Saturday, August 11, 2012

Public Comments: the new end date is now 26 September 2012

ICANN considers your requests:

"The Applicant Guidebook states that the public comment period could be extended based on the number of applications received. Leading up to the original 60-day deadline, ICANN received input from the community that this window should be extended to provide for the additional time needed to analyze and provide thoughtful comment on the significantly larger than 500 applications originally anticipated".



Read the official announcement here.

To submit a public comment, click here.
To lear IN FRENCH how to submit a public comment.

Thursday, August 9, 2012

New gTLD Program Update: start of Initial Evaluation

The PDF presentation of the Webinar can be downloaded here.

Agenda included:

  • Status (dates):
  • Communications;
  • Evaluations Underway;
  • Initial Evaluation;
  • Early Observations & Clarification Questions;
  • Metering / Batching (dates);
  • Key Dates (dates).

More on the ICANN web site.

Video about .post new gTLD recently launched

More Wine new gTLDs Public Comments (23)

Many public comments for both ".wine" and ".vin" domain name extensions were published these last days, subjects of public comments were:
  • Rights Protection Mechanisms;
  • Avoiding bad faith registrations;
  • Objection statement;
  • Geographical indication in wine sector;
  • عدم السماح بتسجيل هذا الاسم.
Some comments are the same "copy-paste" for different applicants.

Panels and objections grounds are:
  • Registry Services Evaluation Panel;
  • String Similarity Evaluation Panel;
  • String Confusion Objection Ground;
  • Geographic Names Evaluation Panel;
  • Community Evaluation Panel.
Affiliations of entities publishing these comments are:
  • Prudential Financial, Inc.;
  • TIFFANY & CO.;
  • AIM - European Brands Association;
  • H.J. Heinz;
  • Public TLD;
  • International Organisation of Vine and Wine;
  • Self;
  • Sunkist Growers, Inc.
Most of these comments are not made to protect the wine universe and most are general: I mean they could have been submitted for any string.

One is interesting, it tries to defend an existing .WINE string in an Alternative DNS root. Unfortunately, an interesting comment addressed to the "Community Evaluation Panel" is in a language I cannot read but should probably be taken into account by panelists*.

The one addressed to the "Geographic Names Evaluation Panel" and which is entitled "Geographical indication in wine sector" is written by The International Organisation of Vine and Wine (OIV). This organization, based in Paris, is also an intergovernmental organisation (www.oiv.int) directly affiliated to a strong wine community worldwide: it represents 44 Member states (Australia, France, South Africa...) and has many observers.
It is possible panelists consider this comment.

To read .wine public comments, you should go to here, "search by string" and enter "wine", then click on "Go": the list will appear.

* I finally translated it with Google Translate and for what I read, all I can add is "no comment".

Saturday, August 4, 2012

Correspondences with ICANN and notices of breach

ICANN is an organization which deals with issues through correspondences. For a better transparency, these are made public.

The ICANN correspondence page lists all letters sent to the organization. Senders give a name, a title and an affiliation. Such affiliation can be the ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers), one of its sub organizations or any other: a new gTLD project or an organization affiliated to it. Below is the list of affiliations for the month of July 2012:
  • The Association of National Advertisers (ANA);
  • ICANN Board;
  • The DotGreen Community, Inc.;
  • Foundation for Assistance for Internet Technologies and Infrastructure Development (FAITID);
  • United Nations;
  • SSAC (Security and Stability Advisory Committee).
Then, the type of issue is mentioned. Most of the time it is a "notice of breach". Here is a list for the month of July:
  • Notice of Breach;
  • Extension of the Application Public Comment Window for New gTLDs;
  • Processing of Applications for New Generic Top-Level Domains (gTLDs);
  • The New gTLD Program and the Public Interest;
  • Support of the SSAC Letter to ICANN Board;
  • IGO Domain Names;
  • New Generic Top Level Domain (gTLD) Process.
You can write to ICANN for any issue transmitting your document via electronic mail (email), facsimile (fax) and postal mail.

Friday, August 3, 2012

Trying to submit a comment on new TLD applications

Saturday, July 28, 2012

2 public comments for the .WINE new gTLD applications

The "public comments" allow any interested party to comment any new gTLD application in the ICANN new gtLD program.

On July the 27, two comments were submitted by to the applications of 2 of the 3 applicants for the .WINE string:

  1. dot Wine Limited based in Gibraltar (application);
  2. Affilias Limited based in Ireland (application).
The comments were sent to the "Registry Services evaluation Panel" and the subject is "The Rights Protection Mechanisms".

The comment is the same for both applications:

The inclusion of stronger Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) would improve the operation of this applied-for new gTLD. Such additional mechanisms may include, but are not limited to, the blocking mechanism put in place by ICM Registry for the launch of the .XXX gTLD, the blocking mechanism proposed by Uniregistry, Corp. in its gTLD applications, or the Domain Protected Marks List (DPML) proposed by Donuts, Inc. and DMIH Limited in each organizations’ respective gTLD applications.

During the .XXX sunrise registration period, a period where trademark owners are traditionally offered the opportunity to register their trademarks for a premium fee that is then paid every year upon renewal of the registration, ICM Registry also offered a "block" option. In other words, instead of requiring companies to register domain names containing their trademark and pay yearly renewal fees, ICM Registry offered companies the option of 1) choosing the traditional registration, which gives the company the option to use the domain name, or 2) paying a one-time fee to block the name in perpetuity. Internet users who navigated to blocked names would be greeted with a notice that the name was blocked, and the company would not have the option of using it unless it changed to the traditional renewal fee model. This has proved to be a welcome solution for brand owners. Similarly, a DPML blocks the registration of second-level domains that contain, or are a close variant of, a trademark registered in the Trademark Clearinghouse. The crucial difference between this mechanism and many of the post-registration dispute resolution procedures in development, such as the Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) system, is that it will prevent third parties from infringing on trademarks in the first place, thus saving trademark owners the time and financial burden of pursuing legal action against these parties.

Over 400 applications have included one of these additional RPMs, which are a proactive approach towards rights protection.



Check public comments here.

Friday, July 27, 2012

Analysis of New gTLDs

.BRAND new gTLD Reports are updated once a month.

.BRAND new gTLD Reports are updated once a month.
Cick here !