ANA Wails Against New gTLDs. Again. With Advice For Brand Owners.
One of America’s leading representative groups for advertisers, the Association of National Advertisers, has railed against the introduction of new gTLDs since it woke up, belatedly, to the fact that they were coming.
Now they have published a blog posting on their website of the potential impacts new gTLDs may have on trademark holders and advertising, written by their general counsel’s office at Reed Smith LLP.
The “report” by Report by Brad R. Newberg says that the introduction of new gTLDs “has caused a great deal of (pragmatic and reasonable) consternation among brand owners who were worried that the new gTLD program would lead to rampant cybersquatting. Future posts will have more about that, but this post asks the question: Putting aside cybersquatters, domainers (those who speculate in domain names for profit), and in-house counsel at brandowners, when it comes to the public at large, if a TLD launches in a forest and no one is there to hear it, will it make a sound?”
Newberg notes “ICANN’s purported reason for launching the new TLD program was to open up domain names in non-Latin characters (through new TLDs in Arabic, Chinese, etc.), foster competition, increase consumer choice, and offer alternatives to individuals and businesses who might have been shut out of their preferred .com name. However, the actual launch of these TLDs has seen practically no advertising, resulting in a collective yawn from the general public—most of whom are blissfully unaware that any new TLDs exist. In fact, given the registration numbers, it is hard to imagine that most of the already-launched TLDs will still be around in two years. None has failed so far, but it is possible that the first TLD to close its doors will start a domino effect.”
One would have to question whether Newberg gets out much, as online there has been quite a lot of advertising, and in cities like Berlin and London, for example, their city gTLDs have been promoted widely. But yes, at least some, probably not most as Newberg writes, of the new gTLDs will fail in the next couple of years.
“According to the statistics,” Newberg also writes, “approximately 1.8 million domain names have been registered across those 200 domains, for an extremely low average of 9,000 domain names per gTLD. But those numbers are misleading as the actual number of registrations is far lower. Many gTLD registries have taken to reserve names in dummy registrations either to sell them later for premium prices or to pump up their numbers, or they have given domain names away for free just to make the gTLD seem popular. For example, the #1 gTLD registry right now is .XYZ with a staggering 25 percent of all registrations (almost 450,000). However, only a small fraction of those domains have been paid for by actual end-users or even domainers investing in the name—some have stated that .XYZ appears to have a goal of getting to a million registrations whether those registrations are paid for or not. Even where the numbers have not been artificially inflated by the registries, many of the domain names were bought early by domainers hoping to flip the name for profit. When one looks at the actual number of end-user registrants—importantly, they are the registrants likely to actually renew registrations when they come due (typically in a year)—it is hard to imagine the total actual number being outside the mid six-figures.”
The success of gTLDs may depend on large brands Newberg notes. Newberg considers “a profitability threshold well above 10,000 names. It is possible that many of the gTLDs will do their best to stick around for a year after launching general availability, see what their renewal figures are, and then close shop if the numbers do not meet whatever threshold they have set for themselves. Ironically, their survival might depend on the success of the .BRAND TLDs, almost none of which has launched yet. The large brands that have applied for TLDs have the money to market their new TLDs if they so choose and make their new TLDs a key part of their marketing strategy. If they do, and if the public latches on, perhaps that will fuel interest in the non-brand gTLDs. If not, the whole system could fail and few will have the stomach to apply for more gTLDs when the second round comes around.” Which is a pretty fair point.
Brand protection is also an issue that brand owners need to be aware of across the new gTLDs, just like they should be vigilant about across existing gTLDs and ccTLDs. Newberg writes about three options for brand owners, these being “1) paying approximately $3,000 for a block across the gTLDs run by the registry ‘Donuts,’ since Donuts operates a significant number of TLDs and $3,000 is less than what it typically costs to go through a Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP) proceeding; 2) putting important marks on the Trademark Clearinghouse List (TMCH), and responding to the TMCH notices when a threat arises and monitoring for cybersquatting and typosquatting as usual; and, 3) registering domain names for important marks during the Sunrise period for gTLDs associated with a company’s particular industries.”
