Search engine for discovering works of Art, research articles, and books related to Art and Culture
ShareThis
Javascript must be enabled to continue!

ICANN's Implementation Recommendation Team for New gTLDs: Safeguards Needed

View through CrossRef
The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) pledged at its recent Mexico City meeting to establish an Implementation Recommendation Team (IRT). This team of 24 experts is responsible for developing and proposing protections for trademark holders. Such protections are needed to ensure that ICANN's proposal to create new generic Top-Level Domains (gTLDs) such as .BLOG does not result in increased cyber squatting, phishing attacks and costly defensive registrations of domain names in new gTLDs. But the IRT process itself requires certain procedural and substantive safeguards. The IRT's first teleconference occurs today, followed by its first in-person meeting in Washington, DC April 1-2. ICANN has issued no official announcement of the IRT's creation and has released no final list of IRT members. But given the importance of the IRT process, there must be maximum transparency throughout the IRT process consistent with ICANN's by-laws. This is especially critical with the pending expiration of ICANN's Joint Project Agreement with the U.S. government. Finally, maximum transparency is the only prudent course of action for the IRT because the risk of litigation from the new gTLD round is greater than the risk from previous TLD rounds. Here are the following recommendations to minimize both the chance for litigation and potential legal liability: * Maximize Openness and Transparency of the Implementation Review Team * Require all IRT members to disclose any direct or indirect financial interest * Dedicate a significant part of the next ICANN regional meeting to discussing each proposal prior to inclusion into the next Draft Applicant Guidebook * Develop a comprehensive bundle of reasonable policies to address concerns of trademark owners that can be implemented without causing an undue burden on either ICANN or the registries and registrars
Elsevier BV
Title: ICANN's Implementation Recommendation Team for New gTLDs: Safeguards Needed
Description:
The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) pledged at its recent Mexico City meeting to establish an Implementation Recommendation Team (IRT).
This team of 24 experts is responsible for developing and proposing protections for trademark holders.
Such protections are needed to ensure that ICANN's proposal to create new generic Top-Level Domains (gTLDs) such as .
BLOG does not result in increased cyber squatting, phishing attacks and costly defensive registrations of domain names in new gTLDs.
But the IRT process itself requires certain procedural and substantive safeguards.
The IRT's first teleconference occurs today, followed by its first in-person meeting in Washington, DC April 1-2.
ICANN has issued no official announcement of the IRT's creation and has released no final list of IRT members.
But given the importance of the IRT process, there must be maximum transparency throughout the IRT process consistent with ICANN's by-laws.
This is especially critical with the pending expiration of ICANN's Joint Project Agreement with the U.
S.
government.
Finally, maximum transparency is the only prudent course of action for the IRT because the risk of litigation from the new gTLD round is greater than the risk from previous TLD rounds.
Here are the following recommendations to minimize both the chance for litigation and potential legal liability: * Maximize Openness and Transparency of the Implementation Review Team * Require all IRT members to disclose any direct or indirect financial interest * Dedicate a significant part of the next ICANN regional meeting to discussing each proposal prior to inclusion into the next Draft Applicant Guidebook * Develop a comprehensive bundle of reasonable policies to address concerns of trademark owners that can be implemented without causing an undue burden on either ICANN or the registries and registrars.

Related Results

ICANN's Economic Reports: Finding the Missing Pieces to the Puzzle
ICANN's Economic Reports: Finding the Missing Pieces to the Puzzle
The global business community and a number of national governments have expressed significant concerns about ICANN's proposal for processing large numbers of applications for new T...
Comments of Michael Palage, PFF to Dept. Of Commerce National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) NOI on 'ICANN 3.0'
Comments of Michael Palage, PFF to Dept. Of Commerce National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) NOI on 'ICANN 3.0'
The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) has strayed from the technical coordinating mandate originally envisioned in the 1998 White Paper and has become a q...
Choosing the Right Path to a Permanent Accountability Framework for ICANN
Choosing the Right Path to a Permanent Accountability Framework for ICANN
Over the next month, the ICANN Board will consider its options for ensuring that some framework is in place to ensure ICANN’s accountability to the global Internet community after ...
An Error Cost Approach to Competition Issues in Closed gTLDs
An Error Cost Approach to Competition Issues in Closed gTLDs
Some critics oppose ICANN’s authorization of closed gTLDs, claiming they could be anticompetitive because closed domain registry operators would have monopoly control over generic ...
The End of the Experiment: How Icann's Foray into Global Internet Democracy Failed
The End of the Experiment: How Icann's Foray into Global Internet Democracy Failed
ICANN's experimentation in running a representative and open corporate decision-making process to manage the domain name system has largely failed. This failure has manifested itse...
ICANN's 'Go/No-Go' Decision Concerning New gTLDs
ICANN's 'Go/No-Go' Decision Concerning New gTLDs
The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) should institute a variety of changes to its soon-to-be-issued Draft Applicant Guidebook for new generic Top Level D...
A Jurisdição da ICANN: Desafios Atuais e Prospectivas Futuras
A Jurisdição da ICANN: Desafios Atuais e Prospectivas Futuras
O presente artigo visa analisar os meios existentes de atribuir imunidades jurisdicionais à ICANN para evitar sua submissão às cortes e leis dos Estados Unidos, de forma que a miss...
Controlling Internet Infrastructure: The 'IANA Transition' and ICANN Accountability, Part II
Controlling Internet Infrastructure: The 'IANA Transition' and ICANN Accountability, Part II
In Part 1 of this series on Controlling Internet Infrastructure, we described the “IANA transition,” the U.S. government’s plan to relinquish its special oversight role in connecti...

Back to Top