icannwiki

.eco: Difference between revisions

← 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 The request was withdrawn prior to ICANN Board consideration of the matter as a result of the CEP being terminated.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==
Retrieved from "https://icannwiki.org/.eco"