Overall there are some good points. But it’s worth noting the ANA has been hostile towards the introduction of new gTLDs. And they’re a US organisation and while they represent multinational brands in the US, they don’t seem to be well aware of the domain name industry outside of the US. Such as that there are 248 ccTLDs that already exist and brand owners should be dealing with the ccTLDs in much the same way as they deal with the gTLDs.
To read the ANA blog post in full, go to:
www.ana.net/blogs/show/id/31435
ICANN: Accountability & Governance Public Experts Group Members Announced
As described in the 14 August 2014 posting of the Enhancing ICANN Accountability: Process and Next Steps, four respected individuals with backgrounds in academia, governmental relations, global insight, and the Affirmation of Commitments (AoC), will form the Accountability & Governance Public Experts Group.
Selected by ICANN ‘s President and CEO, Fadi Chehadé, members of the Public Experts Group will be responsible for the selection of up to seven Advisors to sit on the Coordination Group to assure that best practices are brought from the larger global community. Once selected by the Public Experts Group, these Advisors will contribute research and advice, as well as bring perspectives on global best practices to enrich the discussion, all while engaging with a broader network of accountability experts from around the world.
The members of the Public Experts Group are:
- Mr. Brian Cute
CEO of The Public Interest Registry and Chair of ICANN ‘s first and second Accountability and Transparency Review Teams (ATRT).1
- Ms. Jeanette Hofmann
Director, Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society, in Berlin, Germany. She also conducts research at the Social Science Research Center Berlin. She represented the academic community as one of four co-chairs of the NETmundial Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance in São Paulo, Brazil, in April 2014.
- Amb. Janis Karklins
Latvian Ambassador. Chair of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG); former Chairman of the Governmental Advisory Committee, GAC Liaison to the ICANN Board and co-selector of the ATRT1.
- Hon. Lawrence E. Strickling
NTIA Administrator and Assistant Secretary for Communication and Information of the U.S. Department of Commerce; and member of both ATRT1 and ATRT2.
1 Mandated by the Affirmation of Commitments (AoC), the ATRT is a team of community representatives responsible for reviewing ICANN ‘s accountability, transparency and pursuit of the interests of global Internet users on a recurring basis.
This ICANN announcement was sourced from:
https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2014-08-19-en
ICANN: Introduction of Two-Character Domain Names for .SOHU, .IMMO, .SAARLAND, .CLUB
Purpose (Brief): Four (4) Registry Services Evaluation Process (RSEP) requests were submitted by the registry operators listed below to allow the introduction of two-character domain names for the below TLDs. In total, the requests concern 4 New gTLDs.
| Proposal | TLD | Registry Name | Documents |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2014045 | club | .Club Domains, LLC | .Club Domains, LLC Request 6 August 2014 [PDF, 15 KB] |
| 2014042 | saarland | dotSaarland GmbH | dotSaarland GmbH Request 29 July 2014 [PDF, 17 KB] |
| 2014041 | immo | Donuts, Inc., submitted by Binky Lake, LLC | Binky Lake, LLC Request 22 July 2014 [PDF, 16 KB] |
| 2014036 | sohu | Sohu.com Limited | Sohu.com Limited Request 11 July 2014 [PDF, 15 KB] |
As part of these requests, each registry operator described which two-character domain names for which it would offer these registrations. These RSEP requests were posted for public information on the Registry Service Evaluation Process webpage, available at https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/rsep-2014-02-19-en.
As required by the Registry Services Evaluation Policy, ICANN has undertaken a preliminary determination on whether the proposals might raise significant competition, security or stability issues. ICANN’s preliminary review (based on the information provided) did not identify any such issues for these requests.
