The document summarizes information about the new generic top-level domains (gTLDs) application process. It provides timelines for the application window opening in January 2012 and closing in April 2012. It describes the eligibility requirements, conditions, evaluation process, potential objections, dispute resolution procedures, and uncertainties around future application rounds. The evaluation includes aspects like string reviews, applicant reviews, extended evaluation, and string contention. Objections could be for string confusion, legal rights, limited public interest, or community objections. The first gTLDs are expected to go live by the end of 2012.

1. New gTLDs: the .revolution
Is your company eligible?
Conditions, procedure and timeline
By Etienne Wery
Brussels
Attorney at Law, Brussels and Paris Bars
Oct., 13th, 2012
Senior lecturer at University
ULYS (www.ulys.net) © Ulys Law Firm

2. Timeline
Jan., 12th, 2012 April, 27th, 2012
It’s open! It’s public!
April, 12th, 2012 End of 2012
It’s closed! first gTLDS go live
© Ulys Law Firm

3. Who may apply?
• Established corporations, organizations or institutions
in good standing. Following companies already
declared they shall apply:
– MOTOROLA
– NOKIA
– DELOITTE
– IKEA
– CANON
– HITACHI
• Public bodies:
– the cities of Paris and Ghent
• Applications from individuals or sole proprietorships
will not be considered.
© Ulys Law Firm

4. Which conditions?
Geographical term : Generic term:
.paris .poker
Conditions depend on the
project
Community: Corporate/trademark:
.gay .mytrademark
© Ulys Law Firm

5. Which conditions?
Geographical term : Generic term:
.paris .poker
.almost anything
3 to 63 letters; no number;
including non-Latin (IDN)
Community: Corporate/trademark:
.gay .mytrademark
© Ulys Law Firm

6. Procedure
Administrative Initial
Delegation
completeness evaluation
Objection filing
Extended evaluation
Dispute resolution
© Ulys Law Firm
String contention

7. Initial evaluation
• String Reviews
– String similarity
– Reserved names
– DNS stability
– Geographic names
• Applicant Reviews
– Demonstration of technical and operational
capability
– Demonstration of financial capability
– Registry services reviews for DNS stability issues
© Ulys Law Firm

8. Extended evaluation
• An applicant may request an Extended Evaluation
if the application has failed to pass the Initial
Evaluation on following criteria:
– Geographical names
– Technical, operational or financial capability
– Registry services
• Extended Evaluation does not imply any change
of the evaluation criteria. It’s an additional
assessment based on the same criteria in light of
clarifications provided by the applicant.
© Ulys Law Firm

9. String contention
• Two or more applicants for an identical gTLD string successfully
complete all previous stages of the evaluation and dispute resolution
processes.
.bud vs bud; mazda vs. mazda; .poker vs .poker, .bank vs .bank, etc.
• Two or more applicants for similar gTLD strings successfully
complete all previous stages of the evaluation and dispute resolution
processes, and the similarity of the strings is identified as creating a
probability of user confusion if more than one of the strings is
delegated.
.poker vs .gaming
• Applicants are encouraged to reach a settlement or agreement among
themselves. Special rules apply in case of community applications.
• Auction: mechanism of last resort © Ulys Law Firm

10. Objection and dispute resolution (1/2)
• String Confusion Objection
The applied-for gTLD string is confusingly similar to an
existing TLD or to another applied-for gTLD string in
the same round of applications.
.sex vs. .XXX
• Legal Rights Objection
The applied-for gTLD string infringes the existing legal
rights of the objector.
Trademark
Tradename
© Ulys Law Firm

11. Objection and dispute resolution (2/2)
• Limited Public Interest Objection
The applied-for gTLD string is contrary to generally accepted legal norms
of morality and public order that are recognized under principles of
international law.
Anyone may oppose but there is a “Quick look” procedure
• Community Objection
There is substantial opposition to the gTLD application from a significant
portion of the community to which the gTLD string may be explicitly or
implicitly targeted.
Established institutions associated with clearly delineated communities
are eligible to file a community objection.
The objector must prove both of the following: (1) It is an established
institution and (2) It has an ongoing relationship with a clearly
delineated community
© Ulys Law Firm

12. Next round?
• 1.000 applications per year maximum
• Each application: from 9 to 20 months
• No new round before full completion and evaluation
of the first one
• Next round should not occur before 5 to 10 years
• Problem is that next round will inevitably raise more
“string confusion” issues. What if .citic is taken and
Citibank wants to apply in a couple of years?
© Ulys Law Firm

13. Thank you!
By Etienne Wery
Attorney at Law, Brussels and Paris Bars
Brussels
Senior lecturer at University
Oct., 13th, 2012
ULYS (www.ulys.net)
© Ulys Law Firm