The NGPC met on June 4, 2013 and adopted a resolution accepting nine items, the first of the NGPC’s decisions on how to address the GAC’s Advice.

Among the items of GAC Advice that the NGPC accepted, are:

• The GAC's concern that religious terms are sensitive issues and that the applications for .ISLAM and .HALAL lack community involvement and support.
• The GAC's belief that singular and plural versions of gTLDs could lead to potential consumer confusion and the Board should reconsider its decision to allow both.

As part of the resolution, the NGPC also adopted a scorecard, which does the following:

1) lists the nine items of non-Safeguard Advice addressed by the NGPC;

2) indicates that the NGPC accepts each of those items of advice;

3) describes how ICANN will implement the advice.

The NGPC addressed three additional issues, including an applicant’s ability to change it’s applied-for string, protections for intergovernmental organizations, and public interest commitments.

Despite its progress, the NGPC has plenty of work still left on the GAC’s Advice. The approved resolution, for example, does not address the GAC’s recommended safeguards. The NGPC has scheduled three more meetings for June 11, 18, and 25 to address the safeguards and other remaining issues.

Stay tuned for more updates!

Anyone who uses the Internet will be affected by a tsunami of new generic top-level domains (gTLDs) – the space to the right of the dot – perhaps as many as 1,400 within the next two years. This will mark one of the biggest changes to the Internet since it came into common use.

To gauge the impact of this change on consumers in particular, FairWinds is conducting a series of market research surveys on awareness of and attitudes toward new gTLDs.

The second in this series of surveys was released today and can be downloaded here. A third survey will be released in the coming months as new gTLDs begin to roll out. The first of this series was released in December 2012 and can be downloaded here.

FairWinds’ second survey found that consumers:

• Are open to using new gTLDs to navigate the Internet
• Are willing to trust new gTLDs
• Prefer .BRANDs to .GENERICs
• Prefer direct navigation over search engine navigation
• Expect companies to be technically prepared for new gTLDs

These findings underscore the fact that Internet users are untethered to the past, are open minded, and are receptive to new ways of doing things. FairWinds also discovered that Internet users prefer taking control of their Internet experiences and pay attention to what they type into the browser bar.

Brand owners – whether they applied for a new gTLD or not - can draw valuable lessons from FairWinds’ research. Internet users indicated they expect to see their favorite brands adopt and use new gTLDs and that poor online user experiences will lead to lost revenue and lost marketing opportunities for brand owners.

The better brand owners understand consumer behavior, the better prepared they will be to optimize use of their new gTLDs and remain competitive in the new Internet space.

In 1995, Wired published an article by Newsday reporter Joshua Quittner, who wanted to know why there was no mcdonalds.com on the Internet:

"Are you finding that the Internet is a big thing?" asked Jane Hulbert, a helpful McDonald's media-relations person, with whom I spoke a short while ago.

Yes, I told her. In some quarters, the Internet is a very big thing.

I explained a little bit about what the Big Thing is, and how it works, and about the Net Name Gold Rush that's going on. I told her how important domain names are on the Internet… 

Sound familiar?

Mr. Quittner ended up registering mcdonalds.com himself after McDonald's didn't seem to know what to do about the available domain.

"I don't have anything for you, and I probably won't have anything for you," she confessed. "I've left a lot of voicemail for people, but no one seems to know anything about it." Jane Hulbert said she'd keep checking around, but she didn't seem hopeful that we could get to the bottom of this domain-name thing. "You'll probably just have to do your story without it," she said. "It probably won't be the end of the world."

McDonald's eventually bought the domain name back from Mr. Quittner, who donated the proceeds to charity.

Fast-forward almost 20 years, and McDonald's is ready for the next Big Thing, with an application in for a new top level domain - .MCDONALDS.

Every once in a while, truly major changes disrupt the status quo in communications, advertising, and trademark protection, altering the way we look at business models. There will always be early adopters and there will always be stragglers. Don't be a straggler as the Internet landscape shifts again to include new gTLDs – the space to the right of the dot.

Even if your company did not apply for its own .BRAND (each application cost $185,000, after all), it can still be an early player by formulating a strategy that allows the company to adapt as the new Internet landscape begins to take a more defined shape. Applicants and non-applicants alike need to look at which second-level domains (to the left of the dot) to register in generic gTLDs. Don't assume that you can ignore extensions such as .NYC and .MUSIC – they may be hot real estate down the line. They may turn into your version of mcdonalds.com.

In the 1990s, people were asking "what is the Internet, anyway?", and now, the Internet is taking another major leap by expanding its real estate.  Hopefully, we've learned a few things about emerging communications platforms in the last two decades that will spur business to better prepared for the .FUTURE.

Portable and Personalized

Apple's CEO Timothy Cook called the potential of wearable computing "profound," and Disney Parks chairman Tom Staggs presented the MagicBand wristbands "that will soon replaced paper tickets"and may lead to more personalized service and greetings at the Happiest Place on Earth.

Shareable

Silicon Valley venture capitalist Mary Meeker reported that digital information is created and shared at nine times the rate it was five years ago; 500 million photos are uploaded and shared per day, with the trend poised to increase by two-fold in the next year.

The constant sharing of images and thoughts has brought communications to a new level. Everything we do online is part of a very public dialogue that translates into personal, branding – branding we engage in every day, several times a day. Our choices of Twitter and blog usernames and Internet domain names are the most visible manifestation of that branding.  We choose words and names that we think best declare who we are -often building off of our eponymous names, but also off of mottos, taglines, and other tropes we find descriptive.

We talk a lot about brands on this blog, but perhaps Internet users will adapt to the new gTLDs to extend their online personas. Will they aggregate .BRAND pages that represent  their style profile? Proclaim their hobbies with a .SKI or environmental passions with .GREEN?  FairWinds works with brands to brainstorm how best to incorporate new gTLDs into their existing digital presence and find opportunities for innovation and change.

Ad Age recently published a feature on bloggers scoring millions of dollars in funding for their own startups, featuring entrepreneurs Geri Hirsch, the brains behind the "fashion-lifestyle blog" Because I'm Addicted, and Michelle Phan of beauty-tutorial YouTube fame.

Ms. Hirsch's success with videos produced for Barneys New York caught the eye of Youtube-backed video site StyleHaul. S then turned the success of the video into a StyleHaul investment in her new video lifestyle brand venture, Leaf (which, according to the YouTube page, is " a fresh, easy to consume, how-to concept covering all things... living, eating and fashion"). Ms. Phan used her success to start a monthly "beauty bag" subscription service – a sort of makeup of the month club that delivers new cosmetics bags of loot each month, and which now has $1.5 million in monthly sales.

The branding success of these two bloggers could bode well for creative use of the new gTLD .BLOG – beyond a community of bloggers sharing thoughts, photos, and experiences. As blogging and marketing become more integrated, will blogs look more like  .BRANDs with reviews, launch events, and new places to feature how-to videos of products? Will domain names ending in .BLOG host more "lifestyle" portals, where brands are woven into the blog content?

And how will .BLOG be integrated with existing services that gather bloggers into communities, such as Collective Bias, which Brandchannel describes as a "platform where brands such as Tyson, Nestle and Smart & Final pay for their products to be covered by relevant bloggers who push that content across social media"?

Nine companies, including Google, applied for .BLOG so the content of that gTLD likely will be tied to the company that wins the extension.

With the growing role of bloggers in brand marketing, .BLOG is a generic gTLD that brand owners should watch – not just as a place to register domain names but also, for opportunities to collaborate with bloggers.

ICANN has stated that the NGPC’s goal is “to carefully consider GAC advice and community input and to make decisions that will allow the greatest number of new gTLD applications to move forward as soon as possible.” This may be difficult given that the GAC advice, if accepted, could significantly delay gTLD applications.

In its update, ICANN restates that the NGPC’s discussion was structured around the GAC Advice Framework to organize and prioritize individual advice items. ICANN is developing a scorecard to do just that.

The update also reveals that the NGPC has begun discussing the GAC Advice on Safeguards. ICANN is seeking input on this topic via an open Public Comment Forum, which closes on June 4, 2013.

ICANN also reminds us that over the next few weeks, the NGPC will be holding a series of calls “to discuss applicant responses to the GAC advice, the Safeguard advice and related public comment, and other matters including the GAC's advice on singular and plural strings, its questions in Annex 2 [of its Advice], and its requests for briefing papers.”

New gTLD applicants in Contention Sets can request an ICANN auction after publication of Initial Evaluation results. Completion of the Initial Evaluation stage is expected by August, with ICANN planning to begin auction proceedings in September; this is likely because private auction providers have previously announced their intentions to begin their own auction processes in the coming weeks.

ICANN also announced that community-based new gTLD applicants can request Community Priority Evaluations (CPEs) starting in June. The CPE is a process by which to resolve string contention, which may be elected by a community-based applicant. CPE evaluations are then scheduled to take place in September.

Other important ICANN updates include:

• The last set of Financial, Technical, and Registry Services Clarifying Questions (CQs) will be released on May 22, 2013
• ICANN will be holding a Contracting Webinar Session in early June to inform applicants on material information needed for an executable Registry Agreement
• ICANN has launched a new Contracting & Registry Agreement microsite
• Pre-Delegation Beta Testing has begun and ICANN has clarified that applicants will need to have signed their Registry Agreement prior to Pre-Delegation Testing
• Thanks to implementation of the Strawman Model, 50 domain labels found to have been previously abused have been added to existing verified TMCH records
• ICANN will release a timeline for the earliest theoretical launch of new gTLDs

Much remains and will remain unknown until the ICANN Board decides how to proceed on the Registry Agreement, the latest draft of which is now open for public comment, and on the GAC Advice, which the board is now reviewing.

Panelists addressed the questions of how to devise a more inclusive Internet Governance structure to replace the U.S.-centric one developed in the 1990s. The trick will be how to satisfy non-western states’ desire for a larger role and still maintain essential democratic principles such as the free flow of information and human rights.

The panel featured:

• Phil Verveer, Former US Coordinator, International Communications and Information Policy, US Department of State
• Veni Markovski, ICANN, Vice President for Russia, CIS and Eastern Europe
• Jane Coffin, Director, Development Strategy, The Internet Society
• Bill Smith, Senior Policy Advisor, Technology Evangelist, PayPal
• Laura DeNardis, Associate Professor in the School of Communication, American University

Phil Verveer said that since the multi-stakeholder process creates inherent challenges, we need a better definition of “multi-stakeholder” to determine who participates and in what way. Among the considerations, he said, are that the U.S. created the Internet; the economic, social, political, and cultural influences the Internet has on the world; the dominance of U.S. sensibilities about content, which are not universally shared; and the threat of cybersecurity and the uncertainty of how to address it.

Veni Markovski, who lived in Bulgaria for 28 years, praised that country’s approach to the Internet. Hundreds of Internet providers are available to Bulgarians. And when the government tried to take control, the people sued and won. Markovski said education and development are key in the geopolitics of Internet governance. Different countries view the Internet in different ways, he said, and they all have different views of what it entails.

Jane Coffin agreed that education is essential to effective participation in Internet governance, noting that discussion is difficult when some languages, Russian, for example, don’t have a word for or an understanding of the concept of “multi-stakeholder.” Coffin felt strongly that the United Nations’ International Telecommunication Union (ITU) must play a role. She urged that the debate be broadened to include and listen to developing countries around the world.

Bill Smith observed that the agenda for almost every meeting on Internet governance over the past few years has been based on the Tunis agenda, and since the ITU is the only group mentioned in the agenda, it has tried to assert itself as the intergovernmental agency charged with defining Internet governance. Smith was critical of the ITU, doubting its ability to address important governance issues such as cybersecurity, spam, use and misuse of the Internet, privacy and personal data, and protection from abuse and exploitation.

Laura DeNardis observed that Internet governance debates can be “proxies” for debates over economic and political power, in part because it is entangled with national security, given its role in modern warfare. DeNardis described the complexity of Internet governance as a mosaic: complicated beyond the management abilities of any one entity.

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) and the New gTLD Program issues were not raised until the Q&A session and, even then, were only touched upon lightly.

DeNardis said there is no technical need for new gTLDs and that they will create problems for trademark holders. On the other hand, she said businesses will find advantages in a larger domain name space and new possibilities for marketing innovations.

Markovski defended ICANN against a complaint that the New gTLD Program was implemented without diverse input, arguing that many governments around the globe participated via the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC). Jamie Hedlund, VP, Stakeholder Engagement – North America, for ICANN – was in the audience. He said ICANN is the only multi-stakeholder institution with a role for governments and that 124 governments are members of the GAC. He said ICANN believes the GAC was highly effective and influential in shaping the New gTLD Program.

Hedlund emphasized that the GAC Communiqué, drafted at the ICANN 46 meeting in Beijing, will be taken seriously by the ICANN board. ICANN’s credibility hinges on the effective contributions of governments, he said, echoing GAC Chair Heather Dryden’s comments in her recent video interview.

ICANN’s failure to recognize the unique needs of brand owners is puzzling. Companies with protected trademarks account for approximately one-third of the total number of gTLD applications and nearly half of all applications for unique strings.

