{"id":10915,"date":"2019-08-09T13:43:14","date_gmt":"2019-08-09T13:43:14","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/ebrandservices.com\/?p=10915"},"modified":"2025-04-28T13:59:02","modified_gmt":"2025-04-28T13:59:02","slug":"the-next-round-of-gtlds-is-around-the-corner","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/ebrand.com\/fr\/blog\/the-next-round-of-gtlds-is-around-the-corner\/","title":{"rendered":"The next round of gTLDs is around the corner"},"content":{"rendered":"

The next round is around the corner.<\/h2>\n

ICANN has been working on adding generic extensions to the internet for many years, and the next round will, in fact, be the 5th round of gTLD expansion.<\/p>\n

Background<\/h2>\n

In the 1980s, seven gTLDs were created: .com, .edu, .gov, .int, .mil, .net, and .org. Under three of these (.com, .net, and .org) internet users were able to freely register domain names not tied to a country code.<\/p>\n

Twenty years later, the 2000 round introduced the concept of applying to obtain the control of internet extensions. It was a so-called \u00ab\u00a0proof of concept round\u00a0\u00bb during which the ICANN Board selected the following seven applications biz, .info, .name, .pro, .aero, .coop, and .museum to be launched.<\/p>\n

In 2003, another round of TLD applications took place and the following extensions were launched .asia, .cat, .jobs, .mobi, .tel and .travel.<\/p>\n

After the successful results of the 2000 and 2003 expansions, ICANN initiated in 2005 a Policy Development Process to prepare and regulate the introduction of additional new gTLDs.<\/p>\n

In 2008, ICANN released the first draft of the new gTLD Applicant Guidebook for public comment. The document specified the operational, financial, and legal commitments for applying and operating a new gTLD. For three years, the internet community and the public provided their input on this document, which led to its current version. Despite the intellectual property and business constituencies’ doubts regarding the protectiveness of the program towards their members’ rights, the ICANN Board launched the New gTLD Program in June 2011.<\/p>\n

2012 Round results<\/strong><\/h2>\n

It is important to note that the Applicant Guidebook was intended to govern \u00ab\u00a0the first round of what is to be an ongoing process for the introduction of new gTLDs\u00a0\u00bb and that \u00ab\u00a0ICANN’s goal [was] to launch subsequent gTLD application rounds as quickly as possible<\/strong>. \u00ab\u00a0While this program was admittedly far from perfect, its results made it somewhat successful, despite the complexity of its structure and the multi-stakeholder model on which ICANN is functioning. Indeed, the 338 pages of the Applicant Guidebook and its underlying policies – most of them pre-existing \u2013 could have resulted in a massive crash, but clearly did not. Out of the 1930 applications received, 1232 were successful<\/a> and were added to the internet root servers. Aside from the fringe cases of Amazon<\/a>, which is currently battling the governments of Peru, Colombia, Ecuador and Bolivia over the delegation of .amazon and the internecine war between Merck & Co and Merck Group over .merck, every brand owner successfully obtained the extensions they applied for. Furthermore, every new extension was subject to specific rights protection mechanisms<\/a> including especially a \u00ab\u00a0sunrise period\u00a0\u00bb which allowed Intellectual Property rights owners to register their marks before the general public. Also, a notification system was implemented, informing them immediately when a third party registered a domain name corresponding to their trademarks.<\/p>\n

Nonetheless, the fact that the program was launched successfully did not mean that a thorough review could be avoided. To this end, ICANN initiated two policy development initiatives:<\/p>\n