• PRO
  • Events
  • Awards
    • Client Choice New
    • Influencers
    Introducing Instruct Counsel
    The next generation search tool for finding the right lawyer for you.
  • About
  • Blog Popular
  • Login
  • Register
  • PRO
  • Resources
    • Latest updates
    • Commentary
    • Q&A
    • Analysis
    • Practical resources
    • In-depth
    • FromCounsel
  • Research tools
    • Global research hub
    • Lexy
    • Primary sources
    • Scanner
    • Research reports
    • Instruct Counsel
  • Resources
  • Research tools
  • Who's Who Legal
    • Find an expert
    • Reports
    • Thought Leaders
    • Performance Index
    • Research methodology
    • Submissions
  • Who's Who Legal
  • Learn
    • All
    • Masterclasses
    • Videos
  • Learn
  • Awards
  • My newsfeed
  • Events
  • About
  • Blog
  • Popular
  • Compare
  • Topics
  • Interviews
  • Guides

Analytics

Review your content's performance and reach.

  • Analytics dashboard
  • Top articles
  • Top authors
  • Who's reading?

Content Development

Become your target audience’s go-to resource for today’s hottest topics.

  • Trending Topics
  • Discover Content
  • Horizons
  • Ideation

Client Intelligence

Understand your clients’ strategies and the most pressing issues they are facing.

  • Track Sectors
  • Track Clients
  • Mandates
  • Discover Companies
  • Reports Centre

Competitor Intelligence

Keep a step ahead of your key competitors and benchmark against them.

  • Benchmarking
  • Competitor Mandates
Lexology

Back Forward
  • Save & file
  • View original
  • Forward
  • Share
    • Facebook
    • Twitter
    • Linked In
  • Follow
    Please login to follow content.
  • Like
  • Instruct

add to folder:

  • My saved (default)
  • Read later
Folders shared with you

Register now for your free, tailored, daily legal newsfeed service.

Find out more about Lexology or get in touch by visiting our About page.

Register

IP: new gTLD Committee responds to governments' issues with new gTLD program

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP

To view this article you need a PDF viewer such as Adobe Reader. Download Adobe Acrobat Reader

Global October 15 2013

On Sept. 12, the ICANN Board New gTLD Program Committee (NGPC) reported on its September meeting where it reached a decision regarding the Government Advisory Committee’s (GAC) issues concerning certain particular applications for new gTLDs and overarching issues with consumer choice, safety and security on the Internet. The report issued in the form of a report card indicated that the NGPC proposed position on all issues is consistent with GAC advice. However, several issues, although purportedly consistent with the GAC's position, were still under consideration by the NGPC.

At the Beijing Meeting, the GAC issued a communiqué identifying issued advice to the ICANN Board of Directors that the following applied-for strings be denied: . shenzhen (IDN in Chinese), .persiangulf, .guangzhou (IDN in Chinese), .amazon (and IDNs in Japanese and Chinese), .patagonia, .date, .spa, .yun, .thai, .zulu, .wine, and .vin.

ICANN notified applicants and the community about the GAC’s advice, opened the Beijing Communiqué to comments, and the applicants pursuant to ICANN policy were given a chance to respond.

The Beijing Communiqué also included “Safeguard Advice for New gTLDs,” which included a request to the ICANN Board that strings that are related or linked to professional sectors should be required to adopt policies that will protect consumers. These safeguards included requiring acceptable use policies that comply with applicable laws concerning privacy, data collection, consumer protection, fair lending, debt collection, etc., and establishing working relationships with the relevant regulatory or industry self-regulatory bodies.

Additionally, the GAC raised the issue of restricted or exclusive access strings that are generic terms. For instance, an application for .APP in which the applicant/owner was a software application provider that would use the string only for its applications. In such cases, the GAC advised that these exclusive access generic strings “should serve a public interest.”

