9,082
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 7:
Line 7: + + + +
→ICANN's Actions on Defensive Registration Concerns
==ICANN's Actions on Defensive Registration Concerns==
==ICANN's Actions on Defensive Registration Concerns==
A [[New gTLD Program Committee]] composed of all non-conflicted voting members of the [[ICANN Board]] was established by the internet governing body to decide on issues related to the new gTLD program such as the concerns over the perceived need for defensive TLD applications for trademark owners to protect their intellectual property rights. ICANN also increased awareness regarding the program's protection mechanisms such as the objection process. In addition, the opened a public comment period to tackle the issue on defensive registration and to provide recommendations to resolve it. Furthermore, the New gTLD Program Committee ''"directs the staff to provide a briefing paper on the topic of defensive registrations at the second level and requests the [[GNSO]] to consider whether additional work on defensive registrations at the second level should be undertaken."'' <ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-10apr12-en.htm Approved Resolution | Meeting of the New gTLD Program Committee]</ref> <ref>[http://domainincite.com/icann-reopens-defensive-registration-debate/ ICANN reopens defensive registration debate]</ref> The public comment period was implemented to increase the awareness about the available rights protection mechanisms, to encourage the internet community to provide their inputs regarding defensive applications and to show to the Congress that ICANN is taking appropriate actions to solve the problem. <ref>[http://domainincite.com/icann-worried-about-defensive-gtlds/ ICANN worried about defensive gTLDs]</ref>
A [[New gTLD Program Committee]] composed of all non-conflicted voting members of the [[ICANN Board]] was established by the internet governing body to decide on issues related to the new gTLD program such as the concerns over the perceived need for defensive TLD applications for trademark owners to protect their intellectual property rights. ICANN also increased awareness regarding the program's protection mechanisms such as the objection process. In addition, the opened a public comment period to tackle the issue on defensive registration and to provide recommendations to resolve it. Furthermore, the New gTLD Program Committee ''"directs the staff to provide a briefing paper on the topic of defensive registrations at the second level and requests the [[GNSO]] to consider whether additional work on defensive registrations at the second level should be undertaken."'' <ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-10apr12-en.htm Approved Resolution | Meeting of the New gTLD Program Committee]</ref> <ref>[http://domainincite.com/icann-reopens-defensive-registration-debate/ ICANN reopens defensive registration debate]</ref> The public comment period was implemented to increase the awareness about the available rights protection mechanisms, to encourage the internet community to provide their inputs regarding defensive applications and to show to the Congress that ICANN is taking appropriate actions to solve the problem. <ref>[http://domainincite.com/icann-worried-about-defensive-gtlds/ ICANN worried about defensive gTLDs]</ref>
==Consumer Trust Working Group Recommendation==
The Consumer Trust Working Group recommended that defensive registration on new gTLDs should not be more than 15% three years after launching as a measure of success. Fir example if a registry operator was able to register 15,000 domain names during the Sunrise registration, within the next three years it should be able to register 85,000 domain names to demonstrate a successful consumer choice.<ref>
[http://domainincite.com/how-many-defensive-registrations-is-too-many/ How many defensive registrations is too many?]</ref>
==References==
==References==