Minds + Machines

IBM’s submission to ICANN’s comment forum on the fourth version of the Draft Applicant Guidebook — the set of rules for getting a new top-level domain, implies very heavily that they will be applying for .IBM. Furthermore (no surprise) it looks as if they will use it for internal purposes, and not to sell any .IBM names to the public.

First, IBM is pleased that there will be no requirement for a sunrise period, which wouldn’t make any sense if the top-level domain were used for internal company purposes, and not sold to the public:

Second, IBM notes that as yet there is no requirement that .brand top-level domains must use registrars — again, something that makes little sense if you’re just registering names internally. (This issue is currently being hashed out by the Vertical Integration Working Group, which is in a deadlock.)

Taken together, these comments are strong evidence that IBM is, at a minimum, giving serious consideration to applying for .IBM. Canon has already announced their intention to apply for .CANON. It appears that IBM and others are set to join them soon.

It Depends

Economists aren’t very good at predicting things, as any one with money in the stock market can attest. The most powerful economist in the United States, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, is on record predicting a continuing climb in housing prices — just prior to their precipitous decline. And yet their crystal balls still hold some allure for those who need to present “evidence” about the future. Such is the case with ICANN and the new gTLD program.

The latest economic report to be presented to ICANN uses a great number of pages to say very little. It tells us that gTLDs may be useful, or they may be harmful — it depends. We are told that cybersquatting may increase, or not — it depends. We learn that registries might make money, or they might not — it depends. To our astonishment, we learn that sometimes things are good for some people, but bad for others.

The whole report could have consisted of this one paragraph, which contains the entire wisdom of its contents:

“Because business model innovations are difficult to predict, experience with the development of gTLDs that serve specific communities is limited, and the community has no experience with IDNs at the TLD level, it is difficult to describe the expected effects of new gTLDs with precision.”

In other words, it depends.

Why Do We Even Have This Economic Report?

ICANN has produced many economic reports. Each time, someone objects to the results, and insists ICANN do another one, hoping for a different result. This is not as ridiculous as it might first appear, because two different sets of economists are entirely capable of coming up with wildly disparate results. In this case, the economic study is mandated by the Affirmation of Commitments. So ICANN is obliged to do it, which makes it obligatory, if no less fatuous.

The Language of Imprecision

The authors were handed an impossible task: predict what going to happen, in both an economic and social dimension, if we do something that has never been done before. With consummate professionalism, however, they were equal to the task, employing two effective strategies. First, they used the bulk of the report to review the history of the gTLD program, other surveys and opinions, and different theoretical frameworks for quantifying economic predictions. Second, they predicted various possible risks and benefits, without quantifying any of them — the words “may” and “might” appear 128 times, or roughly twice per page.

Something for Everyone

By saying that new gTLDs might be good, or might be bad, or possibly even a mix of the two, the authors gave both proponents and opponents something to cheer about, which has muted opposition to the report itself and has instead resulted in the two sides brandishing excerpts from the report, each for its own benefit. But the professionalism of the authors shows through: their most important recommendation is that the new gTLDs will provide data for — wait
for it — another study.

I commend the authors for taking money from ICANN, and for setting themselves up for more work later, and for producing a document that looks entirely professional, while saying nothing more than “it depends.” They were given a dubious task, and performed it to the hilt.

Should observers of ICANN lend any credence to this study? If your goal is to advocate a position without any empirical evidence, it is an excellent tool. If your goal is to understand what the new gTLD program will produce, it will, if printed out and bound, make a splendid paperweight.

In other words, it depends…

(Adapted from a post made to ICANN’s comment forum.)

The Netherlands Antilles, an agglomeration of former Dutch colonies in the Caribbean, will disappear on October 10, 2010. None of the ex-colonies in question — Curaçao, St Maarten, Saba, Bonaire, and St Eustatius — have been particularly happy with the status quo. (Aruba achieved a separate status in 1986).

