Historical Resolution Tracking Feature » 2012-04-10 - Defensive Applications for New gTLDs

Important note: The explanatory text provided through this database (including the summary, implementation actions, identification of related resolutions, and additional information) is an interpretation or an explanation that has no official authority and does not represent the purpose behind the Board actions, nor does any explanations or interpretations modify or override the Resolutions themselves. Resolutions can only be modified through further act of the ICANN Board.

2012-04-10 - Defensive Applications for New gTLDs

Resolution of the ICANN Board
Topic: 
Defensive Applications for New gTLDs
Summary: 

The New gTLD Program Committee directs staff to communicate with the community about protections available in the New gTLD Program.

Category: 
gTLDs
Meeting Date: 
Tue, 10 Apr 2012
Resolution Number: 
2012.04.10.NG1 - 2012.04.10.NG3
URL for Resolution: 
http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/minutes-new-gtld-10apr12-en.htm#1
Status: 
Ongoing
Implementation Actions: 
  • Prepare a briefing paper on the topic of defensive registrations at the second level
    • Responsible entity: ICANN staff
    • Due date: None provided
    • Completion date: 4 June 2012
  • Consider whether additional work on defensive registrations at the second level should be undertaken
    • Responsible entity: GNSO
    • Due date: None provided
    • Completion date: Ongoing
  • Implement targeted communications regarding the processes used and protections available in the New gTLD Program
    • Responsible entity: ICANN staff
    • Due date: None provided
    • Completion date: 20 February 2013
Resolution Text: 

Whereas, the Board approved the New gTLD Program with protections for certain interests and rights, and intellectual property rights in particular (http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-20jun11-en.htm);

Whereas, the Board provided its rationale for approving the New gTLD Program with these elements (http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-20jun11-en.htm);

Whereas, the availability of the objection process and other aspects of the program have been actively communicated;

Whereas, ICANN received comment describing an apparent need to submit gTLD applications for defensive purposes to protect established legal rights;

Whereas, ICANN responded by establishing a public comment period to seek input on the sources of this perception and how it could be addressed (http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/new-gtlds-defensive-applications-06feb12-en.htm);

Whereas, ICANN held a public workshop during ICANN's public meeting in Costa Rica to hold a community discussion regarding suggestions raised during the comment period, and additional suggestions with participation from the community (http://costarica43.icann.org/node/29711);

Whereas the New gTLD Program goals include the protection of established legal rights,;

Whereas, a summary and analysis of public comment was performed and the discussion in the public workshop was transcribed;

Whereas the sense of the public discussion indicated that trademark protections should continue to be discussed and developed for the registration of second-level domain names and also indicated that cybersquatting was not likely to be a significant issue in the registration of top-level domain names;

Whereas, ICANN is committed to reviewing the effectiveness of the application and evaluation process, and of the safeguards put in place to mitigate issues involved in the introduction of new gTLDs, following the initial application round;

Whereas, the comments indicated that significant concerns about awareness of the protections available and that renewed efforts should be undertaken to broadly communicate those protections to rights holders;

Resolved (2012.04.10.NG1), the New gTLD Program Committee thanks the community for its participation in the discussion of this issue.

Resolved (2012.04.10.NG2), while the New gTLD Program Committee is not directing any changes to the Applicant Guidebook to address defensive gTLD applications at this time, the New gTLD Program Committee directs staff to provide a briefing paper on the topic of defensive registrations at the second level and requests the GNSO to consider whether additional work on defensive registrations at the second level should be undertaken;

Resolved (2012.04.10.NG3), the New gTLD Program Committee directs staff to continue implementing targeted communications about the processes used and protections available in the New gTLD Program.

Rationale for Resolution: 

In furtherance of its commitment to accountability and transparency, ICANN opened a public comment period regarding reported perceptions of the need to file defensive applications that arose as the application window for new gTLDs drew near. While some of the comments were in favor of providing additional protections, such as block lists, "do not sell" lists, or additional refund levels to allow the withdrawal of applications after the reveal of all strings, some commenters noted that the Board should not attempt to introduce new protections at the top level at this stage in the first round of applications without bottom-up policy discussion. The protections that exist within the New gTLD Program were already the result of extensive community discussion and debate. That discussion has included the proposals made during this most recent round of public comment.

Instead of approving any changes at this time, the Committee directs ICANN to continue emphasizing the existing protections at the top level within communications on the New gTLD Program. As many comments referred to the potential for defensive registrations at the second level, the Committee is directing further work on this issue, to allow continued community discussion regarding whether further policy work should proceed on introducing additional protections at the second level. Further, ICANN has committed to conducting a post-first round study on whether the trademark protections should be adjusted.

Not introducing changes to the Applicant Guidebook at this time will better serve the public interest as those rules are being relied upon in the ongoing process. This action is not expected to have an impact on resources, nor is it expected to have an impact on the security or the stability of the DNS.

Other Related Resolutions: 
Additional Information: