room Inc. and Dot Eco LLC, all of which were dismissed without prejudice.[9][10][11][12][13]. Dot Eco LLC also argued that the complainant is is trying to prevent competition. On the other hand, Big Room filed a motion to dismiss because of lack of jurisdiction. Big Room's motion to dismiss was granted. Planet.eco withdrew the case against Dot Eco LLC.

European Commission Communiqué[edit | edit source]

The European Commission flagged all applications for .eco outside of ICANN's defined remediation processes.

Just after ICANN's GAC issued its Early Warnings, which are advice given from one GAC member country to an applicant warning it of potential issues within its application, the European Commission issued a letter to all applicants within the new gTLD program. The letter highlights 58 applications that "could raise issues of compatibility with the existing legislation .. and/or with policy positions and objectives of the European Union." It notes a desire to open a dialogue with each offending applicant. Big Room Inc. entered into a dialogue and as a result of those conversations - and in dialogue with the environmental community - updated its PIC spec to include specific references to issues raised by the Commission.

The Commission specifically notes that this objection is not a part of the GAC Early Warning process, and goes on to note that "the Commission does not consider itself legally bound to [ICANN] processes," given that there is not legal agreement between the two bodies.[14][15]

Economic Cooperation Organization Complaint[edit | edit source]

An international governmental organization, the Economic Cooperation Organization, sent a letter of complaint to ICANN in February 2013 given that they use the 'eco' acronym for their work. In its letter the ECO states that it “expresses its disapproval and non-endorsement to all the applications for .ECO gTLD and requests the ICANN and the new gTLD application evaluators to not approve these applications.”[16]. However, neither the Economic Cooperation Organization nor any of its member states objected to any .eco application via the ICANN Governmental Advisory Committee or as part of the new gTLD program.

Legal Rights Objection[edit | edit source]

A Legal Rights Objection was filed by the applicant planet.ECO, LLC, against fellow applicant Top Level Domain Holdings Ltd..[17] A Legal Rights Objection, as defined by the ICANN approved mediator, WIPO, is when, "third parties may file a formal objection to an application on several grounds, including, for trademark owners and Intergovernmental Organizations (IGOs) [..] When such an objection is filed, an independent panel (comprised of one or three experts) will determine whether the applicant’s potential use of the applied-for gTLD would be likely to infringe [..] the objector’s existing trademark, or IGO name or acronym."[18] The objection was rejected by a WIPO panelist on August 26, 2013. See: Expert Objection Legal Rights Determination PDF . The Determination noted: "However, even assuming that, in view of the substantial identity of the applied-for string and the mark .ECO, there could be a likelihood of confusion between the two, the Panel finds that it would not be “impermissible”, since there is no evidence that the public would perceive it as a source identifier as opposed to as a descriptive term or prefix relating to ecology or environment."

Community Priority Evaluation and Result[edit | edit source]

On 6 October 2014 the Economist Intelligence Unit, ICANN's community priority evaluator, awarded Big Room Inc.'s .eco application priority, scoring the application 14/16 points. On October 24, 2014, approximately 2 weeks after passing the community priority evaluation, the status was changed to "on-hold" pending the resolution of ICANN accountability mechanisms, including a reconsideration request[19] submitted by Little Birch, LLC (Donuts) and Minds + Machines Group Limited (née Top Level Domain Holdings Ltd). On 18 November 2014 the ICANN Board issued a final determination denying this reconsideration request.

On February 20, 2015 Big Room Inc. also submitted a reconsideration request [20] to ICANN pertaining to delays associated with the Cooperative Engagement Process. The request stated: "Big Room Inc. (“Big Room”) respectfully requests Board reconsideration of ICANN staff inaction in connection with its failure to terminate the ongoing Cooperative Engagement Process (“CEP”) pertaining to the .ECO generic top-level domain (gTLD) subject matter." The request was withdrawn prior to ICANN Board consideration of the matter as a result of the CEP being terminated.

Subsequently, an independent review panel was convened to consider whether the ICANN Board Governance Committee acted appropriately in issuing a final determination denying Little Birch, LLC and Minds + Machines Group Limited's reconsideration request.

A hearing was held on December 7 2015. A final declaration was issued on February 12 2016 [21]. The determination upheld Big Room's .eco application CPE evaluation result, noting: "And, "[a]s for the .eco IRP, it is clear that the Reconsideration Request [14-46] was misconceived and was little more than an attempt to appeal the CPE decision. Again, therefore, the .eco IRP was always going to fail." (Final Declaration at ¶ 156.)"[22]. The ICANN Board adopted the final declaration March 10 2016 [23]. The .eco domain was delegated on August 29th, 2016.

References[edit | edit source]

  1. ↑ http://www.nielsen.com/ca/en/press-room/2014/global-consumers-are-willing-to-put-their-money-where-their-heart-is.html
  2. ↑ .ECO U.S. Trademark, Registrant planet.ECO LLC. Retrieved 03 Nov 2015.
  3. ↑ Green Domain Sparks War of Words, BBCNews.com
  4. ↑ Al Gore Mikhail Gorbachev Control Eco Domain, BusinessGreen.com
  5. ↑ Dot Eco, MindsAndMachines.com
  6. ↑ Top Level Domain Hdg. Dot Eco LLC will apply for .eco gTLD
  7. ↑ Application Status, gTLDResult.ICANN.org
  8. ↑ Will Anyone Qualify As a Community TLD?
  9. ↑ USPTO Cancellation number 92051924
  10. ↑ USPTO Cancellation number 92055469
  11. ↑ USPTO Cancellation number 92055197
  12. ↑ USPTO Cancellation number 92060403
  13. ↑ USPTO Cancellation number 92060403
  14. ↑ DomainIncite.com/Docs Published 27 Nov 2012, Retrieved 11 Dec 2012
  15. ↑ Europe Rejects ICANNs Authority As it Warns of Problems with 58 New gTLDs, DomainIncite.com Published 27 Nov 2012, Retrieved 11 Dec 2012
  16. ↑ Iranian Org Not Happy About Eco Bids, DomainIncite.com Published & Retrieved 20 Feb 2013
  17. ↑ LRO Cases, WIPO.int
  18. ↑ LRO, WIPO.int Retrieved 25 March 2013
  19. ↑ https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/14-46-2014-10-22-en
  20. ↑ [1]
  21. ↑ https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/various-v-icann-eco-hotel-2015-09-02-en
  22. ↑ https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/irp-despegar-online-et-al-final-declaration-12feb16-en.pdf
  23. ↑ https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2016-03-10-en

Governmental Advisory Committee. Considers and provides advice on the activities of ICANN as they relate to concerns of governments, particularly matters where there may be an interaction between ICANN's policies and various laws and international agreements or where they may affect public policy issues (ICANN Bylaws).

Retrieved from "https://icannwiki.org/index.php?title=.eco&oldid=409462"