Sources at the International Standards Organization (ISO), which maintains the ISO-3166-1 list that determines which ccTLDs exist (or don’t), tell me that .AN (Netherlands Antilles) will be deprecated, and two new ccTLD codes will be established. Presumably, these will be for St Maarten and Curaçao (the others have taken the status of Dutch municipalities), but I wasn’t able to confirm the countries or the new ccTLD codes.

Meanwhile, ICANN is ballyhooing the signing of an “accountability framework” with Netherlands Antilles — even though it has a shelf-life of just over four months.

Can anyone guess what the new country codes will be? .SM for St Maarten and .CU for Curaçao seem obvious, but these are already taken by San Marino and Cuba.

ICANN’s 38th get-together, in Brussels, may become known as the meeting where the dust finally began to settle. Long-standing issues were settled, compromises were reached, no-one complained too much about the latest version of the Applicant Guidebook, and the Board stood by its project plan dates, even scheduling a Board retreat to solve remaining issues. Finally, there were no surprise “gotcha!” delays that gTLD applicants have been used to seeing at ICANN meeting. With one possible exception…

September Board Retreat – Good News

ICANN’s Board of Directors is going to take a special retreat, tentatively scheduled for September 2010, to try to sort out the remaining gTLD issues. This was publicly announced by Chairman Peter Dengate-Thrush and much discussed during the Brussels meeting. It is likely that the Board will hammer out some solutions on issues where opposing camps are insisting on their advantages and refusing to compromise.

The Board seems to be taking their task seriously, putting enormous pressure on various working groups (see my notes on the vertical integration working group, below) to produce proposals prior to their retreat. Applicants should be pleased with the vigor with which the Board has decided to address the remaining logjams.

.XXX Decision – Good News

The Board’s decision to green-light .XXX means new gTLD applicants can breathe a sigh of relief. The approval means that the new gTLDs program will not be threatened by .XXX-inspired court interference in the gTLD process. ICM Registry, .XXX’s sponsor, would almost certainly have sued ICANN if the decision had gone differently, and very likely they would have asked for an injunction to stop the introduction of new gTLDs — and they might have been successful. The ICANN Board decision to go ahead with .XXX, however heavily hedged with caveats, removes this threat. That’s good news for gTLD applicants.

Most of the press I’ve seen makes it seem as if .XXX is a done deal, and will be inserted into the root in short order. Unfortunately for the 162,000 reported pre-registration applications for .XXX, we are very far from that. One of the more intelligent analyses of the Board’s resolution is theTom Hymes story at AVN. To their credit, ICM’s blog has a thorough and fact-filled rundown of the remaining obstacles. My own assessment of .XXX isn’t very positive, but it is a good sign that ICANN is letting itself be compelled to following its own rules.

Intellectual Property Issues – Good News

Trademark advocates at ICANN will tell you that they are the reasonable ones, that the people who are unalterably opposed to new gTLDs don’t even show up at ICANN meetings. That may be, but members of ICANN’s intellectual property constituency have hardly been pushovers. Therefore it was a pleasure to witness hardline opponents to new gTLDs, including sharp critics from the BBC, Nestle, and the American Red Cross talk constructively about how they could benefit from them at a panel called “Brand Management in the Age of New gTLDs.”

For instance, Charlotte Walters of Orange (the phone company) had this to say:

I think we’re all about building and driving brand value, in which case if you have an asset that could become a mark of value and a mark of quality so that consumers would come to recognize that something that is dot Orange is genuine and that there is no risk of phishing or any other malicious acts underneath it, then that would be the ideal position that we are all aiming to get to. The question is, how long does it take you to get there.

In the meantime, I think that defensive registrations, which we’re all used to doing, is going to be an ongoing factor….

So on a longer-term view, yes, it — there is a lot of potential value. And from a marketing perspective, there’s a lot of potential value. But it will take a long time, I think, to educate internally and externally as to how to get there.

