As previously announced, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers ("ICANN") has formally opened the application window under which organisations can apply for the right to own and operate a new generic top level domain. The application window will remain open until 12 April 2012. Under ICANN's rules, applicants for new gTLDs must first purchase an application slot, or placeholder, for each application for US$5,000 each, which will then be deducted from each US$185,000 gTLD application fee.

The Company intends to use the Placing proceeds to provide additional working capital and in particular, to fund the application slots and subsequent fees for new gTLDs on behalf of itself and clients of Minds + Machines. The Company expects to submit multiple batches for application slots during the application window having already submitted for its first twenty application slots. In January, TLDH announced that Minds+Machines will also be providing the back-end registry services for the proposed new .BAYERN domain.

Antony Van Couvering, CEO of TLDH, commented: "We are delighted that both existing and new investors have responded so positively to our plan. With a new cash balance of approximately US$25 million, no debt, and a public stock, we believe that TLDH is ideally positioned to participate in the new gTLD opportunity."

Peter Dengate Thrush, Chairman of TLDH, added: "TLDH management believes that the increased capital will allow it to increase significantly the number of applications it is able to make, allowing it to develop a wider, more diversified portfolio of names in multiple languages and scripts."

The new Ordinary Shares being issued pursuant to the Placing will, on issue, rank pari passu with the existing Ordinary Shares in issue and application will be made for the new Ordinary Shares to be admitted to trading on AIM. Trading in the new Ordinary Shares on AIM is expected to commence on or around 17 February 2012.

About Top Level Domain Holdings Limited

Top Level Domain Holding is a publicly traded holding company listed on the London AIM market. The company is focused on the new top-level domain space. Top-level domains, such as .com, run by VeriSign (NASDAQ: VRSN), and .biz, run by NeuStar (NYSE: NSR), are regulated by ICANN. ICANN has announced plans to expand the number of top-level domains. TLDH intends to make targeted investments in this space, focusing on both infrastructure technologies and specific top-level domains.

But many other readers and astute observers of this space, domestic and international, would not confuse the public dead silence we are hearing from ICANN and its insider community or the euphoria of the long awaited application submissions we are seeing to mean that all is perfect. The multistakeholder model, ICANN's version of it, the New gTLD program, ICANN's approach on it, and The Single Root and its unique identifiers are all at graver risk than ever and must be saved before it is too late. Only then can we truly claim to be serving the "Global Public Interest" beyond mere words, slogans, and 11th hour band aid patches.

If you question my opinion on this gravity please take note of how Dr Larry Strickling, US Assistant Secretary of Commerce, concluded his letter to ICANN on Jan 3, 2012 stating:"How ICANN manages the new gTLD program will, for many, be a litmus test of the viability of this approach”.

It is understandable why those in the ICANN community who do see many of these grave risks to the multistakeholder model in plain sight chose to remain silent. Some do so in order not to cause any hiccups or possible derailment to the long overdue, but inequitable to emerging markets, New gTLD program that stands to benefit them, their businesses or their plans. Instead they chose to formulate their message to focus on only the opportunities the new gTLDs will bring, and rightly so, but with little or no attention to their local and global risks. After all, serving the Global Public Interest is not their mandate — it is however ICANN's mandate per the Affirmation of Commitments (AOC) agreement with the US Government, to which and to whom at the very least, it should be accountable.

The Global Picture

Internationalized Domain Name gTLDs, also known as IDN gTLDs, will usher the Global Multilingual Internet I have championed and advocated since the late 1990's, at many levels and roles, to serve "The Global Public Interest" that should empower local citizens.

Readers may be aware that I have also, inside and outside the ICANN fora, created great international awareness of the immense positive benefits of the coming Multilingual Internet that will be born thru IDN gTLDs and the new gTLD program. More acutely, I have not shied away from pointing out the grave risks, some of which remain unaddressed and unresolved. Also, the international relationships that I have created with global leaders in their sectors like Deloitte, VeriSign and others that primarily focus on the emerging markets and IDNs should carry some weight, credibility and validity to the voice of concern I raise, for those who care to listen.

But these accolades do not detract me from following my conscience and beliefs, as I have done over the years, to point out the grave risks I see in plain sight regardless of how unpopular this may make me at first glance with colleagues and fellow ICANN community members. Many are aware that I also have placed serving The Global Public Interest that I have always talked about above any possible personal or business interest. I hope that saying my peace may help save the Multistakeholder model, its principles and the single root of unique identifiers, the 10s, maybe 100s of millions of dollars that applicants are investing in applications, and ICANN from failure, and before it is too late.

The Imminent Grave Risks

Imminent grave risks are facing the Multistakeholder model, the single root, and ICANN itself, as well as serving "The Global Public Interest". In brief they are… Click here to continue reading the full Ankabooot editorial.

