PIR starts pre-registration for .ngo domain names

Public Interest Registry has become the first major gTLD registry to start taking pre-registrations for a not-yet-approved gTLD.
PIR said today that it’s allowing non-governmental organizations to register an “expression of interest” for .ngo and .ong domains.
Pre-registrations are of course free and non-binding. They’re mainly a way to opening the marketing communications channel with customers well in advance of the launch of a TLD.
PIR does not expect to launch .ngo or .ong until 2014. Its ICANN evaluation priority numbers for the two TLDs are 810 and 958, in the first half of the list.
Pre-registration is not a new concept, of course, but it’s one generally embraced more often by registrars (eNom and United Domains are the two most prominent examples) rather than incumbent registries.
For PIR to start engaging directly with potential registrants is one of the first signs that, in the wake of ICANN’s lifting of the ban on vertical integration between registries and registrars, the new gTLD market won’t be playing by the old rules.

Pile up! GM cancels two more new gTLD bids

Is General Motors bowing out of ICANN’s new gTLD program completely? It’s certainly looking that way, following the withdrawal of two more of its five original applications.
ICANN updated its site yesterday to reflect that GM has yanked its bids for .chevrolet and .cadillac, two of its proposed automotive dot-brands.
It comes just a few days after its .gmc application was pulled, and suggests that its remaining applications — for .buick and .chevy — may also be withdrawn in the near future.
The total number of gTLD applications withdrawn is now up to 17, a dozen of which are dot-brands, from an original list of 1,930.
We may be seeing more in the near future. Applications withdrawn before ICANN publishes Initial Evaluation results — expected to start March 23 — qualify for a refund of 70%, or $130,000. After that, the refund halves.
The final number of withdrawn applications will be telling, and likely to inform future new gTLD application rounds.
If it turns out a large number of companies applied for dot-brands purely defensively (I wouldn’t consider 12 to 17 withdrawals a large number) then ICANN may have to rethink how the program is structured.

Two more dot-brand gTLD bids withdrawn

Two applications for “dot-brand” new gTLDs were pulled last week.
General Motors has withdrawn its bid for .gmc and Hartford Fire Insurance Company dropped .thehartford.
Both bids had been assigned priority numbers in ICANN’s prioritization draw last December, but neither applicant had purchased tickets, suggesting a lack of interest in operating the TLDs.
The withdrawal of .gmc at this time, less than two weeks before the publication by ICANN of string similarity evaluation results, is particularly interesting, and a little strategically puzzling.
There’s an active application by GMO Internet for .gmo, which could conceivably be ruled confusingly visually similar to .gmc.
By pulling out now, GM has lost its right to file a string similar challenge at a later date, and may have lost its ability to win .gmc in all future application rounds too (if .gmo is approved this time around, GMO could claim confusing similarity against future .gmc bids).
But GM still has active bids for the much more meaningful .chevrolet, .buick, .chevy and .cadillac, all of which also have prioritization numbers suggesting GM mainly applied defensively.
Hartford’s .thehartford was its only application.
The two withdrawals bring the total to date to 15, at least 10 of which were dot-brands. There are now 1,915 applications still in play.
The new gTLD consultants involved in the withdrawn bids — which one assumes were mostly filed defensively based on advice received — are a fairly mixed bunch so far.

Chehade names the date: ICANN to approve first new gTLDs on April 23

ICANN expects to approve the first new gTLDs on April 23, just 68 days from now.
The long-awaited date, which of course comes with certain caveats, was revealed by CEO Fadi Chehade in a video interview with ICANN media affairs chief Brad White today.
Chehade said:

We are now targeting to be able to recommend for delegation the first new gTLD as early as the 23rd of April, and I can say this because we have made great progress in the last few weeks in aligning all the necessary pieces that would permit us to recommend a delegation as early as the 23rd of April.
Having said that, I want to be very clear there are some things that we can’t control that may cause this date to slip, but even in that case we are looking for a slippage of days or weeks, not months anymore. So we are definitely now with clear visibility on a set of processes that allow us to hit the first recommended delegation as early as the 23rd of April.

