The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), in response to a request for proposals (RFP), received ten applications for new sponsored top-level domains (sTLD's). They were: .asia, .cat, .jobs, .mail, .mobi, .post, .tel (Pulver.com). .tel ( Telname), .travel, .xxx.
This sTLD RFP is the first stage of ICANN's strategic initiative to move to a streamlined, fully-globalized process for the introduction of new generic TLDs. This unique phase is part of the continuing expansion of the domain name system.
The applications were submitted in response to a request for proposals process that was initiated by ICANN December 15, 2003. The last day to submit applications was March16, 2004. A public comment period was opened from April 1-30, 2004.
The applications were to be reviewed by an independent evaluation panel beginning in May 2004. In this framework, the Subcommittee on Registration Practice and DNS Administration of the International Trademark Association's (INTA) Internet Committee commented on the proposals for the new Sponsored Top-Level Domains.
Mr. Charles Sha’ban, Executive Director of Abu-Ghazaleh Intellectual Property (AGIP) Regional Office participated in the evaluation process for the new sTLD’s. Mr. Sha’ban was selected to the Subcommittee on Registration Practice and DNS Administration (2004-2005) of the INTA’s Internet Committee.
The mission of INTA's Internet Committee is to evaluate treaties, laws, regulations and procedures relating to domain name assignment, use of trademarks on the Internet, and unfair competition on the Internet. This committee also develops and advocates policies to advance the balanced protection of trademarks on the Internet.
In addition, the subcommittee is charged with considering proposals for expansion of the gTLD namespace, including an analysis of applicants for the administration of new gTLDs as well as providing analysis and commentary on DNS administrative matters, particularly the administration of ICANN.
With respect to the methodology used in the evaluation, the subcommittee utilized the same criteria developed by the ICANN Intellectual Property Constituency when it reviewed the initial proposals to expand the TLD namespace back in November 2000. Specifically, the subcommittee focused its review and analysis on the following four areas:
1. The mechanisms set forth in the proposals for protecting the rights of others (e.g., sunrise proposals); and
2. The mechanisms set forth in the proposals for assuring charter compliance and the avoidance of abusive registrations; and
3. Assurance of adequate dispute resolution mechanisms; and
4. Provision of ICANN policy-compliant Whois information.
These four areas were then rated by the Subcommittee on a scale of Good (G), Satisfactory (S), Insufficient Information (I) and Unsatisfactory (U). In addition, each proposal was given an overall rating based on the aforementioned scale.
As a preliminary matter, the subcommittee highlighted its concern that some of the posted proposals do not seem to qualify as a sponsored top-level domain ("sTLD"). It is generally understood by the subcommittee and the Internet stakeholder community as a whole that an sTLD is a specialized name space directed towards a very specific group of potential users most affected by the namespace. See, Top Level Domains posted at www.icann.org/tlds/ .
In addition, an sTLD has a sponsoring organization and a charter that "defines the purpose for which the TLD has been created and will be operated." Despite this clear understanding of an sTLD, some of the posted proposals were not specifically tailored to a focused group of potential end users. In contrast, several of the proposals were designed to appeal to potentially infinite numbers of end users and have broad and ill-defined charter definitions outlined in the proposal.
Hence, the subcommittee finds this development disturbing and it hopes that ICANN will remember its mandate to limit the introduction of any new TLDs into the root to sTLDs.
After carefully reviewing the posted proposals, the subcommittee gave the following proposals an overall rating of Good: .mail and .travel. The following proposals were rated Satisfactory: .cat, .jobs and .xxx. The subcommittee rated four proposals as "I" because it felt that there were several areas where the proposal did not give sufficient information: .mobi, .post and .tel (pulver.com). The subcommittee recognizes that with added information from the sponsors, its concerns, if any, may be adequately addressed. Lastly, the subcommittee rated two proposals as Unsatisfactory: .asia and .tel (Telname).
Sponsors may contact J. Scott Evans, Chair of INTA's Internet Committee, for further discussion or clarification: J. Scott's e-mail address is jse@adamspat.com.