Written by Khaled Fattal, Group Chairman, The Multilingual Internet Group

I believe that I speak for many when I question whether ICANN is opening up these comment periods in good faith, or instead whether these are smokescreens, mere distractions to pretend that ICANN is "listening" to the public while staff and insiders proceed with predetermined outcomes.

I note that as of today, there are multiple past comment periods where ICANN staff have not yet even summarized/digested the public's input. This is simply unacceptable. In other organizations, people would get fired for not doing their jobs in a timely manner. At ICANN, such behaviour is not only tolerated, it is seemingly encouraged. It appears to be part of the culture of "willful blindness" of ICANN staff, insiders and the Board, in order that its "top-down" agenda can be imposed upon an unwilling public, rather than actually listening to the public in the "bottom-up" process that it suggests exists.

Furthermore, when ICANN does bother to get around to publishing summaries, it's clear that they do not even listen to what the public has to say on the topic! The public opposed new TLDs by a great margin. It was a very clear message, yet ICANN kept ignoring what the public had to say, and mischaracterized their words when speaking to others (e.g. politicians in Washington, etc.) about the public "consensus."

One sees that ICANN continues to speak in that twisted and biased manner in this actual comment period, when it uses loaded phrases such as "carefully crafted, new protections" or "perception" or "perceived need" — the underlying assumption being that the public is simply "stupid" and "doesn't understand" new TLDs, and if only the public "knew better", they would "come around" and "love what ICANN is doing." That is simply preposterous and arrogant. It demonstrates that ICANN is out of touch with reality. The informed public knows that new TLDs will be a disaster, and has said so in clear language at every opportunity. ICANN is not "misunderstood" as some people believe — the public fully understands ICANN, and opposes its plans! Period!

ICANN acts like a greedy politician, asking for a "tax increase" to pay for a new bureaucracy that simply transfers wealth from the public to itself and its insiders. ICANN is not creating new wealth. ICANN is destroying wealth. Taxpayers see through attempts to bamboozle them that the "tax increase" is a good thing. Just as the public sees through attempts by ICANN and its insiders to bamboozle them that this new TLDs plan is "good" for the public. Attempts to dress up their greedy proposal using words like "innovation" fail, because the public is smarter than ICANN and can see through their self-serving proposals.

One need only look at the .XXX rollout, which was a disaster for the public. Millions of dollars were spent by universities, non-profits, individuals and corporations to purchase "protection" so that someone else could not tarnish their image/brand/identity. ICANN and its insiders do not consider this to be a "disaster", though — they look at this as "innovation", and pat themselves on the back saying "job well done." ICANN might pretend "well, no one told us this was going to happen… how were we to know??" That's utter nonsense, of course. One can go back to the analysis of Tim Berners-Lee on new TLDs, who didn't mince his words. He said "New Top Level Domains Considered Harmful". Could one be more clear?? [NB: He was not pointing to just .mobi and .xxx — he was saying this about ALL new TLDs (see the "Title" tag in the W3C page).]

ICANN and its insiders are emboldened by the dot-XXX launch. They want to multiply that "tax" on the public, what many have described as a "protection racket", a thousand-fold. ICANN suggests that "this time will be different" — keep dreaming! The only thing that will be different is the *degree* to which the public will be damaged. ICANN wants to damage the public a thousand-fold, to the benefit of itself and its insiders.

ICANN instead needs to take a step back, whether willingly or by being forced to do so by the GAC, DOC, NTIA, DOJ or by other agents that are representative of the public interest. I suggest ICANN be compelled to do the following:

(1) immediately suspend the new TLDs rollout, and refund all monies collected to date.

(2) terminate the staff who have pushed forward this new TLDs plan over the objections of the public. It's clear that these staff have their own agenda that does not reflect the public interest, and it's time for new blood that is ready to serve the public, rather than staff who want to be masters over an enslaved public.

(3) go back and present true options to the public regarding new TLDs. In our prior recent submissions (see here and here), (which ICANN has yet to summarize, although we repeat much past input) we identified FIVE allocation methods for new TLDs. Five! 5! Yet, ICANN has never presented them all as options to be seriously considered. They simply imposed in a top-down manner their single plan that maximized the benefits to ICANN's insiders, rather than allow for competing alternatives that maximize the benefits, if any, to the public. One can see some of the options that ICANN failed to allow the public to even comment on, such as:

(i) no new TLDs

(ii) .com domains simply "ascending" to the root (no need for "defensive registration" concerns in that scenario, is there??)

(iii) Ascended TLDs approach (see here for full description) which also reduces the need for defensive registrations considerably.

(iv) regular competitive bidding/tenders for lowest cost to registrants (this was the DOJ/NTIA/DOC proposal in December 2008)

(4) go back and do true economic studies that weigh the benefits and the costs on the public (not just the benefit to ICANN and its insiders) for all alternatives (including the four options presented in point (3) above), not just the self-serving single plan that ICANN wants to impose upon the public. The economic studies must be truly independent, with researchers selected by the NTIA/DOC/DOJ or GAC, and not by ICANN staff/insiders.

In conclusion, ICANN simply acts as if it "knows better" (which it doesn't) and dismisses all attacks on its extremist and disastrous plans. It is our true hope that ICANN not be allowed to damage the DNS further. As Tim Berners-Lee wrote:

"The second effect is that instability is brought on. There is a flurry of activity to reserve domain names, a rush one cannot afford to miss in order to protect one's brand. There is a rash of attempts to steal well-known or valuable domains. The whole process involves a lot of administration, a lot of cost per month, a lot of business for those involved in the domain name business itself, and a negative value to the community."

The existence of this comment period about "defensive registrations" is proof that "Sir Tim" was right! (maybe that's why he was knighted, due to his brilliance) We ask that the new TLDs plan be terminated, so that further "negative value to community" does not occur. By continuing to ignore the public's wishes, ICANN is causing DNS instability. A trusted custodian of the DNS would not be causing DNS instability. Yet, ICANN has been doing exactly that. It's time that the world recognizes that ICANN is no longer a trusted custodian of the DNS and its damaging plans must be opposed.

Written by George Kirikos, President, Leap of Faith Financial Services Inc.

Domain Name Watching and Trademark Watching Services make perfect sense when new registrations and applications are being submitted and granted on a daily basis. I think that we can all easily agree that trying to understand new domain name and trademark registrations without an automated service would be nearly impossible.

And when ICANN eventually moves away from these discrete application rounds, I will be the first one to recommend an Application Watching Service.

However, as all new gTLD Applications in this first round will be publicly posted to the ICANN website on May 1st , it would seem that reaching for Ctrl-F would be the quickest and easiest way to search for exact- and near-matches.

Additionally, the applications that are likely to cause the greatest concern are probably those that consist of generic terms being applied for by a single company which intends to restrict ownership to only itself. So looking through the list of applications will be critical — you may not know what is of concern until you actually see it.

Be wary of companies offering new gTLD Application Watching Services at this time. Given that the number of submitted applications will likely be between 1,000 and 1,500, companies should be able to easily review the full list on May 1st, and quickly identify applications of concern.

Written by Elisa Cooper, Director of Product Marketing at MarkMonitor

• First, is a helpful FAQ that explains plainly the Legal Rights objection process. It's important that rights owners are very familiar with this process and are ready to respond if in the unlikely but potentially problematic situation that another entity applies for a gTLD that includes their intellectual property.

• Next, comes a summary explanation of the post gTLD delegation (beginning late 2012 or early 2013) rights protection mechanisms included in the program and provided for the defense of intellectual property rights.

• Lastly, WIPO has provided a set of links to analysis and other resources about the New gTLD dispute resolutions mechanisms.

With the May First "reveal date" — the day that ICANN will announce all of the applicants and the strings that have been applied for — approaching quickly, rights owners should be ready to respond. Reading the first article is a great place to start. Thanks to WIPO for sharing these links and this information.

Written by Frederick Felman, Chief Marketing Officer at MarkMonitor

The key to understanding the program's economic impact is to follow the theories of economist Paul Romer and look at how the rearrangement of resources creates value. ICANN's program increases the supply of resources that registries have for creating value. Value creation by registries can come from: (1) introducing new TLD signals for things like location, community, and social responsibility (for example, .nyc for New York City, .music to signal community, and .green to signal environmental corporate responsibility); (2) combining information, such as in the .tel model, which provides contact information for the companies using the gTLD; and (3) introducing a gTLD that competes with .com.

Given the new resources provided by ICANN, the burden now lies on the registries to innovate. But they have to be careful of cognitive biases in choosing among the gTLDs. For example, a registry that chooses the proposed .music should ask itself, "Is there value in .music?" The temptation is to ask the far easier "Do we love music?" Not the same thing, but studies show that we often answer an easier question instead of a harder and more relevant one, and that we'll do so without noticing the swap. (For details on cognitive error traps, see Daniel Kahneman, Thinking, Fast and Slow. I have warned against cognitive biases in gTLD value estimation and in domain name appraisals.) Another trap is reliance on the popularity of key words in social media, an approach that flopped with the recent failure to predict the success of presidential candidates.

Remember, there is no easy way to measure new gTLD value creation. The domain name industry has focused on registrations, but that's because they are easily measured and the information is publicly available. Number of registrations does provide a viable measure of a registry's profits, but the registrations may be defensive by brand owners rather than value creating. (For a discussion of alternative measures, see "The Economics of Well-Being” by Justin Fox, HBR January-February 2012.)

New signals and combinations of information, á la .tel, can be value adding for established companies as well as new ones. But switching costs will probably keep most com-branded companies from making the jump. So new companies may converge on a new gTLD that competes with .com while existing companies will more than likely register their brands under a large number of the new gTLDs as a defensive measure. Put all the registrations together and there will be enough revenues for the com-alternative gTLD to be viable.

One reason for gravitating to a com-alternative gTLD is that new companies might feel constrained by the unavailability of desired .com names and thus have a motive to find reasonable alternatives. (See Why Dominant Companies Are Vulnerable by Kyle B. Murray and Gerald Häubl, Sloan Management Review December 2011.) This is especially true because emerging brand owners don't have to acquire any new skills in order to adopt a new gTLD.

Written by Alex Tajirian, CEO at DomainMart

StarHub, a fully integrated info-communications company in Singapore, today announced it will apply for its own branded slice of Internet real estate as part of the revolutionary new Top-Level Domain program, which is set to change the way Internet users navigate the web.

StarHub has partnered with technical registry provider ARI Registry Services and digital brand management services provider Melbourne IT Digital Brand Services (DBS) to help it apply for and operate its '.brand' domain name.

In applying for '.starhub', StarHub joins other leading brands such as Canon, Deloitte and Hitachi in announcing plans to participate in the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers' (ICANN's) new Top-Level Domain program, which opened for applications last month.

StarHub aims to create a branded, authoritative corner of the Internet devoted completely to its business interests under the '.starhub' Top-Level Domain. In future, consumers may see new website addresses such as 'mobile.starhub', 'tv.starhub' and 'broadband.starhub' introduced to the brand's marketing and advertising activity.

Mr Oliver Chong, StarHub's Assistant Vice President of Brand and Marketing Communications, explained the '.starhub' Top-Level Domain will position the brand as a leader in the region.

"Our '.starhub' new Top-Level Domain will cement the company's position as Singapore's most innovative info-communications company. We pride ourselves on being at the forefront of innovation and through this initiative StarHub is one of first companies in the region to publicly commit to the next generation of online navigation," Mr Chong said.

"We believe the '.starhub' Top-Level Domain will deliver clear marketing and advertising benefits to StarHub, such as improved online brand recall and a more intuitive consumer experience with easy to remember domain names such as 'mobile.starhub'. We also anticipate potential Search Engine Optimisation (SEO) benefits by operating a more targeted and relevant naming system that is clearly matched with our website content," he said.

"Ultimately, we believe '.starhub' will deliver increased consumer trust and loyalty in our digital brand and enable StarHub to future-proof its online presence."

Mr Adrian Kinderis, CEO of ARI Registry Services — the company chosen by StarHub to provide technical expertise and infrastructure for the initiative — said it was a bold step forward for the company and reinforces its position as a leader in online innovation.

"StarHub is an industry leader and operating a new Top-Level Domain will reinforce its position at the forefront of innovation within the online space. As a proven global registry solution provider, we are extremely excited to be chosen to help support the '.starhub' Top-Level Domain," Mr Kinderis said. "A simple, memorable and branded Internet domain name like '.starhub' will allow consumers to bypass search engines and go directly to the content they are looking for. I anticipate that this announcement by StarHub will open the floodgates for Asian brands to get on board with this exciting initiative and it will be a major boost to the local digital economy."

Mr Theo Hnarakis, CEO & Managing Director of Melbourne IT — the company chosen by StarHub to provide domain strategy and application consulting services — said the decision to apply for '.starhub' would deliver long-term benefits for the StarHub brand.

"The way consumers connect with brands online has changed dramatically in the past few years with e- Commerce booming, mobile Web browsing rising fast and social media usage expanding — all of which has provided brands with opportunities and headaches in equal measure. Vital to the future of nearly every modern company is the ability for customers to easily engage with the business online. Savvy brands like StarHub understand that fact and realise the cornerstone to their future online strategy lies in a '.brand'," Mr Hnarakis said.

The application window for new Top-Level Domains opened on 12 January and will close on 12 April 2012.

Why register?

The question to this answer seems simple. To know who has registered with an organisation. This makes it possible to contact the registered person or organisation, to send bills and to discuss policy with the members.

The rationale of unreachable registrations

This one completely goes by me. ICANN distributes IP resources at the highest level that are on principle scarce: domain names and IP addresses and sets policy around the distribution of domain names. So it seems to be in the utmost interest of ICANN to have an accurate database. Over the past years it has been shown over and over again, that accuracy was not a priority of ICANN, even against her existing policies.

There does not seem to be a rationale for this lapses in registration measures. ICANN in the end loses money as she provides a service, but is most likely not paid for this service after registered parties have become unreachable. Next to that it is not good for ICANN's image, as government and LEA reactions have shown over the past years. It could even become a threat to ICANN's very existence.

Cyber crime and enforcement

With the coming of cyber crime, spam and botnets, law enforcement agencies of different back ground became interested in Whois data and were very much frustrated when they found data not to be accurate. (And vetting and revocation mechanisms not being in place.) Whois data is a primary source at the start of investigations. So if these are false this makes investigations harder, not impossible.

Inaccurate data

What can be reasons that data is inaccurate? There can be several reasons. To give a few examples. Someone forgot to change the data after a move of the office, contact person, a merger, bank account, a company stopped its activities, etc. In the meantime the domain names are still used as they were meant to, but from an unknown address.

A second reason could be that free speech advocates want to have a chance to hide their identity behind a so called proxy registration. This way they are safe from prosecution in their home country. Usually this is supported by western governments.

A third reason can be criminal intent. A person or group of persons use domain names for personal gain through illegal activities. They never intended to provide accurate data. From a society point of view this is an activity that preferably is stopped as fast as possible.

What to do about it?

We are discussing unreachable registered companies. It looks quite simple to me. ICANN has many ways to reach out to these companies and does so. Everyone concerned gets one year to alter the data. As soon as someone complies, the data is submitted to the Whois database, after being vetted by ICANN.

All that have not updated their registration on time -and one year is a very lenient time frame- are de-registered by ICANN .

Legit after claims

If ICANN makes sure there's a good procedure to follow for legit claims after the de-registration that come in anyway, I'm sure this procedure will work. Criminals usually do not show up and try to find new ways to proceed their business.

Vetting of all new registrations

When ICANN makes sure new applicants are vetted before being admitted and an ongoing checking procedure of existing members is put in place, I'm convinced that the Internet will become a safer place for all concerned. Also, she becomes an example for policy at lower level, whether domain name or IP address organisations, by setting a standard. It makes one avenue on the Internet harder to reach for criminals.

Update - Feb 7, 2012: Some amendments were made to the post as per comment #4

Written by Wout de Natris, Consultant international cooperation cyber crime + trainer spam enforcement

ARI Registry Services today announced it signed contracts to provide technical registry services for 21 new Top-Level Domains within the first week of applications opening.

Adrian Kinderis, CEO of ARI Registry Services, said signing 21 contracts in the first week was the perfect start to the application window.

"The opening of the application window on 12 January has clearly motivated applicants to get moving on this unique, yet limited opportunity. We immediately witnessed an influx of enquiries and 21 contracts had been signed by the end of the week," Mr Kinderis said. "The majority of these contracts are .brand TLDs, representing some the largest and most recognisable brands around the world. This indicates that the time of procrastination is over. Applicants need to move now or run the risk of missing out."

According to an analysis by ARI Registry Services, brands have shown the strongest interest (60% of interest) in applying for a new Top-Level Domain, followed by entrepreneurs (30% of interest) and then governments or other groups (10% of interest) wanting to represent their city or region online. An analysis of the industries shows technology brands (20%) lead the pack, closely followed by banks and other financial service providers (11%).

Mr Kinderis said he expects to make public client announcements with major brands in the near future. He also noted there is now no doubt about the level of demand for new Top-Level Domains.

"Critics of the program have suggested there is little demand for new domains. However, from the results we have seen in the first week of applications, we can clearly see strong demand exists."

Although the first week saw a strong result, Mr Kinderis warned that many potential applicants were still sitting on the fence with a 'wait and see' mentality.

"We have clients that are still undecided about whether they should apply. They have been put off by the negativity that has been surrounding the program. There have been delays and speculation. There is also a misguided perception amongst some that they can wait until the next round to secure their brand or generic category name. My message to those clients is that there is no certainty about when there will be another round. Potential applicants need to understand that if they take a 'wait and see' approach, they may miss out all together," Mr Kinderis said.

The application window for new Top-Level Domains (TLDs) opened on 12 January. ARI Registry Services signed the 21 contracts in the seven day period between 12 and 19 January. Due to confidentiality agreements, ARI Registry Services is unable to reveal any specific details about the contracts. The names of the clients, along with all the other clients ARI Registry Services is working with, will be revealed on 1 May 2012 when ICANN publishes the list of applications it has received.

Towards the end of 2011, the ICANN Board set up a Search Committee, chaired by George Sadowsky, and some significant improvements have been integrated into the selection process:

• In the previous round, in 2008-09, some members of the Board had self-appointed themselves to form a Search Committee, which began consultations many weeks before a Board resolution even established it. This time, proper process has been respected.

• In its previous incarnation, the Search Committee had chosen an external consultant without any semblance of a competitive bid, which was odd at a time when the whole of ICANN was gearing up to reaffirm its commitments, including being able to escape "capture" resulting from any conflict of interest. This time, the firm was selected through a call for tenders.

• In 2008-09, responsibilities were blurred between the Search Committee and the consulting firm, each doing a bit of the other's job. This time, applications from candidates are received solely by the consulting firm, which does all the vetting, due process and pre-selection, in (we are told) an independent fashion.

• Transparency has improved; for example, the profile of the CEO job was posted, and the ICANN community invited to review it.

• Previously, the job of CEO had not been advertised other than on the ICANN website, in spite of strong demands by some Board members who remarked that a lack of adequate international publicity weakened the corporation's transparency and reputation. This time, an ad was placed in a world-class weekly, attracting much attention.

In the 2nd letter to the Chair of the Board, 2 questions were raised about the way the ad was run in The Economist:

• Why was ICANN not referred to, simply, as a "not-for-profit" organization?

• Why was the usual "multi-stakeholder organization" description dropped?

Do these two notable departures from long-standing and widely accepted definitions imply that ICANN is considering a change in its identity? In his reply, the Chair of the Board answers these points.

The 2nd letter from these "friends of ICANN", and the reply from the Chair of the Board, can be viewed in full here.

Written by Jean-Jacques Subrenat, Ambassador (ret.)

In December 2010, the Affirmation of Commitments Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT) published its Final Recommendations. The ATRT urged that "the ICANN Board should ... seek input from a committee of independent experts on the restructuring of the three review mechanisms — the Independent Review Panel (IRP), the Reconsideration Process and the Office of the Ombudsman." It explained that the committee should conduct "a broad, comprehensive assessment of the accountability and transparency of the three existing mechanisms and of their inter-relation, if any ..."

Timing was considered crucial. The ATRT assigned Recommendation 23 a "high priority" and specified that it was to be implemented "[a]s soon as possible, but no later than June 2011." This urgency reflects the intrinsic importance of Board review mechanisms to ICANN's accountability and the compromise behind referring that issue to an expert committee: the ATRT's members were uniquely divided over whether ICANN needs a review procedure that entails binding authority over the Board.

Quite apart from the urgency expressed by the ATRT, ICANN promised in the Affirmation of Commitments to act on the recommendations of such organizational review teams within six months. Yet ICANN recently confirmed that it has so far failed to carry out the very first task in implementing Recommendation 23 by engaging a committee of independent experts. Not until November 2011 did the Board Governance Committee direct staff to draft a Request for Proposal. And still another two months have passed without that RFP being posted.

A new White Paper details ICANN's inaction and its consequences, but even a high-level summary of the implications paints a troubling picture:

• ICANN's inaction is inconsistent with its obligations under the Affirmation.
• Failure to act undermines the voluntary self-correction process prescribed by the Affirmation by casting doubt on whether organizational reviews can bring about needed institutional changes.
• It substitutes top-down management for bottom-up consensus by interposing a management decision in place of the ATRT's recommendation.
• It frustrates the process of forming future bottom-up consensus by inhibiting, if not preventing, the ICANN community from having an open and fully-informed conversation about what standard of accountability the ICANN Board should adopt.
• Finally, ICANN's failure to implement the ATRT's recommendation is a missed opportunity to show that ICANN is committed to honoring the Affirmation and the processes it agreed to there, regardless of where they lead.

With a multi-million dollar New gTLD Program now underway, ICANN's accountability profoundly matters to stakeholders around the globe. One hopes that ICANN will offer them the reassurance that it stands behind its written commitments. To do that, it should implement ATRT Recommendation 23 promptly and completely.

Written by R. Shawn Gunnarson, Attorney at Law, Kirton & McConkie

"Russia, though cautious in their approach to IDNs in the new TLD program, trusts Sedari with one of their critical national assets — its capital city" said Sedari's CEO Dr Liz Williams. "This is the first of Sedari's city domain names to be signed and one of a number of Internationalised Domain Name applicants we are advising. FAITID is a great organization full of enthusiastic and experienced professionals who will offer Muscovites and others exciting opportunities for second-level names in Russia," Williams continues.

The .MOSCOW and .МОСКВА project is backed by Moscow's local government and won an impressive showing of support from over 17,000 Internet users in on-line and off-line polls.

"Implementation of any TLD is a complicated project with many issues to resolve" says Dmitry Burkov, FAITID Board Member, "That's why we've chosen Sedari as our strategic international partner for .MOSCOW and .МОСКВА. Sedari management has the experience and industry knowledge on ICANN that makes us confident the company is familiar with all the procedures of the corporation, in particular related to new TLDs. Together with Sedari we'll make the project for Moscow top-level domains successful giving Russian users more choice in the domain name space."

About FAITID

FAITID is the Foundation For Assistance For Internet Technologies And Infrastructure Development, a Moscow-based not-for-profit multistakeholder organization. Introduction of the domains for the Russian capital is the initial and key FAITID project. FAITID's structure involves all interested parties in the process of the TLDs implementation such as local government, the private sector, and Internet community representatives.

Nancy Gofus joins .ORG, The Public Interest Registry (PIR) as Chief Operating Officer

Currently, Ms. Gofus serves as board chair of the national board for Volunteers of America — a national non-profit dedicated to helping those in need live healthy, safe and productive lives. In this capacity, she works closely with the executive team on expanding the organization's reach and raising awareness of its efforts in helping senior citizens, veterans, and at-risk youth, children and families nationwide. Previously, Ms. Gofus' served as senior vice president of global product management for Verizon Communications in 2009 and chief marketing officer at Verizon Business from 2006 to 2008. In that capacity, she was primarily responsible for delivering and communicating Verizon Business' value proposition by developing and overseeing the marketing strategy, advertising, brand management, and product management. Prior to the Verizon/MCI merger in 2008, Ms. Gofus developed and delivered MCI's new generation of services, guiding the evolution of MCI's product line and helping companies make the transition from traditional data services to IP services.

"Nancy brings to PIR that unique blend of non-profit, marketing and communications experience which directly speaks to PIR's core mission to both serve in the public interest and provide a safe, more secure Internet," said Brian Cute, chief executive officer of PIR. "Nancy's business acumen and international experience will help continue our reputational growth as an exemplary registry and further solidify .ORG's position as the domain of choice for non-profits, individuals and the like. As the Internet grows due to the introduction of new top-level domains, so will PIR's commitment to the public."

Added Ms. Gofus: "As a non-profit, PIR understands the needs of that community and has truly been seen as partner to international organizations looking to build their online presence. I have long admired their work, and I'm thrilled to have the opportunity to work alongside Brian and the rest of the PIR team to help advance .ORG's impact and reach on a global scale."

A graduate of the College of William & Mary, Nancy also currently serves on the Foundation board of The College of William and Mary. Previous work experiences include time as executive vice president of marketing and customer care for XO Communications from 2000 to 2003. During her tenure, she helped drive the company's growth from $250 million in revenues to over $1 billion.

According to CRIDO, their members represent some 10,000 brand names, so let's evaluate the makeup of this highly desirable "do not sell" list, but first, the three typical brand name groups in the marketplace:

1. Hassle-free names that are on a solid footing. For example: Microsoft, IBM, Nokia, Toyota, Intel, Disney, BMW, Gillette, Honda, Google, Cisco, Honda, Sony, Nike, Ikea, Nintendo or Gucci.)

2. Troublesome names that carry varying degrees of confusion. For example: GE, BT, CA, SK, or LG. Major brand names with two-letter names run into difficulty, as two-letter suffixes are reserved for countries, like .jp for Japan. Names like iSong, Citi, AIG, UMS or MPC types will require special scrutiny to stay clear from any confusion with other users. Names that come in two or more parts, like Mercedes Benz, Merrill Lynch, Harley Davidson, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Hewlett Packard — such names may pass, but two-word names are overly cumbersome in usability.

3. Borderline disaster names — those that are simultaneously used by hundreds or thousands of unrelated entities, making it difficult to claim exclusive ownership. (For example: United, Premier, Delta, National and so on.)

Please do not be shocked that only a minuscule percentage is made up of hassle-free names. Incidentally, in applying the nomenclature rules, the majority of CRIDO brand names would be considered "troublesome" or outright "disaster" names. However, it's also important to note that at one time, what we now call borderline disaster names were fashionable, but over time they either became generic or lost their distinction through mergers and acquisitions. Most importantly, last-century thinking was much less global, and last-millennial tools of image expansion were not as cheap and freely accessible as today.

So now brand owners have two choices: Either walk on a tightrope and adopt a workable name to cross the global digital chasm, or simply do nothing and let the diluted name identity hang the image to a slow death.

This is where CRIDO's "do not sell" list gets sticky. First, how do you determine the real owners of a name like National or United? Second, what kind of marketing geniuses will chase after such weak names that they'd require CRIDO's "do not sell" protection? Ideally, such names should be on a "please do not ever buy list" for being almost useless and for having extremely high maintenance costs.

If such a list were ever compiled, would CRIDO indirectly admit the fallacies on behalf of their industry and expose the hardcore problems of the global naming and trademarking chaos? Is CRIDO simply trying to provide a soft landing to millions of dysfunctional brand names already sucking oxygen as you read this?

For example, according to Superbrands, a brand ranking company, in 2011, "Autoglass is a leading consumer automotive service brand, providing vehicle glass repairs and replacements to more than 1.5 million motorists every year. With the widest-reaching auto glazing network in the U.K. and Ireland, Autoglass has over 100 branches nationwide and 1,300 mobile service units operating 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Autoglass is part of Belron group, operating in 33 countries with a team of more than 10,000 highly skilled technicians."

This is great achievement for a high-profile regional company. Assume they also try the gTLD .autoglass, to allow them a more localized global agents' network with the issuance of tens of thousands of sub-domain names around the world. Such localized customer touchpoint branding would open up mass customer acquisition. But would it be possible under this name?