The news is surprising; those following the new gTLD program closely are more accustomed to hearing announcements about delays.
Chehade’s recent comments at a meeting of registries and registrars in Amsterdam, in which he said his personal preference would be to delay the whole new gTLD program by a year, did not suggest the imminent announcement of so ambitious a deadline.
He addresses those comments in the interview.
The news strongly suggests that ICANN’s Governmental Advisory Committee — arguably the biggest unknown quantity at this point in the process — is on target to submit its formal Advice on New gTLDs not too long after the ICANN public meeting in Beijing, which ends April 11.
I would have put money on that not happening.
The date also suggests that ICANN is unlikely to extend the window for filing objections against applications, currently closing March 13, despite the very tight deadline this will create for potential objectors.
Because the results of the String Similarity Panel’s deliberations — which will very likely create new contention sets — will not be published until March 1, many organizations will only get seven or eight working days to finalize and submit their strategic objections.

Architelos runs new gTLD market readiness survey

New gTLD consultancy/software provider Architelos is carrying out a survey of new gTLD applicants in an effort to gauge how ready they are to launch.
The company is of the view that many applicants are under-prepared for the amount of work coming down the pike when they finally pass through ICANN’s long-running evaluation process.
The five-minute Q&A covers areas such as financial planning, compliance, hiring and launch marketing.
It’s also a way for Architelos to prospect for potential customers, though responses can be anonymous if desired.
If you’re an applicant, you can participate in the survey here.

Mystery gTLD applicant to take Google fight to lawmakers

An as-yet unidentified new gTLD applicant plans to lobby Washington DC and Brussels hard to get dozens of Google’s new gTLD bids thrown out of ICANN on competition grounds.
Phil Corwin of the law firm Virtuallaw, who is representing this applicant, told DI yesterday that his client believes Google plans to use new gTLDs to choke off competition in the web search market.
“They’re trying to use the TLD program to enhance their own dominance and exclude potential competitors,” Corwin said. “We think this should be looked at now because once these TLDs are delegated the delegations are basically forever.”
He’s planning to take these concerns to “policy makers and regulators” in the US and Europe, in a concerted campaign likely to kick off towards the end of the month (his client’s identity will be revealed at that time, he assured us).
Corwin’s client — which is in at least one contention set with Google, though in none with Amazon — reckons ICANN’s new gTLD program is ill-suited to pick the best candidate to run a gTLD.
If objections to new gTLD applications fail, the last-resort method for deciding the winner of a contention set is auction. Google obviously has the resources to win any auction it finds itself in.
“On any TLD Google has applied for, nobody can beat them,” said Corwin. “They have $50bn cash, plus the value of their stock. If they want any of the TLDs they’ve applied for, they get them.”
“A string contention process that relies solely on an auction clearly favors the deep-pocketed,” he said.
Google applied for 101 new gTLDs, 98 of which remain in play today. A small handful of the strings are dot-brands (such as .youtube and .google), with the majority comprising dictionary words and abbreviations.
Some of its generic bids propose open business models, while others would have “closed” or single-registrant business models. As we reported on Friday, this has kicked off a firestorm in the ICANN community.
