| Line 264: |
Line 264: |
| | | | |
| | ICANN created a co-ordination group from nominations among 13 community stakeholder groups, totaling 27 individuals, which produced a draft transition document. On December 2nd 2014, ICANN opened the public comment period on the draft transition document produced by the coordination group.<ref>[http://www.thedomains.com/2014/12/02/icann-opens-comment-period-for-its-move-out-of-us-control-deadline-is-december-22nd/ ICANN opens comment period for its move out of US control]</ref> | | ICANN created a co-ordination group from nominations among 13 community stakeholder groups, totaling 27 individuals, which produced a draft transition document. On December 2nd 2014, ICANN opened the public comment period on the draft transition document produced by the coordination group.<ref>[http://www.thedomains.com/2014/12/02/icann-opens-comment-period-for-its-move-out-of-us-control-deadline-is-december-22nd/ ICANN opens comment period for its move out of US control]</ref> |
| − |
| |
| − | ==House of Representatives Hearing on new gTLD==
| |
| − | On December 14, 2011, the U.S. House of Representatives Sub-Committee on Communications Technology-Committee on Energy and Commerce also conducted a similar hearing regarding the new gTLD program. Kurt Pritz and all the other individuals who testified in the Senate also served at witnesses at the House of Representatives who echoed the same views about the program. [[Josh Bourne|Joshua Bourne]], President of The Coalition Against Domain Name Abuse ([[CADNA]]), [[Thomas Embrescia]], CEO of [[Employ Media]] and [[Anjali Hansen]], IP attorney at the Council of Better Business Bureaus joined the rest of the witnesses during the hearing.<ref>[http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/x/158500/Trademark/New+gTLD+Hearing+Round+2+A+Critical+House+But+to+What+End United States: New gTLD Hearing, Round 2: A Critical House, But To What End?]. Mondaq. Published 2011 December 22.</ref>
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ===Testimony of Witnesses===
| |
| − | Mr. '''Joshua Bourne''' expressed his concern over the program and suggested some recommendations including the availability of a second round of application ease the anxiety associated with the program, provide option to block trademarks, update the language of the Anti-Cybersquatting Protection Act ([[ACPA]]), reduce pricing for multiple gTLD applicants and to add conditions on the [[IANA]] contract.<ref>[http://democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/index.php?q=hearing/hearing-on-icann-s-top-level-domain-name-program Testimony of Josh Bourne-President, Coalition Against Domain Name Abuse]. Committee on Energy & Commerce. Published 2011 December 14.</ref> The call for second round of application was also expressed by Josh and the attendees of the CADNA gTLD Conference on November 2011.<ref name="worldtrademarkreview">[http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=1315ECFA-EEB1-4F32-B1BC-2BBCFAF1C9C3 International - Call for ICANN to announce second round of gTLD applications]. World Trademark Review. Published 2011 November 2.</ref>
| |
| − |
| |
| − | In her testimony, Ms. '''Anjali Hansen''' expressed her concern regarding the level of abuses and fraud over the internet and the high costs of brand protection. She also pointed out the importance of a competitive, innovative and open internet and BBB is not requesting for excessive regulation of the Internet by governments but they encourage registries and registrars to implement application standards to help reduce costs to businesses and to restore consumer trust.<ref>[http://www.ana.net/getfile/17081 Testimony of Anjali K. Hansen-Intellectual Property Attorney, Council of Better Business Bureaus]</ref>
| |
| − |
| |
| − | '''Thomas Embrescia''' testified in support of the ICANN new gTLD program. During the hearing, he pointed out that the private sector has a strong demand for new TLDs and the new gTLD program promotes competition, innovation. Furthermore he emphasized that it would help create more jobs and opportunities.He encouraged the members of the Congress to support the program. <ref>[http://democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/index.php?q=hearing/hearing-on-icann-s-top-level-domain-name-program Testimony of Thomas Embrescia, CEO of Employ Media]. Committee on Energy & Commerce. Published 2011 December 14.</ref>
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ===ICANN's Answers to Sub-Committee Members' Inquiries===
| |
| − | On January 5, 2012, Cong. Greg Walden, Chairman of the House Sub-Committee on Communications and Technology, sent a letter to ICANN requesting answers to some issues related to the new gTLD program including:<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/correspondence/pritz-to-walden-20jan12-en.pdf ICANN's Response to Cong. Greg Walden]. ICANN. Published 2012 January 20.</ref>
| |
| − | * '''Process used by ICANN in achieving consensus through the [[Multistakeholder Model|multistakeholder model]]'''
| |
| − | ICANN explained that consensus was achieved through community-driven policy development processes wherein working teams composed of members of the different internet stakeholders developed reports and recommendations and the public were given the opportunity to comment. The public comments were considered when drafting the final report and recommendations, before they were submitted it to the appropriate organization within ICANN such as the [[GNSO]] Council, which would in turn present their findings to the ICANN Board. ICANN emphasized that the GNSO Council is composed of all internet stakeholders and voted 19-1 in favor of the new gTLD policy. The internet governing body also pointed out that ICANN's Advisory Committees ([[GAC]], [[ALAC]], [[SSAC]], [[RSSAC]] etc.) were involved in the consensus development. ICANN reiterated the statement of Sec. [[Lawrence Strickling|Larry Strickling]] that the ICANN ''"multistakeholder does not guarantee that everyone will be satisfied with the outcome.But it is critical to preserving the model of Internet governance that has been so successful to date that all parties respect and work through the process and accept the outcome once a decision is reached..."''
