(A) No plan for start-up other than reliance on the introduction of a large number of TLDs to avoid a rush. (B) No UDRP. (D) Registrants may choose not to have their domain names listed in any public directories (opt-out). (E) Need more information on pre-screening. Mandates use of domain name within a reasonable time, forbids registration for sole purpose of resale, and prescreens for "(f)amous and well established and recognized trademarks" (although no such list exists). 

Unwise in principle to move ahead on industry-specific TLDs in which industry has not participated (e.g.,. shoes, .cars, .travel).

.africa, etc. (Rathbawn) 

.LLC, etc. 

.wap 

.sansansan, etc. 

.xxx and .sex 

.africa

U 

U 

U 

U 

U

S 

U 

I 

U 

U

I 

I 

I 

S 

U

S 

I 

I 

I 

U

G 

I 

I 

S 

U

General Comment: The main application and the annexes have some inconsistencies.  For example, in the main application, the applicant states that there will be a "sunrise" period of one month for "famous" or "registered" marks to pre-register.  However, several of the annexes specifically state that there will be no "sunrise" period.  Given that the main application doesn't appear to apply to the individual TLD strings, IPC has rated each annex that sets forth the criteria related to the specific TLD.  

In general, the annexes describing the specifics for each of the proposed TLDs either omit or provide insufficient information with respect to satisfying the BC/IPC principles. 

(A) Prescreening for famous and well-known marks, but no "sunrise" period. IPC notes that no famous marks list exists. (B) Will follow UDRP and will introduce mediation, if both parties agree. (D) WHOIS is status quo. (E) Will follow WIPO Study Annex IV to address abusive domain name registrations.  

Unwise in principle to move ahead on industry-specific TLDs in which industry has not participated (.game and .tours).

(A) Trademark-type search prior to accreditation (registration), followed by a sixty-day opposition period. (B) Will adopt the UDRP. 

(D) WHOIS at registry level with enhanced searchability. (E) Appears to accept responsibility for notice and take down under DMCA, though this needs clarification. This TLD is invisible to end-users. 

General Comment: Application sorely lacking in the  necessary protections. Most obvious was the apparent confusion created by the application. The application purports to be for "personal names for personal use"; however, the application goes on to indicate that this is an "unrestricted" TLD. While the application has put some procedures in place, the proposed procedures are totally inadequate.  

No provision for cancellation due to false contact data; registrar WHOIS obligations unclear; reference to notice and take down unclear. 

General Comment: This proposal offers nothing new with regard to IP protection. Throughout the application, the applicant states that the UDRP is the appropriate vehicle for resolving disputes, but is vague as to how this would be accomplished.  

(A) No "sunrise" provision in accordance with IPC guidelines. (B) The application does call for a modification of the UDRP to handle disputes between legitimate rights holders during the "sunrise period," that would then disappear at the end of the "sunrise period." The application only provides "enhanced" protection for trademark holders that provide an affidavit. This affidavit is drafted to prove fame of the mark and the last two paragraphs of the Affidavit are somewhat disturbing. (D) Status quo on WHOIS. (E) *Although not every open TLD is unsatisfactory, the IPC has concern that the .kids designation is misleading, in that the public will likely regard it as a restricted TLD.

(A) Limits "sunrise" to marks on "famous" list (although no such list exists) and only to marks that are registered in the U.S., which overlooks other national trademark registries (E. 15); (C) detailed process for charter compliance audits, maintenance of IP advisor. 

General Comment: IPC appreciates reference to 8/24 IPC paper. However, more detail is needed. Particularly with respect to (D) and (E).

General Comment: Favorable attributes include, e.g., electronic verification against database; domain name designations to be clearly derived from museum's name; a novel "cooling off" period of five days post-registration; and pre- and post-screening to ensure that applicant/registrant actually meets or can meet the criteria as a "museum" and has demonstrated such ability in its submissions.   

(A) No "sunrise" needed, as registrants must be on a dedicated list. (D) WHOIS limited to registrant name and mailing address.

(A) No "sunrise," because limited to numeric SLDs. (B) Adheres to UDRP. (D) Fat registry WHOIS model; applicant should clarify full public availability unless specifically restricted by applicable law.  

Note: character-based SLDs might be considered at a later date, subject to IP considerations.

(A) No "sunrise." (B) Prefer to resolve disputes and many other concerns by UPU policies, and only refer to the UDRP as a last resort. Insufficient information about the efficacy of UPU policies and experience with UPU disputes to comment on short notice on whether such remedies will prove adequate when applied to internet disputes.  

(D) Appears to be status quo with respect to WHOIS.

General Comment: The application itself states that the guidelines on domain name use in this TLD are still in draft form and "are likely to run" as set forth in the application. As a result, much more specifity is required before the TLD policies set forth therein can be found satisfactory, let alone good.  

(A) There is no "sunrise" mechanism for registered trademarks covering union-related services. There was no express provision requiring prepayment of the registration fees, or certification that all statements in the application are true. In addition, there is no requirement that an officer of the union registering under this TLD represent/warrant it has the authority to act on behalf of that union.  

(B) There is no mechanism for resolving charter violations. Also, it appears the only way to challenge a registrant’s qualifications to register under this TLD is through an adjudication panel made up solely of union-type members (no ip representation) and not the UDRP.  

(C) The only intellectual property protection provided is publication of the domain name before it goes live, BUT the publication period can be waived under certain conditions.  

(D) There is no requirement for the registrant to keep the data current. The application simply refers to a "standard" WHOIS service without any details.   

(E) The application specifically states that there will be no pre-screening of registrations for infringements of intellectual property rights. In addition, registrations will only be subject to greater scrutiny during the "start-up" period (there is discretion whether to extend past the start-up period. However, it states that in the majority of cases, applications would not be closely tested according to the "bona fide trade union organizations" criteria, and instead a fast track mechanism would approve the majority of registrants without the need for close scrutiny. Moreover, the TLD applicant is relying on the restrictions on which organizations have the right to register names as the best guard against abusive behavior, but the trustees reviewing such information do not include parties representing intellectual property interests.

(A) The application contemplates the validation of its pre-registration of .web domain names, clearly in contradiction to ICANN and the Names Council’s press release. Moreover, the application specifically rejects a "sunrise" type proposal. Trademark owners have preemptive rights to challenge existing .web applications, however, unlike a "sunrise" provision where trademark owners are the first to file, there is a phase in period during which trademark holders can place existing .web registrations (i.e., presumably those that have also been pre-registered) on hold pending the resolution of a dispute under either the UDRP or a court of competent jurisdiction. 

(B) The application states its adherence to the UDRP, and since this is not a restricted TLD, there are no provisions regarding charter violations. 

(C) Intellectual property protections for third party interests such as periodic sampling to uncover incomplete contact information; publication of domain name before it goes live; periodic review of sites to ensure charter compliance; means for third parties to challenge registration of their personal names are not provided. The applicant relies on the preemptive rights mentioned above and the UDRP/courts. 

(D) The application states that the publicly accessible look-up system WHOIS currently in use offers sufficient search capabilities for trademark holders, and thus does not specifically cover the provisions in the IPC Guideline paper. 

(E) While the application n provides for prepayment of the registration fee, there is a provision that allows customers with established credit a limited amount of time to pay. Assuming the amount of time is truly limited (i.e., days), this appears reasonable.