Corwin said that Google appears to be planning to close off not only individual TLDs, but entire categories of TLDs.
For example, Google has applied for .youtube as a brand, but it’s also applied for .film, .movie, .mov, .live, .show and .tube with a variety of proposed business models.
“You can pretty well bet that they’ll exclude those that will pose a competitive threat to YouTube,” Corwin said.
Search will become much more important after the launch of hundreds of new gTLDs, Corwin reckons, as consumers are “not going to know that most of them exist”.
“Generic words are the perfect platform for constructing vertical search engines that can compete against Google’s general search engine,” Corwin said.
“Google is trying to buy up not just one but multiple terms that cover the same goods and services in key areas of internet commerce, and in effect control them so competition cannot arise and challenge Google’s dominance as a search engine,” he said.
Google has not yet revealed in any meaningful way how its search engine will handle new gTLDs.
The US Federal Trade Commission, at the conclusion of an antitrust investigation, recently gave Google a pass for its practice of prominently displaying results from its own services on results pages.
With that in mind, if Google were to win its contention set for .movie, but not for .film, is it possible that .movie would get a competitive advantage from preferential treatment in search?
Corwin reckons that Google anti-competitive intentions are already suggested by its strategy in ICANN’s new gTLD prioritization draw, which took place in December.
Of the roughly 150 applications for which Draw tickets were not purchased, Google is behind 24 of them — including .movie, .music, .tube and .search — 22 of which are in contention sets.
As a result, these contention sets have all been shunted to the back of ICANN’s application processing queue, adding many months to time-to-market and costing rival, less-well-funded applicants a lot of money in ongoing overheads.
“We see Google playing a rather different game here to most other applicants in terms of their motivation, which is not to enter the market but to protect their market dominance,” Corwin said.
Corwin said the game plan is to taken all these concerns to policy makers and regulators in the US and Europe in order to get governments on-side, both inside and outside of the ICANN process.
Corwin is also counsel and front-man for domainer group the Internet Commerce Association, but he said that the new anti-Google drive is unrelated to his work for ICA.
So why is his client only bringing up the issue now? After all, we’ve all known about the contents of every new gTLD application since last June.
My hunch is that Google is playing hard-ball behind the scenes in settlement talks with contention set rivals.
Contention sets can be resolved only when all but one of the applicants drops out, either following an ICANN auction or private buy-outs. Most applicants favor private resolution because it offers them the chance to recoup some, all, or more than the money they splashed out on applying.
That game plan probably does not apply to Google, of course, which is not wanting of funds. The company may even have good reason to prefer ICANN auctions, in order to to discourage those who would apply for new gTLDs in future just in order to put their hands in Google’s pockets.
The topic of closed generics and competition is likely to be a hot-button topic at ICANN’s next public meeting, coming up in Beijing this April.
Members of ICANN’s Governmental Advisory Committee have already expressed some concerns about many “closed gTLD” applications made by Google, Amazon and others.
ICANN’s board of directors is currently mulling over what to do about the issue, and has thrown it open to public comment for your feedback.

