• Welcome
    Sponsors
  • Director
    Members
    Advisory Board
    International Advisory Council
    Research Affiliates
    IPilogue Editors
  • IPilogue
    Events
    Publications
  • JD
    Graduate Program
    Clinical
    Prizes & Awards
  • The IPIGRAM Archive
    Events Archive
    IP in the News
    IP Poll of the Week
    IP Pick of the Week
    Gowlings IPilogue Prize
  • Legislation
    Journals
    Government
  • Contact Us
    Subscribe

ICANN and Internet Big Bang

June 22, 2009 by Reshika Dhir (IPilogue Editor)

The announcement by ICANN to open the Internet to a limitless number of domains has been a cause of stir since June 2008 when Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) accepted this recommendation of its global stakeholders.  ICANN’s website describes itself as a not-for-profit public-benefit corporation aimed at coordinating and maintaining the integrity of the Internet’s naming system. ICANN accomplishes this by overseeing the purchase or sale of domain names.

A domain name is a part of the URL address typed into the web browser, and tells the visitors where the website is on the Internet. ICANN currently accredits domain-name registrars for the following Top Level Domains (TLDs) or Domain name extensions: .aero, .asia, .biz, .cat, .com, .coop, .info, .jobs, .mobi, .museum, .name, .net, .org, .pro, .tel and .travel. Two common categories of TLDs include: ccTLDs and gTLDs. The former refers to “country-code” TLDs which contains two letters representing over 250 countries and external territories, such as .ca. Most TLDs with three or more characters are referred to as generic TLDs or gTLDs.

By opening this Pandora’s box of gTLDs, ICANN has essentially allowed businesses and organizations to run with their creativity and to apply for any top-level domain they can possibly think of. However, there is also a filtering mechanism in place. The ICANN website clarifies that this is not a market where every claimed domain name will be sold; instead, there will be a scrutinizing process to which every application, from any established entity from anywhere in the world, will be subjected. This process is meant to minimize the prevalence of offensive domain names or of those infringing on other people’s intellectual property.

While some may be thrilled at the thought of expanding the Internet web to include some entertaining, ingenious and imaginative domain names, there remains many causes of concern.  Aside from the guaranteed influx in domain names, which some claim will cause immense confusion and difficulty of navigation, some consumers even go as far as to claim that it would send Internet out of control. Adding to them, the problem is the issue of credibility. Since most of us have already acknowledged the fact that not all the information online is trustworthy, and that websites with .edu or .org extensions are more reliable than any random .com, it will be a major challenge to accept information from the upcoming new gTLDs. For some opportunists, this may also be a golden chance to indulge in the practice of cybersquatting. Even more importantly and from a practical point of view, we may also find it difficult to remember these new URLs.

The report of Dennis Carlton, a senior managing director from Compass Lexcon, regarding the ICANN’s Proposed Mechanism for Introducing New gTLDs, suggests otherwise. The paper proposes that from an economic perspective, the ICANN’s proposed framework for introducing new gTLDs will facilitate entry and benefit consumers by expanding output, lowering price and increasing innovation. Primarily the significant competition that will result from new registrants and increased product choice will prove to be significantly beneficial for customers.

Since ICANN stands as a not-for-profit organization, and has, to this date, contributed tremendously to stabilize Internet and the domain systems, it is easy to conclude that this mass exodus from the traditional ways is not based on a materialistic motivation. In fact, promoting competition and choice is one of the principles upon which ICANN was founded. By taking some preliminary measures of precaution, such as thorough application scrutiny before assigning a domain name, in-depth technical scrutiny to ensure Internet stabilization, placement of dispute resolution mechanisms to cater to trade-mark infringement allegations etc., ICANN can revive the interest, trust and participation of 1.5 billion Internet users to bask in the diversity, choice and innovation that will likely come out of this proposal.

Posted in Domain Names, General, Internet

Leave a Reply

All replies and responses are moderated and will not appear on the site immediately. Please see our response policy.

