ICANN's New Generic Top Level Domains Strategies for Domain Name Registration and Brand Protection presents presents A Live 90-Minute Teleconference/Webinar with Interactive Q&A Today's panel features: Today s panel features: J. Scott Evans, Senior Legal Director Global Brand and Trademark, Yahoo! Inc. , Sunnyvale, Calif. Paul D. McGrady, Jr., Partner, Greenberg Traurig , Chicago Kristina Rosette, Special Counsel, Covington & Burling , Washington, D.C. W d Wednesday, February 24, 2010 d F b 24 2010 The conference begins at: 1 pm Eastern 12 pm Central 12 pm Central 11 am Mountain 10 am Pacific You can access the audio portion of the conference on the telephone or by using your computer's speakers. p p y g y p p Please refer to the dial in/ log in instructions emailed to registrations. CLICK ON EACH FILE IN THE LEFT HAND COLUMN TO SEE INDIVIDUAL PRESENTATIONS. If no column is present: click Bookmarks or Pages on the left side of the window. If no icons are present: Click View , select Navigational Panels , and chose either Bookmarks or Pages . If you need assistance or to register for the audio portion, please call Strafford customer service at 800-926-7926 ext. 10
For CLE purposes, please let us know how many people are listening at your location by • closing the notification box • and typing in the chat box your company name and the number of attendees. • Then click the blue icon beside the box to send.
ICANN’s New Generic T Top Level Domains L l D i Strategies for Domain Name Registration and Brand Protection February 24, 2010 J. Scott Evans, Yahoo! Inc. Paul McGrady, Greenberg Traurig Kristina Rosette, Covington & Burling LLP
When: There is no current application deadline. It is likely that the deadline will fall within the last quarter of 2010 or the first quarter of 2011. There may be an “expression of interest” deadline earlier in 2010. 2
When: late 2010 or early 2011 What: Ne w Co nte nt o n Rig ht Side o f the Do t ■ Ge ne ric te rm - e .g . <.c re ditc ard> ■ Brande d te rm – e .g . <.de lta> ■ Ge o g raphic indic ato r - e .g . who o wns g p g <.he rshe y>? ■ F o llo wing are so me e xample s o f ne w T L D’ s whic h have be e n public ly anno unc e d by the ir applic ants 3
4 .sco
5 .eco
gay .gay 6
7 sport .sport
When: late 2010 or early 2011 When: late 2010 or early 2011 What: New Content on Right Side of the Dot Why: Why De pe nds o n the T ype ■ Ope n Ope n T Ope n T L L Ds are tho se whic h are re g istrable by anyo ne o n Ds are tho se whic h are re g istrable by anyo ne o n a first c o me , first se rve basis. T he mo st famo us o pe n T L D is <.c o m> ■ Ope n with re stric tio ns brande d o r g e ne ric te rms e .g . <.natio nwide > o r b d d i t < ti id > <.insuranc e >, whic h c an be limite d to re g istratio ns by o nly yo ur lic e nse e s ■ Co mmunity T he se are limite d to c o mmunity me mbe rs, fo r e xample , re side nts o f Cle ve land wo uld be the o nly re g istrants o f <.Cle ve land> do main name s 8
Wh When: late 2010 or early 2011 l t 2010 l 2011 What: New Content on Right Side of the Dot Why: Why Depends on the Type Who : A Big T Who : A Big T e nt e nt ■ Brand o wne rs who want to e xpre ss brands ■ Brand o wne rs who want to do minate g e ne ric industry te rm g y ■ E ntre pre ne urs who want to c o mpe te with <.c o m>, <.c o .uk> <.c n> <.in> and <.de > ■ Cle ve r squatte rs/ pro spe c to rs (.de lta) ■ Citie s and o the r g o ve rnme nts (.c le ve land) 9
When: late 2010 or early 2011 When: late 2010 or early 2011 What: New Content on Right Side of the Dot Why: Why Depends on the Type Wh Who: A Big Tent A Bi T Ho w Muc h: No t Che ap Ho w Muc h: No t Che ap ■ $185,000 I CANN fe e ■ $100,000-$150,000 pe r ye ar fo r yo ur bac k-e nd re g istry se rvic e s pro vide r (assuming yo u do no t wish to de ve lo p se rvic e s pro vide r (assuming yo u do no t wish to de ve lo p and ho st yo ur o wn syste m) ■ L e g al fe e s fo r the applic atio n pro c e ss and any dispute pro c e sse s p ■ Marke ting c o sts to “se ll” ne w we b pre se nc e ■ Co sts o f inte rnal we b re de sig n 10
When: late 2010 or early 2011 What: New Content on Right Side of the Dot Why: Why Depends on the Type Who: A Big Tent g How Much: Not Cheap Risks o f I nac tio n ■ Pe rmane nt string pre c lusio n. I f De lta Airline s o btains <.de lta>, De lta fauc e ts wo uld no t be able to o btain it , in the future ■ L o ss o f pre mium industry te rm to a c o mpe tito r, fo r e xample , if o ne re al e state c o mpany we re to be awarde d the re g istry fo r <.ho me > o r <.re ale state > ■ De c e ntralize d fraud/ hac king de fe nse s 11