ICANN seeks more power over new gTLD registries

When ICANN published a new draft of its basic Registry Agreement for wannabe new gTLD operators last week, much of the focus was on the new Public Interest Commitments mechanism, but a whole bunch of other big changes were also proposed.
ICANN has floated some quite significant amendments that would give it greater powers to approve mergers and acquisitions and more or less unilaterally change registries’ contracts in future.
Here’s my take on the biggest changes.
Regulating M&A activity
When a new gTLD registry business is acquired, ICANN wants to have greater rights to approve the transaction.
Changes to Section 7.5 would enable ICANN to check that the buyer and its ultimate parent company “meets the ICANN-adopted specification or policy on registry operator criteria then in effect”.
That would specifically include fresh background checks on the acquirer and its parent company.
For new gTLD applicants planning to flip their gTLDs in future, it means the buyers would be subject to the same scrutiny as the applicants themselves are today.
But — and it could turn out to be a big but — these checks would not be carried out if the registry’s buyer was already itself a compliant, ICANN-contracted gTLD registry.
In other words, it is going to be much easier for gTLD registries to acquire each other than it will be for outsiders to acquire them.
Had the rules been in place before now they would have complicated, for example, the acquisition of .pro by Hostway (not already a registry), but not its subsequent acquisition by Afilias (which already had .info).
Powers to change the contract
ICANN wants to grant itself the ability to make “Special Amendments” to all gTLD registry agreements in future without the consent of the registries.
Under the current version of the Registry Agreement, such amendments would need the approval of registries representing two-thirds of all registry fees paid to ICANN before they became law.
(It’s possible that this would give Verisign, as .com/.net registry, a de facto veto due to its market share).
But ICANN wants to change this rule to give its own board of directors the ability to impose amendments to the contract on registries, even if the registries vote against them.
The board would need a supermajority vote (66%, which pretty much every board vote receives anyway) and would need to be “justified by a substantial and compelling need”, quite a subjective threshold, in order to ignore the registries’ protests.
Special Amendments could not cover basic things like pricing or the definition of “registry services”.
ICANN, no doubt bruised by 18 months of laborious Registrar Accreditation Agreement renegotiations, says the change is “of fundamental importance and deserves careful attention given the long-term nature of registry agreements”.
But ICANN contracted parties are usually pretty reluctant to give ICANN more powers over their businesses, especially when it comes to sacrificing their right to renegotiate their contracts, so I can’t see these proposed changes to the Registry Agreement being accepted without hot debate.
Reserved Names
Section 2 of the agreement has been tweaked to make it a bit clearer under what circumstances registries are able to register names for their own use, or block them, and when they have to pay ICANN fees to do so.
The new language makes it clear that registries will not have to pay ICANN fees, and won’t have to use accredited registrars, for domains that are completely blocked from registration and are not used by the registry or anyone else.
By my reading, this could cover the kind of defensive blocking services that many applicants plan to offer to trademark owners, and other anti-abuse mechanisms, but not domains that registries plans to “reserve” for their own use.
At first glance, this might be seen as something that primarily affects dot-brands (which own all the second-level domains in their gTLDs) but most will probably be protected by the 50,000-domain threshold that must be passed before per-domain ICANN fees kick in.
Names that are held back for the registry to use would still have to be registered through a registrar and would incur ICANN fees, with a handful of named exceptions (nic.tld, www.tld, etc).
The new Registry Agreement also includes the final list of strings related to the Red Cross and International Olympic Committee that need to be reserved at the second level, along with a placeholder for reservations of strings related to other intergovernmental organizations.
Other stuff
There are quite a lot of proposed changes (pdf) to the agreement, which are currently open for public comment, and it’s possible I may have missed something equally important as the above.
I’m wondering, for example, about the possible impact of the changes to Specification 7 that seem to make registries responsible if their registrars do not uphold intellectual property rights protection mechanisms.
Also, do the changes to Spec 4 suggest that ICANN plans to outsource the job of Centralized Zone Data Access Provider? What’s the impact on applicants of the changes to Continuing Operations Instrument?
What have you spotted?