Implementation of the proposal would require amendments to the Exhibit A, Approved Services of the respective Registry Agreements, which are being posted for public comment.
Public Comment Box Link: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/two-char-new-gtld-2014-08-19-en
This ICANN announcement was sourced from:
https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2014-08-19-en
.CYMRU And .WALES Countdown Begins Following Delegation
Following ICANN’s delegation of the Welsh gTLDs .cymru and .wales, Nominet has published an update on the timetable for their availability.
From 1 September, businesses that have already registered their trademarks with ICANN’s Trademark Clearing House can begin the process of registering their new Welsh domains. The second registration phase, which gives Welsh businesses priority, starts in November with availability to the general public beginning on St David’s Day, 1 March 2015.
The Nominet announcement notes “Wales occupies a special place in the UK and in the world, with a distinctive identity and culture, and of course its own language. With the new .cymru and .wales web addresses there will now be a truly Welsh space on the internet. Strong backing for the new domain names has already come from a host of organisations that will be the first to switch to underline their Welsh identity online, among them the Welsh Government, S4C, the National Assembly for Wales, Sport Wales, the Federation of Small Businesses Wales, the Scarlets rugby team and the Arts Council for Wales.”
So Nominet say if you’re proud of being Welsh and the Welsh connection is important to your business, make sure you secure your .cymru or .wales web address. For more information, see ourhomeonline.org.uk.
ICANN Clarifies Its Role Regarding Online Pharmacies
Following some recent activities, ICANN has sought to outline their responsibilities when it comes to its role and responsibilities to online pharmacies.
The clarification comes in the form of a posting on the ICANN blog and in the post Maguy Serad, Vice President, Contractual Compliance Services, writes “ICANN has little or no control over the content of websites. In fact, our responsibilities and mission are very limited.”
Changes though occurred when the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) was updated in 2013. “Some registrars are signatories to that RAA, others are signatories to its predecessor, the RAA of 2009. The rights and responsibilities of the registrars differ under the two agreements.”
“When the 2013 RAA was being considered, the international law enforcement community wanted a dozen safeguards written into the agreement. All twelve were addressed, including requirements for registrars to verify and validate contact information of registrants and to maintain a point of contact who is responsible for reviewing reports of illegal activity submitted by law enforcement and regulatory agencies. These measures will assist the public and benefit law enforcement as it looks into reported abuses by online pharmacies.”
“ICANN’s ability to investigate complaints about a particular registrar, which might have registered an online pharmacy site, extends only as far as our rights under the contract with that particular registrar. While most in the ICANN community understand that, too many times the general public often does not.
“Our contractual compliance team occasionally receives complaints about registrars relating to unlicensed online pharmacies, with the expectation that we have the ability to not only investigate, but also immediately take down any given site. This is not the case.
We are very concerned about unlawful activity of any type on the Internet. However, those concerns do not necessarily mean that we are empowered to address those activities. Our only enforcement power lies within the realm of contractual compliance and extends only to enforcement of the specific language in our agreements.
“Many complainants simply do not understand that ICANN is not a governmental or law enforcement agency and has no law enforcement authority. That said, we support law enforcement efforts to fight illegal drug sales and will continue to work within the scope of our authority to assist law enforcement and regulatory agencies, where we are empowered to do so.”
Serad goes on to note that “the simple reality is that ICANN is not a court and is not empowered to resolve disputes when parties disagree over what constitutes illegal activity in multiple countries around the world. We rely on governmental regulatory authorities and courts to police illegal activity. Where law enforcement or a regulatory agency obtains an appropriate court order, ICANN will comply with the court order and require its contracted parties to do the same.”
“Whenever and however possible we support law enforcement efforts. We occasionally work informally, when appropriate, to encourage our contracted registrars to cooperate with law enforcement and regulatory efforts to combat illegal online pharmacies.”
For the pull posting on the ICANN blog, go to:
https://www.icann.org/news/blog/clarifying-icann-s-role-online-pharmacies
