DigitalBrandNews

The launch of .co began March 1 with a Grandfather phase followed by a Sunrise Local A phase for holders of trademarks registered in Colombia. The Sunrise Global B phase for global trademark holders begins April 26 and extends through June 10.

In addition to being common abbreviation for company and corporation, a .co domain name can help increase website traffic. Using proprietary typographical analysis our research indicates that on average a .co domain name can generate 7% of the traffic of the equivalent .com domain name. In many cases this will make it well worth the cost of adding a number of .co domains to your portfolio. The estimates are based on website averages for domain name type-in behavior and analysis of typographical errors.

Due to the resemblance to .com and other popular associations companies may need to consider securing their brand as a defensive registration since .co will become available to the general public in the landrush and general availability phases.

Companies interested in application for any phase can submit their domain name requests now and we’ll handle submission for the appropriate phase. For more information and terms and conditions, contact your client services manager.

Launch Details:

• Sunrise phase B: 26 April 2010 through 10 June 2010. Applicants must have an active trademark registered in a trademark office or registry that corresponds to a state or entity described in the WIPO Standard ST.3 code on or before 30 July 2008. Applications for domains with multiple qualified applicants will go to auction.
• Landrush phase: 21 June 2010 through 13 July 2010. During landrush, applications are open to the general public. Multiple applications for the same domain will go to auction.
• General availability: commences 20 July 2010. Domains will be available on a first-come first-serve basis.

Fifteen multiple listing services (MLS) in the U.S. have formed the MLS Domains Association with the intent to obtain the .mls gTLD according to their press release.  The group members currently operate Multiple listing services (MLS) used by real estate brokers.  “For years, MLSs and REALTOR® Associations have objected to businesses referring to themselves as ‘MLSs’ in their marketing, when in fact they are not MLSs,” said Bob Bemis, interim President of the Association and CEO of the Arizona Regional Multiple Listing Service. “Our goal is to create a place, the .MLS top-level domain, where the web sites actually belong to MLSs, not to other types of business,” he said.
The group intends for .mls to benefit consumers by providing a unique location of MLS data on the Internet and for the TLD to be the definitive source or MLS listings.

The launch of .co began March 1 with a Grandfather phase for existing third level domain holders. This phase has ended and now begins the Sunrise periods for trademark holders. Sunrise phase A begins April 1 and extends through April 20.

In addition to “co” being common abbreviation for company and corporation, having a .co domain name can help increase website traffic. Using proprietary typographical analysis, our research indicates that on average a .co domain name can generate 7% of the traffic of the equivalent .com domain name. In many cases this will make it well worth the cost of adding a number of .co domains to your portfolio. The estimates are based on website averages for domain name type-in behavior and analysis of typographical errors.

Due to the resemblance to .com and other popular associations, companies may want to consider securing their brand as a defensive registration since .co will become available to the general public in the landrush and general availability phases. Companies interested in application for any phase can submit their domain name requests now and we’ll handle submission for the appropriate phase.

The ICANN meeting in Nairobi on 12 March 2010 ended with a decision to withdraw the EOI process that was proposed at the prior public meeting in Seoul, Korea in October 2009.  The ICANN Board determined the benefits of proceeding with an EOI proposal were outweighed by the costs of potential delay to the new gTLD program and the lack of certainty about the date when the overarching issues of the program could be resolved.

On 18 March 2010 Melbourne IT provided an update of the meeting.  In case you missed it or would like to review the content, the session was recorded.  You can access it by following this link : March gTLD Update

Summary of the current state of the New gTLD process
The ICANN Board resolutions on gTLDs were good news for brand owners, especially those who felt the need to apply to protect their interests prior to a number of outstanding trademark issues being resolved.   This also removed the concern with applicants having to make their intentions public before submitting a final application.

Now it appears the process will have a chance to move toward completion in an orderly fashion.  This will allow the major outstanding overarching issues to be addressed so applicants will be able to make more fully informed decisions on whether or not they will need or want to apply.

Two earlier proposals from the trademark protection community gained support and are now planned to be incorporated in some manner into the next version of the applicant guidebook. Those are the Trademark (TM) Clearinghouse and the Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) proposals.   Both proposed measures will afford brand owners with improved protection mechanisms and reduce at least some of the costs associated with guarding against infringement.  Also receiving attention is a Post Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedure (PDDRP).  This proposal looks at resolving issues should a new gTLD registry deviate from its initial charter and in the process result in a claim by a rights holder.  Within the current PDDRP concept a panel would review the claims and determine if there is infringement of the rights of a rights holder.

ICANN also took the conservative step of requiring strict separation of entities offering registry services and those acting as registrars. The registry-registrar model with a separation of functions has worked well under the current market structure, but going forward where brand owners needing to manage second level domain names for their own use, it may not be ideal.  Recognizing this, the ICANN board also asked the GNSO council for further study of the issue and to potentially provide recommendations for more flexible registry/registrar separation policies.

Currently there is no official estimate from ICANN for when applications for gTLDs may begin.  It’s possible the 4th version of the applicant guidebook could be ready by the ICANN meeting in Brussels 25 June 2010, and then it may be possible to estimate next steps.