As many folks like yourself or I with tenure have seen play out, there are some very progressive brands out there with respect to their online and internet adoption.

And there are still many that have not adopted the internet as a way to grow and expand their presence and keep having to react to the evolution of the market around them.

What I am hearing in the IP world is that the initial reaction to adding more TLDs is that it will massively expand the costs for a brand to enforce their famous marks or trademark strings by the number of new extensions.

So they’d have to do sunrise if they are proactive or they’d have to ACPA or UDRP if they are reactive and for many this is a daunting workload just with the current count of TLDs. When the world has a situation of a massive TLD introductions….

Can I get an “Oy Vey”?

That said, there are many in the intellectual property space that see the new TLDs instead as opportunity.

If I were Kraft Foods or Johnson and Johnson or one of the brands with more of a hip and savvy strategy I would be looking at saying “screw that process of registering and reacting in these new TLDs, my customer will know me as ., and thus the . will be less dilutive and god bless those that go register them, I’ll just react to the onerous ones as they arise.

But my point in that comment was that it will help to drive and clarify the definitions of PROHIBITIONS in ICANNs MOU with the USDOC if that starts to happen.

In theory, does that not begin to make ICANN the registry and create a scenario whereby brands are not interacting with a registry or registrar or registrants but simply with ICANN itself?

Is ICANN then competing directly with the incumbent or new to be introduced registries?

That’s the rhetorical question to ponder that has been posed. It is worth some thought.

I would expect many brands to apply for their own extension.

Afterall its pretty cheap ($100K-$250K) to get

What is the downside?

Those of you who follow me or know me understand my reach and background in the ICANN and new TLD space, and I have blogged about the numerous extensions or ideas that have been pitched to me.

There’s an interesting rhetorical question that was raised at the ICANN Studenkries as to if some of the TLD proposals for brands, if allowed by ICANN to be used for sole registration purposes (where there would be only one registration, the TLD itself) might hypothetically be in direct conflict with “RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE PARTIES”; “PROHIBITIONS” (V.D.1) of the Memorandum of Understanding with the NTIA/DOC, in which ICANN could not become a registry.

If you noodle on that for a minute, really think about it, and then pause to consider the difference between an ATT.COM or IBM.COM versus a .ATT or .IBM, one begins to recognize that there is a possibility of a large number of brands heading in that direction.

One of the thoughts on new TLDs is that many of the submissions are going to be brands locking down their TLD as sole registrant or as a closed community that would have no registrars or registrants.

Many of the larger brands are looking at new TLDs with a massive pucker factor, because of all the sunrise and other matters that they have to manage and track.

Some Brands have considered embracing the new TLD process, in the manner that if they had a . it would help to reduce the massive costs of proactive brand protection as we take a sip from the firehose of new extensions we may face.

[http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/icann-memorandum.htm]
Section V, “RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE PARTIES”,
Sub D “PROHIBITIONS”,
Item 1 “ICANN shall not act as a domain name Registry or Registrar or IP Address Registry in competition with entities affected by the plan developed under this Agreement. Nothing, however, in this Agreement is intended to prevent ICANN or the USG from taking reasonable steps that are necessary to protect the operational stability of the Internet in the event of the financial failure of a Registry or Registrar or other emergency. “

You are correct

That is not going to happen

The US trade commission needs to take over temporarily while they clean hour and put someone else in charge to clean house.

Its more than trademark holders that have concerns about these new extensions.

Say you own newyorkrealestate.com. Then they allow .realestate as a new extension. now someone can use newyork.realestate

How many people are going to type in newyork.realestate.com?

What it there is a .newyork

Then you can use realestate.newyork, newyork.realestate

Talk about confusion.

And if you own the .com you would feel compelled t go for the .newyork and .realestate version which will be aucitoned off and that guy is going to have to spend tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars on what? Domains they don’t want or need but have to have.