Proposed Rights Protection Proposed Rights Protection Mechanisms • Implementation Recommendation Team (IRT) – Globally Protected Marks List (“GPML”) – Minimum Start Up Mechanisms • IP Claims • Sunrise • Sunrise – Uniform Rapid Suspension System (“URS”) – Post-Delegation Dispute Mechanism g p – Thick WHOIS – Algorithm 12
IP Clearinghouse • IRT Recommendation – Centralized database for various types of IP, Centralized database for various types of IP, not just trademarks – Not an RPM, but a tool , – Tool that could simplify administration of: • Start Up Mechanisms p • GMPLs • URS filings 13
Proposed Rights Protection Proposed Rights Protection Mechanisms • STI Recommended – Trademark Clearinghouse • Only registered or court validated Common Law marks • No bar to use of database info for ancillary services • No bar to use of database info. for ancillary services • No requirement to use data for post-launch mechanisms – Minimum Start Up Mechanisms • Sunrise or TM Claims Service – Gives Registries some discretion Gives Registries some discretion 14
Proposed Rights Protection Proposed Rights Protection Mechanisms • URS – Mandatory for all new gTLDs – High standard of proof = clear & convincing – Expanded Answer deadline to 20 days – 3-day goal for issuing decision – Only remedy is suspension for term of registration i i • Option of winning Complainant to extend for additional year. y 15
Proposed Rights Protection Proposed Rights Protection Mechanisms • Recent Drafts from ICANN Staff – Trademark Clearinghouse Trademark Clearinghouse • Nationally/multi-nationally registered “text” marks • Court/judicially validated common law “text” marks • Mandatory for all new gTLD Start Up RPMs • Clearinghouse provider could offer broader-based services, but must keep any additional data separate i b t t k dditi l d t t 16
Proposed Rights Protection Proposed Rights Protection Mechanisms • Recent Drafts from ICANN Staff – Mandatory Start Up Mechanisms Mandatory Start Up Mechanisms • Sunrise Process • Trademark Claims Service • Compromised solution for registry discretion – All registered marks OR – All registered marks and validated marks (which can All i t d k d lid t d k ( hi h include registered marks from countries that do not conduct substantive review of applications) 17
Proposed Rights Protection Proposed Rights Protection Mechanisms • Recent Drafts from ICANN Staff – Allows multiple related Complainants and Registrants – Kept 20 day Answer period w/ possible 7 day extension of time t i f ti – No fee for Answer unless filed after 30 days of entry of Default entry of Default – Answer can be filed anytime during life of registration up to 2 years after determination 18
Proposed Rights Protection Proposed Rights Protection Mechanisms • Recent Drafts from ICANN Staff – URS • Domain Name locked upon notification of Complaint • Only remedy is suspension for life of registration – Option for Complainant to extend for 1 year at end of p p y registration – Determinations have no precedential effect in court or UDRP • Appeal pp – Do novo review – Status of domain name does not change 19
Mitigation of Potential Malicious Mitigation of Potential Malicious Conduct • ICANN identified “potential for malicious conduct” as one of four overarching issues g that must be addressed before new gTLDs are introduced • Recognition based on significant concerns raised in public comment on DAG1 raised in public comment on DAG1 20
Mitigating Malicious Conduct – Key Mitigating Malicious Conduct Key Issues • How ensure that bad actors not run registries? • How ensure integrity and utility of registry g y y g y information? • How ensure more effective effort to combat identified abuse? • How provide an enhanced control framework for TLDs with enhanced potential for abuse? 21
Mitigating Malicious Conduct • How ensure that bad actors not run registries? g – Vetted registry operators • added question to application about prior q pp p convictions of, disciplinary actions against, and subject of cybersquatting decisions against applicant and any person or entity that owns 15% or more of and any person or entity that owns 15% or more of applicant • plan to conduct background checks 22
Recommend
More recommend