The intellectual property people fought hard for their position and achieved enormous gains, and now there is a sense that they should take their winnings quietly, which they seem to be doing. There are now several RPMs (rights protection mechanisms) in the Applicant Guidebook, including measures to shut down entire registries if they were found to be knowingly and systematically violating IP rights. The GAC (Government Advisory Committee) is no longer worrying that the sky will fall without more IP protections, and the Board opines quite openly that they see consensus in this area. Strident denunciations will continue, but at the meeting there was overwhelming agreement that we are finally past this hurdle.

Vertical Integration – Good News

The good news — and it is good news — is that the Vertical Integration Policy Development Process (VI PDP) is not going to delay new gTLDs. That doesn’t mean the results won’t affect new gTLDs, but it’s not going to slow things down.

Vertical Integration is another way of saying cross-ownership or control, and in this case the question is whether (and to what extent) a registry can own or control a registrar, or vice-versa. The Working Group (which I participate in) has a wide variety of entrenched positions, ranging from protectionist limitations on cross-ownership to a registrar-pleasing complete lack of barriers. The arguments are arcane, and because the limitations concern a future marketplace that no-one can really grasp, the proceedings are an anxious pandemonium of fears and doubts. But the Board has insisted on getting some kind of report in time for its retreat, and so the Working Group is likely to produce a very thin document that representing whatever consensus the group can achieve. The Board doesn’t want to decide this question on its own, but if it must, it will.

You can access the Working Group’s online resource page, or for a long slog you can read the Working Group’s email archives. A few weeks ago, I took the trouble to articulate the Minds + Machines position, which remains the same.

MOPO – Theoretical Knot with a Real-World Solution

MOPO, also called MAPO, stands for “Morality and Public Order,” which is the last big sticking point. Most did not consider it that big of an issue until this Brussels meeting, when the GAC first declared that ICANN’s whole approach to ferreting out immorality (having jurists decide if a TLD is immoral) was not acceptable and must be changed. They subsequently declared it was not their job to suggest anything in its place. Predictably, ICANN board members and staffers were annoyed, but must realize that ultimately they have to produce something that the GAC can live with. Watching the meetings, I didn’t sense that the GAC was using this as an issue to slow down new gTLDs; on the contrary, they seemed not to want to be seen as the reason for delay.

On the one hand, the GAC is right: the morality and public order module is a mess, bulked up with portentous phrases but basically passing the buck to some highly paid lawyers. On the other hand, the module fails precisely because it’s impossible to determine what’s immoral or not on a global basis — this is a circle that will not be squared. The debate is reminiscent of the struggles of the U.S. courts to define pornography, and the solution that was reached — local community standards — will serve here too.

A practical fix is needed, even if it doesn’t address the underlying (insoluble) problem. My guess is that, despite its overtones of censorship, ICANN will have to set up some kind of morality panel in judgment of names, and people it with diverse enough stakeholders to deflect claims of conspiracy. And the vast majority of TLDs will pass without a whisper of dissent. This panel will be just another objection chokepoint, joining the Independent Objector, the Geographic Names Panel, Community Objection and other procedures as a gateway that gTLD applications will have to pass through. Meanwhile, out in the real world, local jurisdictions may block some gTLDs locally if they find them offensive — just as they now block certain second-level domain names in .com.

Although MOPO is the most concerning of the remaining obstacles to opening the new gTLD process, and does have a chance of slowing down the process, there are a lot of committed people working on a solution. The real difficulty will be to shoehorn the practical solution into a theoretical framework that’s consistent with the principles everyone is keen to display.

The Bottom Line

The final shape of the applicant guidebook is becoming clear. With the possible exception of the MOPO issue, solutions to the remaining problems are visible in outline and in many cases in great detail. There are several efforts underway, including the Board retreat and various hurry-up working groups, to get the new gTLD program to the finish line. There’s always a chance that the timing will slip, but I would say not by much — we’re sticking to our timeline: most indications are that ICANN’s next meeting, in early December 2010 in Cartagena, Colombia, will finally produce a starting date for new gTLDs.

