DigitalBrandNews

As part of the policy development for new gTLDs, ICANN is planning to allow single character names at the second level for new gTLDs (e.g a.example, b.example, 1. example).   For existing gTLDs ICANN reserved single characters names at the second level.

Existing gTLD registries are beginning to seek contract changes to allow release of single character names at the second level as well.   ICANN has now approved the release of single character names for .coop and .mobi.   Requests for change are also expected for .biz and .com.

The GAC believes that questions related to the consideration of country and territory names need to be addressed further.  The GAC will continue consideration of whether the strings being meaningful representations or abbreviations of a country and territory name in any script or language should not be allowed in the gTLD space until the related country code TLD policy development processes have been completed.

In her speech today to the ICANN community, Meredith Atwell Baker from the United States Government identified the following areas of concern with the new gTLD process that need careful and thoughtful consideration and resolution prior to moving forward:

(1) Impact of potential changes to the registrar/registrar marketplace to allow for vertical integration;

(2) Expanding the marketplace before having effective and meaningful tools to protect consumers and brand owners;

(3) Demonstrating ICANN has sufficient capacity to enforce contract compliance with, as yet, an unknown number of new contracts;

(4) The fee structure, the possible use of auctions and the disposition of excess revenue given ICANN’s status as a non-profit; and

(5) Appropriate mechanisms to address dispute resolution, including the very delicate issues of morality and public order.

Here are some of the key issues that have emerged this week in Cairo at the ICANN Board meeting:

(1) Concerns about feedback timeline – extension planned

Governments and others have complained that they have not had enough time to consider all the material published as part of the draft RFP.  ICANN staff have stated that they are now planning to publish a second draft of the RFP at the conclusion of the current 45 day comment period (8 December 2008), which will then be followed by a further 45 day comment period before finalising the RFP.   This has pushed out the likely start date for receiving applications to the second half of 2009.  It seems likely that ICANN will take advantage of the next ICANN meeting in Mexico City on 1 March 2008 to get final feedback.

(2) Application fee

There have been concerns that ICANN is charging high fees to raise additional revenue that could be put into growing the size of the ICANN organisation.    The President of ICANN has re-assured the community that the fees will only be used to support the new gTLD process, and that any excess revenue will be separately accounted for and ICANN would consult further with the community regarding how any excess revenue should be spent in addition to the normal ICANN operating activities.   One possibility could be to use the funds to support the introduction of new gTLDs for developing nations.

(3) Annual registry fee

There is significant push back from brand holders and other parties interested in launching new gTLDs over the minimum $75,000 annual fee to ICANN for operating a registry.   This fee would be part of the normal operational revenue of ICANN along with fixed and variable transaction fees charged to registrars.   ICANN will review this fee based on further feedback from the community.

(4) Rights protection at the second level

Many brand holders are concerned about the potential for a substantial increase in costs for brand protection if they need to register their core brand names along with common misspellings in many of the new gTLDs.   There is growing support to attempt to standardize on sunrise processes across multiple new gTLDs to substantially reduce this cost.

(5) String contention

As part of the evaluation process it is possible that there will be multiple valid applications for the same string.  If the applicants are not able to reach an agreement amongst themselves, ICANN is proposing to use an efficient contention resolution process.  The current process that has been proposed is to use auctions, and ICANN is seeking feedback on whether this or other methods such as random selection amongst applications would be preferred by the community.   ICANN is keen to ensure that the chosen process is not easily able to be gamed by parties seeking to maximise their chances of being selected.

(6) Economists’ report on registry/registrar separation

ICANN is seeking feedback on the economists’ report on registry/registrar separation that is proposing that a single organisation that operates a new gTLD entirely for their own purposes or for their staff may be able to operate both a registry and registrar for that new gTLD, and not be required to use other ICANN accredited registrars.  The report is also considering relaxing the separation of roles such that a registry could operate a registrar for a new gTLD other than their own (e.g the registry for .biz could operate as a registrar for .com).     There seems to be strong support from brand holders with respect to relaxing the requirements for brand owners that will only have a few second level domain names for their own purposes.