“Given the broad participation of brand owners in the New gTLD Program, ICANN must recognize the unique needs of this expansive group of future gTLD Registry Operators,” FairWinds said in its comment. “The most constructive way for ICANN to do so is to adopt a second template draft of the New gTLD Registry Agreement off of which individual brand owners can negotiate their own future Agreements.”

FairWinds proposed 10 specific changes we believe must be incorporated into the RA to preserve the rights of brand owners:

1. A registry should not be transitioned upon termination of the Registry Agreement in cases where no domains have been sold, distributed or transferred to unaffiliated third parties, or where the gTLD corresponds to a trademark owned by the Registry Operator.
2. The Emergency Back End Registry Operator should be required to maintain the registration restrictions established by the Registry Operator during a period of emergency transition.
3. ICANN or third-party vendors involved in the operation of a gTLD should not seek or gain trademark or other intellectual property rights over the mark to which a gTLD refers.
4. The maximum aggregate monetary liability of the Registry Operator should be equal to that of ICANN.
5. ICANN should be required to indemnify the Registry Operator from all claims, damages, liabilities, costs, and expenses unless incurred due to willful omission or breach of the Registry Agreement.
6. Confidentiality provisions should be expanded and should incorporate appropriate remedies in cases where breaches in confidentiality result in material harm to the Registry Operator.  
7. A clear, streamlined process should be established for releasing reserved geographic names or two-character labels for use by the Registry Operator in conjunction with the promotion or operation of the registry.
8. Technical and financial audits should be restricted to the relevant service provider(s) or the Registry Operator, respectively, and not extend to corporate parent companies. Registry operators should not be required to bear the cost of standard audits, even if registry functions have been outsourced.
9. The Registry Agreement should establish a process to grant exemption to the Code of Conduct, provided that the Registry Operator does not sell, distribute or transfer control of second-level domains to unaffiliated third parties. 
10. A Registry Operator should not be required to implement a Sunrise Period or Claims Service and pay associated fees in cases where registration restrictions prevent unaffiliated third parties from registering within the gTLD.

The concerns and suggestions voiced in this public comment by FairWinds are not FairWinds’ alone. Many brand owners share our stance and a number agreed to co-sign the comment as well, including:

Walmart Stores, Inc., Bank of America Corporation, Xerox Corporation, Chanel S.A., Pfizer, Inc., Intel Corporation, the Corporate Executive Board Company, Tiffany & Co., SAS Institute, Zippo Manufacturing Company, American Family Insurance Group, FLIR Systems, Inc., Bloomberg IP Holdings LLC, Boehringer Ingelheim, Rezolve Group, Inc., Tata Motors Limited

To see FairWinds’ public comment in its entirety, please click here.

The Communiqué, drafted during ICANN 46 in Beijing, covers a number of topics, including the GAC’s objections to specific new gTLD applications, safeguard advice to apply to certain categories of strings, as well as strings for further GAC consideration.

The most controversial part seems to be the “non-exhaustive” lists of strings that the GAC lists in an Annex to the Communiqué. The GAC describes a number of safeguards that should apply to strings that are linked to regulated or professional sectors. Similarly, the GAC also identifies a number of generic strings in which exclusive registry access should serve a public interest goal.

The Internet community is most riled up by the seemingly random way in which the GAC singled out strings to name in the Communiqué, as well as the GAC’s failure to offer any advice on how to implement its proposed safeguards or whether they are even feasible. It doesn’t help that the GAC chose to hold closed meetings.

The main problem the Communiqué poses to new gTLD applicants is that it may well delay their applications. In the interview, Dryden states that the GAC expects ICANN to fully take its Communiqué into account, even though ICANN is under no obligation to do so. She implies that if ICANN does not heed the GAC’s advice, there is no point to governments’ role in the multi-stakeholder model.

As FairWinds President and CEO Nao Matsukata stated, “If these proposals were to be adopted by the ICANN Board, they would have far-reaching and profound implications for gTLD applicants. Most immediately, the GAC Communiqué goes beyond commenting specifically on strings and provides advice that could delay and alter the string approval process, as originally outlined by ICANN.”

It is not clear whether Dryden’s video interview and ICANN’s public relations efforts will do much to quell the community’s concerns. While Dryden states that future GAC discussions will be more transparent and reiterates that the GAC’s Advice was drafted with regard for the public interest, the key will be the ICANN Board’s reaction and the subsequent impact on gTLD applicants.