Today Top Level Domain Holdings, Ltd., Minds + Machines’ parent company, issued a statement summarizing our view of the progress at ICANN. The full text is included below:

The Board of TLDH announces that the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (“ICANN”) has now released the fourth version of the Draft Applicant Guidebook for generic top-level domains (“gTLDs”). This is in line with the decision reached by ICANN’s Board of Directors at its Nairobi meeting in March where it resolved to focus on the full introduction of gTLDs later this year rather than implement an intermediate step by adoption of the expressions of interest/pre-registrations proposal.

As reported by ICANN staff during the Nairobi meeting, the draft guidebook is expected to be the last draft before the final guidebook which is expected to be published in October / November 2010, according to ICANN’s project plan. The new draft guidebook includes an expanded role for public comments on gTLD applications, as well as incorporating various measures to protect intellectual property as proposed by ICANN participants.

The new draft guidebook keeps in place the strict separations of cross-ownership and control between registries and registrars, placing significant barriers in front of registrars who wish to start new top-level domains. If this restriction remains in the final guidebook, the Board of TLDH believes that a number of potential competitors will find it difficult or impossible to enter the market. TLDH is unaffected by this policy and the Board of TLDH therefore expects that TLDH will benefit from this continuing separation between registrars and registries.

ICANN has also released other supporting documents in relation to the proposed gTLD application process, including a budget for the new generic top-level domain review process. The budget document is based on ICANN’s assumptions that there will be 500 gTLD applications, of which 5 per cent are assumed to fail the initial evaluation and a further 5 per cent are assumed to request voluntary partial refunds. Accordingly, ICANN’s budget assumes that 90 per cent. of all applications will proceed to either successful delegation, or in the case of conflicting applications, to an auction or other tie-breaking resolution.

The other few and mostly small changes in the new draft guidebook suggest that there is near-consensus among ICANN and industry participants and governments and that the application guidebook is near completion.

TLDH remains well-positioned to move forward with its plans for new top-level domains. The next meeting of ICANN will be held in Brussels from June 20 – 25. TLDH and its operating subsidiary, Minds + Machines LLC, will be participating in the ICANN meeting and will provide a further update following that meeting.

I’ve been reading through some of the raft of documents ICANN released earlier this week. Among them is ICANN’s New gTLD Program Budget, which contains good news for new gTLD applicants.

ICANN reveals that it expects just 5% of applications to fail the initial evaluations, and another 5% to request refunds prior to the end of the evaluation stage. This means that they’re intending to pass approximately 90% of the applications — in other words, ICANN’s intent is not to fail applications by finding trivial faults, but rather to simply make sure that they’re operationally and financially sound. That is excellent news.

ICANN also reveals what it expects from the gTLD application round. Among the highlights:

• ICANN estimates 500 applications. The don’t estimate the number of duplicate or conflicting applications, but if we suppose that 25% are in conflict, that would leave us with approximately 425 unique TLDs applied for. Subtracting a further 10% who drop out, that leaves 382 new TLDs that we can expect to see delegated.
• ICANN expects the majority of gTLD applications to be “straightforward,” with no need for complicated and time-consuming procedures. More good news for applicants.
• ICANN expects the Independent Objector to file objections in less than 5% of the total applications. Again, ICANN’s intent does not seem to be to find fault.

It’s good to see these numbers from ICANN, which shows that they want their program to succeed with a full complement of new gTLDs. 382 of them, by my reading.

I’m guessing that few people have bothered to read the gTLD Registry Transition Processes document, which came out earlier this week, along with the Draft Applicant Guidebook (DAG) Version 4. Its name promises a very boring recitation of things to do when a registry needs to make a transition, which is of interest to no-one just yet because ICANN hasn’t even started the process to create any of the new registries that might one day be transitioned.

And yet there are in it some eye-opening clues about how ICANN is going to try to regulate the new gTLDs.

The document opens with a portentous recounting of ICANN’s core values, specifically “Core Value #1,” which is “preserving and enhancing the operational stability, reliability, security, and global interoperability of the Internet.” The idea is that if a registry changes hands, the transition must be undertaken in a way that Core Value #1 is preserved.

