Comments (9)

1. Rubens Kuhl says:

   February 13, 2013 at 11:29 am

   Competition issues is the one thing that can hurt Google, Amazon and L’Oreal applications. It’s written in the AGB, but ICANN failed (as far as we know) to reach out to the FTC and the EC Competition Authority. If anybody else does, and get at least one of them to open an investigation into this matter, ICANN will have no alternative to postpone contention set resolution, or ICANN board will have to postpone delegation of uncontested strings.
   This is how this game is played, not by crying wolf to closed generics.

   Reply
2. Dave Tyrer says:

   February 13, 2013 at 12:21 pm

   Google says that by operating .SEARCH as a closed registry, it will thereby promote competition by inciting it’s competitors to improve their gTLD operations.
   This is what Google’s application actually states:
   18.b.ii.1.
   Competition:
   “.search will operate as a closed gTLD. It will provide Google with the opportunity to differentiate and innovate upon its Google Search products and services through its use of the gTLD. This will promote competition in the gTLD space by inciting competitors to respond with improved gTLD operations, greater range and higher quality products and services, and/or the creation of their own respective gTLDs, to the benefit of all Internet users…”
   There’s more on this on the ‘ICANN Claims’ page at SuperMonopolies.com

   Reply
   • Rubens Kuhl says:

     February 13, 2013 at 1:11 pm

     Microsoft having applied to .bing, and the product being called Google Search long before this round of new gTLDs, only add to Google’s reasoning.
     But this should not be up to me or you, but to competition authorities with much more experience on this.

     Reply
     • gpmgroup says:

       February 13, 2013 at 3:58 pm

       But this should not be up to me or you, but to competition authorities with much more experience on this.
       This statement is a cop out and as such can be used disingenuously by people who wish to give the impression they are not an ex-parte participant.
       ICANN is tasked with managing the DNS and with their proposed framework for new gTLDs they had a blank sheet of paper. They have the responsibility for designing a framework which is equitable to all rather than one which favors their own contracted or would be contracted parties over all others. Especially when the costs are all to often to be borne by innocent third parties.
       Much anti-trust legislation is concerned with existing markets rather than a regulator’s inability to design a new level playing field for all to compete on.

       Reply
       • Rubens Kuhl says:

         February 13, 2013 at 9:26 pm

         Competition law is a minimum baseline, but what framework(s) do you suggest ICANN could have followed beyond competition law ?

         Reply
         • gpmgroup says:

           February 19, 2013 at 9:50 am

           There is much space here, and the issues are involved are complex….
           At a high level the aim should be to build a framework that aligns individual profit motivation with the wider public good. Aligning it too closely with contracted and would be contracted parties’ private interests simply leads to a greater probability of people trying to blow unsustainable speculation bubbles.
           Throughout the process several issues, some fundamental, were raised but, people at all levels were too busy tripping over themselves rushing out the door to secure advantage to care.
           Take vertical integration. The current registry/registrar framework has been a phenomenal successful, an approach which has added huge value to the industry and at the same time provided enormous public benefits.
           However some industry players, many of whom wouldn’t even exist if the current policy wasn’t in place, wanted it changed, so it was forced through in a cleverly constructed top down mandated operation so those rushing to take advantage of new gTLDs could get the new policy in place before they were approved.
           .xxx was another example, a huge majority of individuals, organisations, companies and governments were opposed to it, but ICANN and some of its contracted parties wanted it so they passed it.
           When those tasked with the responsibility for managing the DNS behave more like an industry lobbying group than regulators or custodians of probably the greatest invention in the history of mankind, it doesn’t bode well for building sustainable future successes.

3. Philip Corwin says:

   February 13, 2013 at 3:31 pm

   Kevin:
   A few clarifying notes:
   -Our aim is not necessarily “to get dozens of Google’s new gTLD bids thrown out of ICANN on competition grounds”. Google is certainly entitled to their .brand applications, and may be qualified to operate some open registries if questions about search engine bias and overall competition can be satisfactorily resolved. Our aim is to raise serious questions with policymakers, regulators, and within the ICANN community that result in the new gTLD program achieving its stated aim of fostering competition and innovation, not bolstering existing Internet dominance and business models.
   -We share the concerns that have been expressed by so many others regarding the impropriety of permitting closed single-registrant gTLDs to be operated by applicants who hold no trademark rights in the term comprising the gTLD string. That exception to the standard Code of Conduct was intended for .brand registries and it is unfortunate that the new gTLD Program Committee failed to reiterate that narrow purpose and has instead put the isssue out for public comment, guaranteeing that it will be a major issue of controversy (perhaps the major issue) in Beijing.
   -Concerns about Google’s applications go beyond the single-registrant issue because of its monopoly position in search and dominant role in Internet advertising, both of which will be critical factors in the success of new gTLDs and the domains registered at them. In this regard, Google’s voluntary and legally unenforceable commitments made to the FTC at the conclusiuon of its search bias investigation apply only to “covered webpages” and specifically exclude broad categories of key Internet activities, including “video search”, a category in which Google has submitted eight separate applications in addition to .YouTube — Google has explicitly reserved the right to favor its own registries and businesses in search results. Further, while Google’s key defense in the FTC investigation was that “competition [among search engines] is just a click away”, its gTLD applications evidence an intent to ensure that competition is never a click away.
   -We have no desire or intent to cause delay for the entire new gTLD program. There is no reason why the questions posed by Google’s non-.brand bids that are in contention need delay the overall program. Further, those in contention with Google on such bids suffer no harm from any delay as they have no hope of prevailing at auction (indeed, they may have already been delayed by Google’s decision to not purchase prioritization lottery tickets for 22 generic gTLD applications that are in contention); and in the case of closed or restricted gTLDs potential registrants suffer no harm as they would have no opportunity to obtain domains as independent registrants.
   Thanks again for covering this important matter.
   -Philip

   Reply
   • Rubens Kuhl says:

     February 13, 2013 at 8:46 pm

     The exception to the code of conduct is only required to have a single registrar instead of multiple registrars. Google cannot apply to such exception in .blog, for instance, as .blog will have content from entities not affiliated (Affiliate with capital A, legal definition of it) with it.
     Eligibility requirements, like saying that only Google can register in .search, do not require the exception to the code of conduct. They could specify that only companies whose names start with G could register .search domains: google.search, gmc.search, goodyear.search, gec.search, gte.search…

     Reply
4. Rolf Larsen says:

   February 14, 2013 at 9:03 am

   I do believe many “closed” or single-registrant business models for key dictionary words and abbreviations will be hard to get approval for in this program. But Im afraid that will have little impact on these applicants, as ICANN may allow them to change major parts of their applications to become “open” business models. Is it fair play, if that´s the outcome? I think not..

   Reply