Main Page: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
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. | 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. | ||
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 | 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 applicants with multiple applications for closed generic terms include [[L'Oréal]] and [[Google]]. In late 2012, Amazon and other companies that applied for closed-generic strings received a [[GAC]] Early Warning from GAC Chair, [[Heather Dryden]]. | ||
Following further questions ICANN's New gTLD Program Committee looked at the issue and 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. | Following further questions ICANN's New gTLD Program Committee looked at the issue and 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. | ||
Revision as of 17:45, 14 February 2013
|
Hot Topic: Closed gTLDs
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. 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 applicants with multiple applications for closed generic terms include L'Oréal and Google. In late 2012, Amazon and other companies that applied for closed-generic strings received a GAC Early Warning from GAC Chair, Heather Dryden. Following further questions ICANN's New gTLD Program Committee looked at the issue and 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. In mid-February 2013, it was announced that an applicant represented by industry lawyer Philip Corwin would be bringing contacting and lobbying lawmakers in Washington and Brussels, or raising litigation, against Google. The applicant in question remains unknown though is in contention with Google for at least one TLD. It is not in contention with Amazon, which has in fact applied for many more closed TLDs than Google. The issue at hand is the competition advantage that Google has, given its search dominance and its ownership of sites such as youtube. Therefore, its applications for .film, .movie, .mov, .live, .show and .tube could all be used to create market dominance within the online video and content streaming markets. |
| |
|
Information on ALL new gTLDs!
|
|
Resources
|