How .pw signed up more launch registrars than .xxx

Directi has signed up more registrars for its launch of the .pw top-level domain than .xxx managed a year ago, crediting pricing and “operating in new gTLD mode” for its progress.
Sandeep Ramchandani, business head of .pw at the company, said that over 90 registrars are currently accredited. That’s compared to the about 80 that ICM Registry launched .xxx with in December 2011.
The ccTLD for the tiny nation of Palau (pop. 20,956), .pw isn’t what you’d call an intrinsically exciting string, despite Directi’s attempt to rebrand it as “Professional Web”, making its relatively strong launch channel a bit of a head-scratcher.
The fact that Directi also runs registrar-in-a-box provider LogicBoxes has helped it add some registrars, no doubt.
But Ramchandani reckons a combination of low pricing, open registration policies, a focus on developing markets, and attractive registrar incentives, are helping the TLD gain channel traction.
“There’s going to be a massive shift in power from registries to registrars,” he said. “We’re basically operating .pw in the new gTLD mode.”
I had assumed that many registrars might have wanted to plug in to .pw in order to ease the need for integration work with Directi’s registry if/when the company launches the 30-odd gTLD it has applied for, but Ramchandani pointed out that this is not the case.
The company is using CentralNic as the back-end for .pw, but it’s signed up to use ARI Registry Services for its gTLDs.
“This is not something related to our gTLD business, because we’re working off a completely different platform,” Ramchandani said.
But with the imminent launch of new gTLDs, there’s recently been an increased industry focus on how registrars should be paying their registry fees. Typically, they prepay each TLD registry before they sell domains to registrants, tying up capital that they could be using for other purposes.
That model may work in a world of 1,700 registrars and 18 gTLDs, but it will become increasingly cumbersome and uneconomical for registrars as the number of TLDs approaches 1,000.
Some say it will make more sense for registries to scrap the prepay model, if they want to attract more registrars.
While Directi has stopped short of offering blanket post-pay to its registrars, Ramchandani said it will offer the model in some cases (unlike ICANN-contracted gTLDs, .pw has leeway to treat registrars differently).
“We will be asking for prepayment, but if a registrar is doing significant volume… If they feel they’re blocking a lot of capital and require a more convenient and flexible model we could offer post-payment,” he said. “But it’s not something we can offer every registrar.”
It’s also offering what it says is a more attractive way of handling promotional pricing.
Typically, if a gTLD registry runs a pricing promotion today it will rebate its registrars the difference between the promo price and the regular fee monthly or quarterly based on their sales volumes.
Ramchandani said the .pw model is more attractive to registrars: “With our programs, we will charge the discounted amount up-front, as opposed to charging the full amount and rebating later.”
“We will be coming up with some very, very aggressive promotions that will bring down the first-year registration cost a lot,” he added.
In contrast to SX Registry’s .sx (for the new nation of Sint Maarten), which is launching with prices of around $50 a year, Directi is selling .pw domains with a registry fee “sub-.com” before discounts.
Exact registry pricing for .pw domains has not been publicly disclosed, and Ramchandani declined to give out that information, but given current .com prices we can estimate a ceiling of about $7.85.
Directi reckons the low prices will drive volumes in developing markets, such as its native India.
The .pw launch is currently in the last few days of sunrise — which like so many other recent sunrise periods has been extended to cope with last-minute filings — during which trademark holders can defensively register their brands as domain names for a higher fee.
Not ever registrar is participating in sunrise; eNom, for example, which is .pw’s biggest registrar signing to date, does not plan to get involved until landrush.
Directi has something interesting planned for landrush, which begins next Monday, too.
According to Ramchandani, the registry will release and promote a list of unreserved “premium” domains that are available for registration during the landrush period.
This is slightly different to the standard registry practice of holding back premiums for auction. The names .pw will promote will not be “reserved”, they’ll just be examples of decent strings picked out of the available pool.
Each could technically be sold for the basic landrush fee if only one registrant attempts to register them. In practice, due to the promotion, there’s a higher likelihood of the domains going to auction, however.
“We’re making available a much larger set of premium names during landrush,” Ramchandani said. “We think it will help raise awareness to say: ‘Hey, these are the top picks.'”
“Since those names are generally reserved by the registry, we think it’s important to say: these are available,” he added.
The full list of registrars participating in .pw’s launch is available here.
Directi is promoting those registrars that have committed some marketing resources to the TLD, such as by creating dedicated landing pages.
It has not yet signed up Go Daddy, which is typically responsible for a quarter or more of all sales in gTLDs it sells, but Ramchandani said he expects more “top five” registrars to follow eNom in supporting .pw soon.

Closed gTLD debate threatens Google and Amazon

Howls of criticism about Google, Amazon and others’ plans to grab huge swathes of new gTLD real estate and keep it to themselves seem to have spurred ICANN into action.
A public comment period opened this week seeks community feedback (indirectly) on applications such as Amazon’s .music, L’Oreal’s .beauty and Google’s .blog, among many others.
These gTLDs have all been proposed with “single-registrant” business models, in which the registry controls all second-level domains and regular registrars cannot sell them to anyone else.
It’s the “dot-brand” model, but applied to generic dictionary words for which the applicants have no trademark rights.
Scores of such applications have been made, notably by Google and Amazon, but they have drawn criticism from many in the ICANN community, such as a small group of registrars and others led by Blacknight Solutions.
Members of the Governmental Advisory Committee, most vocally Australia, have also expressed serious concerns about the model, saying it could be anti-competitive.
ICANN’s board of directors is currently mulling over these complaints, and has thrown the issue open to public comment to aid in its deliberations.
What it wants from you is:

proposed objective criteria for:

• classifying certain applications as “closed generic” TLDs, i.e., how to determine whether a string is generic, and
• determining the circumstances under which a particular TLD operator should be permitted to adopt “open” or “closed” registration policies.