« The CyberSquatting Wheel Keeps Turning | Signs and Sensibility: Accommodating Non Conventional Trade Marks »

Career Opportunities
Osgoode IP Club
Writing Competitions
IP Research Guide

RSS Follow Comments via RSS
  • James Wagner on Copyright at the Edge of Artistic Creativity
  • Ken Anderson on Bill C-11: Through the Lens of Social Norms
  • Courtney Doagoo on Evidence Of Parasitic Intent Not Unfounded: L’Oreal
  • Denis Borges Barbosa on Evidence Of Parasitic Intent Not Unfounded: L’Oreal
  • D Vaver on Disclosure Front and Centre as Pfizer Prepares to Defend Viagra in Supreme Court of Canada
  • Dr. Emir Crowne on Disclosure Front and Centre as Pfizer Prepares to Defend Viagra in Supreme Court of Canada
  • Adam Stevenson on Bill C-11: Through the Lens of Social Norms
  • Anonymous on Should Canada Strengthen IP Protection for Pharmaceutical Products? The European Union Thinks So...
  • Aidan Hollis on Should Canada Strengthen IP Protection for Pharmaceutical Products? The European Union Thinks So...
  • Kalen Lumsden on IP Osgoode Speaker Series: Robert Levine and Dr. Brett Danaher
RSS Follow Posts via RSS
  • One Step Closer: Bill C-11
  • Bergeron Entrepreneurs in Science and Technology (BEST) Program Launches at York
  • Whose Patent is It Anyway?: The Ongoing Legal Legacy Between Samsung and Apple
  • Copyright at the Edge of Artistic Creativity
  • Luksan v. Van der Let, Or Rather, EU v. UrhG?
  • Global Health Challenges and the Role of Law
  • Sampling Questions Still Unsettled After Jay-Z/Kanye West Sampling Settlement
  • World Intellectual Property Day 2012
  • The Legal Implications of Commercializing Intellectual Property Rights
  • Announcement: Global Health Challenges and the Role of Law: the 2012 National Health Law Conference

IP Osgoode would like to send out its IPIGRAM at a time when most convenient for you. Please let us know your views by answering a few questions so that we can better serve you.

Click here to take poll.
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • June 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • Advisory Board (4)
  • Announcements (2)
  • Blogs (4)
  • Book Review (3)
  • Broadcasting Regulatory Policy (5)
  • Cloud Services (3)
  • Commercialization (77)
  • Competition (6)
  • Competition Law (7)
  • Contracts (59)
  • copyright reform (136)
  • defamation (15)
  • Design (6)
  • Development (4)
  • European Union (32)
  • events (75)
  • Fashion Industry (13)
  • Feature Post (126)
  • Freedom of Speech (15)
  • Freedom of the Press (14)
  • Gaming (6)
  • General (145)
  • Human Rights (3)
  • Image (2)
  • Innovation (138)
  • Internet (236)
  • IP (1041)
    • Copyright (522)
      • CD Levy (9)
      • Digital Downloads (64)
      • Digital Libraries (1)
      • Digital Locks (28)
      • Fair Dealing (61)
        • Parody (2)
        • Satire (1)
      • Infringement (124)
      • Internet Sharing (92)
      • Literary Works (52)
      • Moral Rights (9)
      • Movies (47)
      • Music Industry (88)
      • Originality (29)
      • Ownership (81)
        • Licensees (31)
      • Secondary (ISP) Liability (14)
      • Subsidiary Rights (5)
    • IP Reform (19)
    • Patents (331)
      • Access to Medicines (12)
      • Cross Border Issues (48)
      • Electronic Processes (18)
      • Infringement (60)
      • Patent Practice (18)
      • Patent Trolls (20)
      • Patentability (97)
      • Pharmaceutical Drugs (65)
    • Trademarks (201)
      • Domain Names (38)
      • Famous Marks (15)
      • Official Marks (10)
      • Parallel Importation (4)
      • Personality Rights (11)
  • IP Course Topic (11)
  • IP Intensive (4)
  • IP Litigation Practice (15)
  • Jurisdiction (65)
    • Canada (24)
    • Indonesia (1)
    • Japan (1)
    • UK (25)
    • US (28)
  • Law & Music Course Topic (20)
  • Links (3)
  • MediaLaws (6)
  • Music Industry (72)
  • Open-Source (16)
  • Osgoode Alumnus (10)
  • Patents Course Topic (28)
  • Privacy (165)
    • Electronic Databases (36)
    • Human Rights Issues (26)
    • Identity Theft (11)
  • Regulatory Policy (46)
  • Reputation Management (2)
  • Smartphones (10)
  • Social Justice (2)
    • United Nations Development Programme (1)
  • Social Media (23)
  • Supreme Court of Canada (17)
  • Tech Transfer (29)
  • Technology (208)
  • Telecommunications (73)
  • Trade Secrets (3)
  • UK (10)
  • Uncategorized (82)
  • US-Canada Relations (2)
  • WIPO (9)
  • Log in

Home   |   Contact Us  

© 2008 Osgoode Hall Law School York University
4700 Keele Street Toronto, Canada M3J 1P3
T:416.736.5030   F:416.736.5736