| |
| − | * '''Rights Protection Mechanisms'''
| |
| − | Rights protection will be implemented in the first and second level domain names. The internet governing body mentioned the development of the [[Trademark Clearinghouse]] as one of the rights protection mechanisms and it is mandatory to all new TLDs.
| |
| − | * '''Request for a Second Round of Application'''
| |
| − | ICANN stated that it is committed to conducting additional rounds of new gTLD applications and it is working on determining that schedule.
| |
| − | * '''Transparency regarding Surplus Funds generated from the new gTLD applications'''
| |
| − | ICANN emphasized that it is committed to using the excess funds generated from the new gTLD applications to advance its missions in a transparent way, such as allocating funds to projects that are of interest to the greater Internet community.
| |
| − | * '''Bilateral Negotiations with registrars about the twelve Law Enforcement Due Diligence Recommendations'''
| |
| − | ICANN confirmed that it is conducting negotiations with its accredited registrars regarding the 12 recommendations of the enforcement agencies. Updates to the negotiation are available [https://community.icann.org/display/RAA/Negotiations+Between+ICANN+and+Registrars+to+Amend+the+Registrar+Accreditation+Agreement '''here''']
| |
| − | * '''Contingency Plan in case a registry operator goes out of business'''
| |
| − | ICANN told the Congress that an "[[EBERO|Emergency Backend Registry Operator]]" ([[EBERO]]) is in place to take-over the operations if a failed registry to ensure that the interest of domain name registrants are protected.
| |
| − | * '''[[Applicant Support Program]] (ASP)'''
| |
| − | ICANN explained that information regarding the new Applicant Support Program is available, which offers two types of financial assistance under ASP: a reduced application fee of $47,000 from $185,000, and a payment plan to deal with the whole $185,000 application fee. To qualify for financial assistance, entities must meet certain criteria. Financial Assistance applications will be evaluated by an independent [[SARP|Support Application Review Panel]] (SARP).
| |
| − | * '''[[Trademark Clearinghouse]]'''
| |
| − | ICANN explained that the Trademark Clearinghouse is a database of registered trademarks and other types [[Intellectual Property|intellectual property]] rights, which will be used to provide protection during the "[[Sunrise]]" and "Trademark Claims" processes. ICANN notes that 60-days post launch operation of the Trademark Claims exceeds the final recommendation of the [[Special Trademark Issues]] (STI) team, which was involved in developing the service and suggested that no mandatory post-launch claims service is necessary.
| |
| − | * '''Possibility of subsidizing the costs of Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) using surplus funds'''
| |
| − | ICANN clarified that no commitment has been made regarding the use of surplus funds and that the issue is a matter of continued community consultations. ICANN will consider the proposal to subsidize costs of disputes under the UDRP.
| |
| − | * '''[[Whois#Thick_Whois| Thick Whois]] System'''
| |
| − | ICANN is dedicated to improving the access and accuracy of the [[Whois]] information; Thick Whois information requirements will be in place for all new gTLDs. Five studies regarding Whois services focusing on issues related to misuse, registrant identification, privacy and proxy services were conducted.
| |
| − | * '''New gTLD Application Fee'''
| |
| − | ICANN provided a breakdown of the current $185,000 application fee, which includes development costs ($26,950 per application), applications processing and evaluation costs ($97,800 per application), costs for risk mitigation steps ($60,000 per applicant). Further breakdown of the cost is available [http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new--gtlds/cost--considerations--04oct09--en.pdf.'''here''']
| |
| − | * '''Revenue from second level domain name registrations under new gTLDs'''
| |
| − | ICANN said that it did not evaluate any additional revenue that might be generated from defensive second level domain name registrations. Registries are required to pay ICANN with annual fees with fixed components.
| |
| − | * '''Cost recovery model in assessing fees'''
| |
| − | The cost-neutral model was a direct response to the GNSO policy recommendation that application fees are designed to ensure that the implementation of the new gTLD program is self funding. Once the TLDs are operational, transaction based fees for registries and registrars will apply to domain registrations.
| |
| − | * '''Loser pays system against cybersquatting'''
| |
| − | The new gTLD dispute resolution under the new gTLD program implements the loser pays system. The [[IRT]] did not recommend a full loser pays system for domain name disputes related to [[cybersquatting]]. The loser pays system has exceptions on filing fees for disputes and URS claims of less than 15 domain names. Claims for 26 or more names in a URS claims might be done on a loser-pays basis.
| |
| − | * '''Auction process for multiple gTLD applicants'''
| |
| − | The auctions process in case of multiple gTLD applicants will be applied as a last resort. ICANN encourage applicants to work on developing a mutually-agreeable solution.
| |
| − | * '''[[Cybersquatting]] and other concerns raised by [[ANA]]'''
| |
| − | The new gTLD program offers heightened protection mechanisms against abuses, registry failure and other malicious conducts designed by intellectual property experts
| |
| − | * '''Law Enforcement Community Recommendations'''
| |
| − | ICANN is actively working on the 12 recommendations of the law enforcement community and negotiating with registrars to amend the [[Registrar Accreditation Agreement]] (RAA), particularly the inclusion of a more improved and accurate Whois database.
| |
| − | * '''Cost/Benefit Analysis used by ICANN before implementing the new gTLD program'''
| |
| − | Five economic studies were commissioned by ICANN to examine the anticipated benefits and costs of the new gTLD program.
| |
| | | | |
| | ==Second Round of Application== | | ==Second Round of Application== |