So far so good. But once we move past this catechism, we find that the document is just as concerned with preserving and extending the political levers that have been gradually inserted into the DAG over the last year. We find that “transition” means not just changing ownership, or wholesale replacement of the back-end registry, but also very minor things like name changes or small parts of outsourced technical services, and that any changes might need approval of third parties, including governments. It introduces dangerous consequences for any breach (even minor) of the Registry Agreement, including an entire re-evaluation of the registry similar to the initial application process. New “Emergency Operators” will be contracted to take over a registry in the case where ICANN determines that there’s a problem. And all of this will mean new fees and new bureaucracy.

Here is ICANN’s matrix for the kind of evaluation will be required.

In more detail, this is what registries of new gTLDs can look forward to:

Name Change

If the registry wants to change its name, it will be re-evaluated to “ensur[e] it is legitimate to guarantee there is no opportunity for hijacking the TLD.” The language is symptomatic of ICANN’s attitude to applicants, which is to treat them as potential scoundrels. This is in marked contrast to its attitude toward some government players, who are actual, verifiable, proven scoundrels (see “IDN ccTLDs for corrupt states, fast-track process for”). I am not sure what “hijacking the TLD” might mean, and the document does not explain. Suffice it to say that changing your name from “123 Inc.” to “1234 Inc.” will bring ICANN’s suspecting scrutiny upon you.

Sale of Registry

Selling your registry will now be more like selling your co-op in New York City. It’s not enough to find a buyer; you have to convince the Board of the buyer’s worthiness. The Board will put the buyer through the same wringer that you went through as an original applicant, with the same level of fees, and they can turn down the buyer for any number of reasons. There will be an evaluation of fitness from a technical, financial, and “due diligence” perspective. This last category is not defined but presumably refers to the new extensive background check. There is as yet no objection process for governments or the IP lobby to air their fears, but I would be surprised to not see this coming in further iterations of this document. One effect of this policy will be to make a sale to an existing player much easier than to a new entrant, thus concentrating commercial power and discouraging competition.

Fees

Each new owner (even if it’s the same one, with a new name) will have to go through some evaluation process. Every 3rd-party evaluator has to be paid. ICANN does not specify the dollar amounts, but I wouldn’t look for a bargain here. A full-on evaluation could easily run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Geographical TLDs

In a sale (or even, apparently, for a simple name change) the new owner will have to gather the same governmental support or non-objection letters that the original applicant did. Effectively, the relevant government(s) will have veto power. In addition, despite language that creates a presumption of renewal of registry contracts at the end of the contract term, governments are now given the power to withdraw their support of the current registry in favor of another. Normally I would congratulate government officials on their sudden access to season tickets, expensive lunches, and access to no-show jobs should they ever leave the employ of the people, but in fact the model that ICANN supposes is unlikely to exist: I believe that in just about every case it will be the government who holds the delegation to geographical TLDs, and they will hire out the technical functions, preserving their power to do whatever they want, whenever they want.

Community TLDs

Running the registry for a community TLD just got much worse. ICANN’s new rules insert the nebulous concept of “community” directly into the operational life of the registry, instead of just the policy aspects. So, if you are the registry for a community TLD and want to change your name or move to a new back-end provider, your community must be “consulted.” No mechanism is specified about how to consult a community, so chaos is invited. I wonder what consulting the community of Harley Davidson enthusiasts looks like…

Registries in Breach of Contract

A registry may find that ICANN decides that it is in breach of its registry agreement with ICANN. This breach could be because of non-payment of fees, excessive downtime of the WhoIs server, or whatever. If it is uncured, a re-evaluation will follow before the registry is allowed to resume operations. The re-evaluation may include recertification by a government, approval by a relevant community, and other “due diligence” items. It’s just like applying for the first time.