The way the public comment request is phrased should be quite worrying to applicants for closed generic gTLDs.
It seem to assume that ICANN should be classifying gTLDs, something it has steadfastly refused to do for all of the years these kinds of debates have been raging.
What is a “closed generic” anyway?
The DI PRO New gTLD Application Tracker classifies gTLD applications into three buckets: Open, Restricted and Single-Registrant.
We made no attempt to segregate dot-brands from other Single Registrant bids, precisely because there’s currently no such thing as a dot-brand under ICANN’s rules.
There doesn’t seem to be much community concern about the apps we have classified as “Restricted” — applications for .lawyer that propose to vet registrants for their lawyerly credentials, for example.
The concern is all directed at Single Registrant bids. We have 912 of these in our database.
Many of these are dot-brands, where the applied-for string is an exact match with a famous trademark, but many are for dictionary words for which the applicant has no preexisting rights.
In order to sanely operate a dot-brand, applicants must request an exemption to the ICANN rules that oblige them to offer their gTLDs via accredited registrars on a non-discriminatory basis.
This Code of Conduct is a part of the base Registry Agreement for new gTLDs, but it contains a carve-out for single-registrant applicants:

Registry Operator may request an exemption to this Code of Conduct, and such exemption may be granted by ICANN in ICANN’s reasonable discretion, if Registry Operator demonstrates to ICANN’s reasonable satisfaction that (i) all domain name registrations in the TLD are registered to, and maintained by, Registry Operator for its own exclusive use, (ii) Registry Operator does not sell, distribute or transfer control or use of any registrations in the TLD to any third party that is not an Affiliate of Registry Operator, and (iii) application of this Code of Conduct to the TLD is not necessary to protect the public interest.

This provision was added specifically in order to enable “dot-brands” to exist.
It would be pretty weird if, for example, L’Oreal was forced to make .loreal domains available via hundreds of registrars. By requesting an exception, L’Oreal has the chance to keep .loreal in-house.
However, because ICANN deliberately has made no distinction between commonly used words and brands (.amazon could be both), L’Oreal was also able to apply for .beauty as a single-registrant gTLD.
It’s not really a loophole — the possibility of companies applying for closed generics was envisaged by ICANN and the policy-making community long before the application window even opened.
Make no mistake, this is well-trodden ground. ICANN had plenty of opportunities to address the issue before the new gTLD application window opened a year ago and it quite consciously decided not to.
The feeling over the last couple of years has been that objection mechanisms such as the Community Objection, as well as GAC Advice, would be sufficient to close down these problematic gTLDs bids.
During the year-long community discussion about registry-registrar vertical integration, the possibility of closed generics was acknowledged and heavily debated.
The GNSO’s Vertical Integration Working Group failed to reach consensus on almost everything, but most of the recommendations emerging from it included some Code of Conduct exemptions for dot-brands.
Some in the WG suggested that the exemptions should only apply to true dot-brands (ie, those back up by a trademark) but ICANN decided against referring to trademarks when it wrote the Code of Conduct due to the very real possibility that it would encourage gaming by speculators.
That problem has not disappeared. While there’s no such gaming in the current batch of applications, there will be second and third and fourth application rounds that the rules being hastily debated at the last minute right now will also (presumably) apply to.
What do closed generic applicants want?
Some ICANN community members assumed that it would be the big domainer-backed companies (later emerging as Donuts, Uniregistry et al) that would attempt these kinds of land-grabs.
But that (so far) hasn’t turned out to be the case. The domainers have generally proposed registration policies that are super, super liberal in comparison to Google, Amazon and other closed-generic applicants.
I believe it’s partly because it’s these massively powerful e-commerce companies that are the ones making the land-grabs, and the scale of the grabs, that the issue of closed generics has reemerged now.
There are two broad use cases of concern here.
First, the .beauty scenario: L’Oreal keeps all the second-level .beauty domains to itself, essentially converting the word “beauty” into a brand name as far as the DNS is concerned.
Second, the .blog scenario: Google implements a policy that all .blog domains must use its Blogger service, potentially to the detriment of competitors such as WordPress or Tumblr.
In both scenarios, the bids could be rejected in their entirety as a result of formal objections, ICANN board action or Governmental Advisory Committee advice.
If the applications were approved, ICANN could also subjectively apply the ill-defined “public interest” test outlined above to force compliance with the Code of Conduct.
But that would merely lead to the bizarre scenario where 1,700 accredited registrars all qualify to sell .music domain names, but the only potential customer is Amazon.com’s intellectual property management department (which wants to run .music as a single-registrant gTLD).
As ICANN points out in its public comments request, the Code of Conduct regulates who can sell domain names in new gTLDs, not who they can sell them to.
The .blog scenario is a little different.
This is what Google, which has applied via its Charleston Road Registry subsidiary, has proposed (with my emphasis):

Should ICANN grant Charleston Road Registry’s exemption to the Code of Conduct, and the proposed gTLD operate with Google as the sole registrar and registrant, members of the public will not be able to directly register domain names in this new gTLD. Users will, however, be given the opportunity to make use of a vanity second-level domain as a memorable identifier linked to content in Blogger.

