Is the ICANN plan for a new generic Top Level Domain names violating common IP principles ?

The recent move my ICANN to develop a new system for generic top level domain names and words.

This blog highlights some issues facing this process.

http://www.infolawgroup.com/2013/02/articles/international-2/domain-complaints-the-publics-concern-and-icanns-request-regarding-closed-generic-domains/

I think the comment by a forum called the “Government Advisory Committee” GAC that restricting ownership to single entities could have “unforeseen consequences” was supported by examples in this link described as “early warnings” link of the early adopter requests https://gacweb.icann.org/display/gacweb/GAC+Early+Warnings it looks like a regional issue such as Australia, and Amazon requests for names that may not reflect a wider use of the global internet.

The core issue seems to be how the generic words will have undue influence and control of domains that are then closed generic domains. Closed means that ONLY the owner of that domain name could use this term.

This issue has raised alarm bells with publishers. This link http://www.publishers.org/press/97/ illustrates with an example of Amazon owning the word “.book”. IN effect it reinforced the amazon brand of online book seller but it means no one else can use this name. A quote from this link summarizes this as:

“From inception, the introduction of new gTLDs has been promoted as a means to increase competition, add consumer choice, support internet freedom, expand market differentiation and diversify service providers,” said Allan Adler, General Counsel and Vice President, Government Affairs, AAP. “How would handing over ownership of a domain string to any one single private company, such as a retailer, for its own business goals support that public service mission?”

I think commercial development is important but again as with past evidence of attempts by some large public cloud first movers to gain intellectual property rights over standard API’s these have proven to create legal issues over the definition of common used terms that are not IP versus true IP content ownership.

Its another argument perhaps for a stronger move to a dynamic semantic web system that is focused on the content and not the ownership. As ICANN have admitted even translating the generic word into other languages will prove complex and problematic so its a long way from the ideal situation. My view is there should be independent language syntax on the internet so that a universal language is encouraged and not monoplized. The syntax of XML, HTTP achieved this in the first internet but this case in point is evidence to me that the second wave of internet standards is urgently needed for semantic exchange controls that are independent of domain controls clearly. a job for the IETF and W3C maybe asap.

More detail is needed but presumable the ICANN Lawyers have worked through this issue and seen an oportunity to build ecommerce and services but for whom?

#Standards #ICANN #Regulation