As you stretch the brand name "autoglass" or "auto glass" on the global canvas, the name starts to tear. Its generic nature and the massive brand dilution created by thousands of other companies around the world using "auto glass" devalues this brand name to no more than a "generic description." Where, then, should it be listed in a "do not sell" list or, more appropriately, "please do not ever buy" list, or perhaps each?

The corporate world is full of such names hanging in purgatory, where they have acquired partial authority in certain markets but will never have enough to power play in the global arena. The boardroom needs the answers to who are the beneficiaries of such bad names and why such issues are not on top of the agendas.

Here is another example of "Nationwide," according to Superbrand 2011:

"Nationwide is more than 160 years old and is now the world's largest building society. Unlike its bank competitors it has no shareholders, so its only focus is its 14 million members. This 'proud to be different' approach has helped it to become the U.K.'s third-largest mortgage and savings provider, with a quarter of U.K. households having a relationship with the society."

How many organizations are called "Nationwide" around the globe? Please do not guess, as it may give you that sinking feeling.

According to various studies by, ABC Namebank, on global naming dilution, when you observe that "there are 100 most diluted names around the world in use by some 100 million businesses," a logic-defying picture of waste emerges. The century-old models start showing cracks, and the need for a single universal name clearance solution appears to be the most logical solution.

ICANN's proposal for a single global trademark clearance house is a very bold step forward. Such moves must overcome the fragmented trademark procedures as I've discussed in a recently released book 'Domination, the gLTD name game'

No matter what action ICANN takes, it's highly recommended that such a "do not sell" list must be compiled by CRIDO in any case, so the corporate world can witness the chaos and abuse of naming and trademarking, and hopefully acquire some "please do not ever buy" lessons.

Written by Naseem Javed, Corporate Image & Global Naming Expert

I, for one, have been a proponent of new gTLDs from the early days of their policy development process within ICANN. I always believed that the existing gTLDs — and mainly the .com space — have created artificial scarcity, which is primarily responsible for much of the cybersquatting and the abuse trademarks experience. I do not share the same fears as those who argue that new gTLDs will create intolerable levels of cybersquatting or will necessitate defensive registrations from brand and trademark owners alike. As for the policy itself, I do not believe it is perfect and I feel that, for certain issues, ICANN could have taken a different direction, but, ultimately I recognize and respect ICANN'S multistakeholder governance structure and the decisions that have come out of it.

Lately, however, something has caught my attention, which can potentially create problems. Almost the same day ICANN opened up its application process, a tiny start-up was granted by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) a trademark for .bank (registration number 4085335). What is the problem with this? The problem is twofold: first of all, there is a general principle within traditional trademark law, which instructs that generic terms cannot be trademarked if they are to reflect what the term means. In this context, a company would not be able to register the word coffee and sell coffee. This would provide an unfair competitive advantage to any company and would, most likely, excommunicate all other similar companies selling coffee. Secondly, by granting this application, the USPTO is essentially leaving ICANN and its Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) with a big problem. Part of the whole exercise regarding the role of the GAC within the new gTLD process related to the GAC's role; this issue was resolved with the agreement that the GAC would be in the position to provide early advice to any new gTLD application, effectively giving the GAC the right to torpedo and determine the success of an application, which the GAC believes it raises issues of cultural significance or is contrary to national laws. To this end, it is exactly names like .bank that the GAC had in mind when they were pushing ICANN to insert this provision within the Applicant Guidebook: "[The GAC may advise] ICANN that there are concerns about a particular application 'dot-example'. The ICANN Board is expected to enter into dialogue with the GAC to understand the scope of concerns. The ICANN Board is also expected to provide a rationale for its decision".

Now, with the USPTO granting trademark rights for .bank, this early warning mechanism becomes superfluous, and multiple rights are created for .bank. On the one side, there are the rights of the trademark owner; on the other, there is the GAC which believes that the term .bank is sensitive enough to interfere and whoever applies needs to go through a scrutiny process; and, finally, there is also the rumoured applicant of .bank — a joint effort made by the American Bankers Association (ABA) and BITS, part of Financial Services Roundtable. So, in practical terms, what the USPTO has essentially done is to provide the opportunity to an independent entity to object the application of .bank by asserting valid trademark rights.

So, this is a mess and a mess that will only get worse unless trademark offices around the world stop granting trademark registrations to .generics. The way things are right now, the GAC may sign off the .bank gTLD to ABA and BITS, but the owner of .bank will have valid claims to stop this application process or at least demand some sort of financial compensation for giving up the name to someone else. And, if he is really pissed off or he wants to retain .bank for his own personal use, he can then sue for trademark infringement. In any case, the trademark owner is the only winner here and both the GAC and the American Bankers should feel very pissed off with the USPTO. At this stage, the only solution is for the USPTO to accept that they screwed up and recall this trademark. 

Written by Konstantinos Komaitis, Senior Lecturer