In other words, Google will “own” all the second-level .blog domains, but will allow Blogger customers to “use” them.
It looks like what it is: a transparently bogus attempted workaround of the Code of Conduct, designed to let Google exclude rival blogging services and independent, self-managed bloggers from .blog.
(Disclosure: DI is an independent, self-managed blog.)
However, I can’t see how what Google has proposed could possibly qualify for an exemption, which is only supposed to be granted provided the registry does not “transfer control or use of any registrations in the TLD to any third party”.
If sanity prevails, Google probably won’t qualify for an exemption.
But that won’t stop it tying .blog to Blogger.
The Code of Conduct, remember, is only concerned with equal, non-discriminatory access for accredited registrars. It does not speak to registry services or registry policies.
Google could possibly still have a registry policy stating that all .blog domains must point to Blogger.
In addition, Google could make the registration fee $0, making it unattractive for most registrars to carry (though I guess registrars could use it as a loss-leader, they wouldn’t be able to up-sell hosting and other services if all .blog domains have to use Blogger).
In conclusion
Applicants for closed generics paid millions of dollars to apply, using the rules set down in the Applicant Guidebook at the time, and I can’t see them being too happy about this eleventh hour surprise.
However, there can be little doubt that ICANN, if its role is to protect the public interest and consumer trust, has to seriously tackle the issue of closed generics.
But it has to address it in 2011.

.web lawsuit thrown out of court, “too generic” to be a trademark

A California lawsuit that threatened to scupper all seven applications for the .web new gTLD has been thrown out.
The judge in Image Online Design v ICANN yesterday granted ICANN’s motion to dismiss the case, saying that IOD had no claim for breach of contract and, significantly, that “.web” is too generic to be a trademark.
Here’s the money quote:

This court agrees with ICANN that the mark .WEB used in relation to Internet registry services is generic and cannot enjoy trademark protection.

IOD applied for .web during ICANN’s proof-of-concept new gTLD round in 2000, but was not approved.
It sued ICANN last October, claiming breach of contract and trademark infringement and interference with its business.
The company has been running .web in an alternate DNS root, where hardly anyone uses it, since the 1990s.
Unfortunately for IOD, when it applied in 2000 it signed a document releasing ICANN from all legal liability in relation to the application, so the judge yesterday ruled that it could not sue for breach of contract.
The court also upheld the longstanding position of the US courts that top-level domains cannot be trademarks.
The US Patent & Trademark Office is of the view that TLDs do not indicate the source of goods or services; only the second-level domain does.
IOD had argued in court that, with the imminent introduction of dot-brands, the USPTO expects to modify its position. The judge in this case, Dean Pregerson, agreed in part, stating:

For instance, if ICANN were to introduce the TLD .APPLE, the user would arguably expect that that TLD is administered by Apple Inc. In such a case, the TLD might be considered a source indicator. If Sony tried to administer the TLD .APPLE, Apple Inc. would likely argue and possibly prevail on a trademark infringement claim.
This said, it appears to the court that today only the most famous of marks could have a source indicating function as a TLD. Some marks, such as .WEB, might remain generic even if they were famous, since .WEB in connection with registry services for the World Wide Web appears to refer to the service offered, rather than to only a particular producer’s registry service.
…
the mark .WEB is not protectable under traditional trademark analysis because it “seems to represent a genus of a type of website” and thus answers the question “What are you?” rather than “Who vouches for you?”

IOD’s other claims were also thrown out. Read the court’s order here.
The ruling means that a similar lawsuit filed by fellow 2000-round new gTLD applicant Name.Space, which is looking for an injunction against 189 gTLD applications, may be on shaky ground too.