The GAC conveyed its advice to the NGPC in its Durban Communiqué, which was issued on July 18. Applicants of strings that were specifically mentioned as objectionable submitted responses to the advice. In its September meeting, the NGPC adopted a scorecard approach, identifying issues and providing a score concerning its agreement or disagreement with the GAC’s advice or positions on certain matters.

As an initial matter, the NGPC declined to outright reject Amazon.com’s application for .amazon that has been opposed by Brazil and other South American countries. Instead, the NGPC indicated it would take action on the advice concerning the .amazon string at a future meeting. With respect to .thai, .spa, .yun, .guangzhou, .and .shenzhen, the GAC requested that ICANN not allow these applications to proceed beyond the initial evaluation stage. The NGPC response indicated that ICANN would allow these applications to go forward past initial evaluation, but that it will not enter into registry agreements with these applicants, subject, however, to the parties reaching an agreement with the GAC, prior to the close of the ICANN public meeting in Buenos Aires in November.

The GAC has also requested to the ICANN Board that the GAC work with Intergovernmental Organizations (IGOs) and the NGPC to develop a cost-neutral mechanism that would provide notification to an IFO if a potential registrant seeks to register a domain name matching the acronym of an IGO at the second level and giving the IGO an opportunity to express concerns and presumably block this registration. The NGPC accepted this advice and indicated that it had adopted a resolution to require registry operators to implement temporary protections for a precise list of IGO names.

If the ICANN Board and the GAC cannot reach an agreement on the list of IGO names that will be protected, the current list will be accepted.

The NGPC also discussed the remaining open items from the Beijing Communiqué. These included the Safeguard Advice and the issue of exclusive access registries. The NGPC and staff are working with the GAC to identify a time and place for further dialogue on these items.

The NGPC was scheduled to meet again on Sept. 28 to continue its work on addressing the GAC's concerns in advance of the Buenos Aires meeting.
 

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP - John C. McElwaine

Back Forward
  • Save & file
  • View original
  • Forward
  • Share
    • Facebook
    • Twitter
    • Linked In
  • Follow
    Please login to follow content.
  • Like
  • Instruct

add to folder:

  • My saved (default)
  • Read later
Folders shared with you

Filed under

  • Global
  • Internet & Social Media
  • Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP

Topics

  • Generic top-level domain

Organisations

  • Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers

Popular articles from this firm

  1. ILTACON18 is a Wrap *
  2. Cryptoassets & Blockchain: "Know When to Hold’em, Know When to Fold’em: an Introduction to Stablecoins" *
  3. The Trade War and Its Impact on the Location Decision Process *
  4. Tackling bad faith registration of domain names in a fast-changing landscape *
  5. International business and trade *

If you would like to learn how Lexology can drive your content marketing strategy forward, please email [email protected].

Powered by Lexology

Related practical resources PRO

  • Checklist Checklist: Anti-bribery risk assessment (USA)
  • Checklist Checklist: When does a firm need to be authorised by the FCA or the PRA (UK)
  • Checklist Checklist: Being prepared for a visit by a financial regulator (USA)
View all

Related research hubs

  • Generic top-level domain
  • Global
  • Internet & Social Media
Back to Top
Resources
  • Daily newsfeed
  • Commentary
  • Q&A
  • Research hubs
  • Learn
  • In-depth
  • Lexy: AI search
  • Scanner
Who's Who Legal
  • Find an expert
  • Reports
  • Thought Leaders
  • Performance Index
  • Research methodology
  • Submissions
  • Instruct Counsel
More
  • About us
  • Legal Influencers
  • Firms
  • Blog
  • Events
  • Popular
Legal
  • Terms of use
  • Cookies
  • Disclaimer
  • Privacy policy
Contact
  • Contact
  • RSS feeds
  • Submissions
 
  • Login
  • Register
  • Follow on Twitter
  • Follow on LinkedIn

© Copyright 2006 - 2023 Law Business Research

Law Business Research