Emergency Back-End Registry Operators

Here is a new beast, the Emergency Operator. Aspirants for this position will fill out an RFP and if they are chosen will be paid to be on stand-by until there’s an emergency, at which point they will be paid to be emergency responders, which ICANN “expects” will be on a cost-recovery basis. They are for the case where a registry can’t perform its functions properly. It’s a good idea in theory, but I wonder what exactly a third party can do in an emergency. A registry has two essential functions: the register (the list of names and associated data) and the resolution (DNS). There are other functions such as a WhoIs server. In this era of hyper-redundant anycast DNS I don’t see resolution being much of an issue. As to the register function, if it’s screwed up, it’s likely to be because of bad processes and bad record keeping, which lead to bad data, and this is not really fixable in an emergency; the whole thing needs to be checked and rebuilt. These new Emergency Operators will have to enter into contracts (“lightweight contracts,” ICANN suggests) with the registrars of the existing registries for which they are backups, creating a whole new layer of bureaucracy. I understand the idea, but wonder if the cure might be worse than the disease.

Summary

The Registry Transition Processes document is a clue to what it’s going to be like to run (or sell) a registry under the new ICANN regulatory regime. For the first time there is a semi-official recognition of the back-end registry operator; there are new colo-rectal exams whenever there is acquisition or other change in corporate structure; there are new fees; and there is an expanded role for governments, whose mission-creep is seen in all areas of ICANN these days.

One effect of this new regime will be to create heavy incentives for registries to stick with whatever back-end registry provider they happen to have. It’s not quite lock-in, but it’s close, because choosing a new one will carry significant costs and risks. The big winners here are the providers of back-end registry services.

If you’re thinking of applying for a new gTLD, you should familiarize yourself with the full document, and comment on it, because it’s going to be important for the life of your registry after delegation.

Today ICANN released it’s latest version its Draft Applicant Guidebook (DAG) for new generic top-level domains. It’s been 9 months coming; DAG3 appeared in the fall of last year. Compared to DAG3, there are only minor changes (see the redlined version of the document). Overall we are satisfied with the new DAG, as we were with the previous version, which came out nine months ago.

There are few substantial changes from the previous version, which is good news. It suggests that we are almost at the end of this process, and provides an indication that this will be the final DAG before the Final Applicant Guidebook.

The major changes (which really aren’t that major) are as follows:

• An expanded role for public comment (Section 1.1.2.5), which is a wide-open back door for objections to applications which pass all of ICANN’s objective criteria, but are still not liked by the various powerful interests that have held up this process for so long. In this way ICANN can claim to have an objective process while leaving an avenue open for meddling in case something “objectionable” gets through. It’s not a stretch to presume that the .XXX fiasco was on the minds of ICANN as this was drafted.
• Cross-ownership of registry and registrar (Section 1.2.1). This version of the DAG has strict separation between registrar and registry, but with a footnote saying this is open to change if the “community” comes up with a better solution. The “community” now discussing this is the Vertical Integration Working Group, which consists almost wholly of registrars and registries aiming competing proposals at each other. The proposals vary in their details but are uniform in giving short shrift to idea that might help the consumer, but very thorough when it comes to advocating what might help the proposer. It is likely that in the final applicant guidebook we will see some limited cross-ownership possibilities, fine-tuned to please incumbent players.
• $5000 of the $185,000 fee is now due when registering to apply (Section 1.5.1). Applicants will create a new registration for each TLD they plan to apply for, and will have to pay $5000 for the privilege. The remaining $180,000 is due with the application itself.
• An expanded background check for applicants (Section 2.1). As well as the usual things that can disqualify a person or entity from running a piece of public infrastructure (corruption, bribery, terrorism), ICANN has added another great evil of our times, “intellectual property violations.” If for some reason you don’t think that intellectual property violations rank with terrorism in the pantheon of Bad Things, please have a chat with ICANN’s Intellectual Property Constituency, who will set you straight. For extra credit, ask them who was behind this amendment and watch for expressions of astonished innocence.
• Some small changes to the treatment of geographical names (Section 2.2.1.4.2). The DAG is now explicit that if you want to do apply for a gTLD for the capital of a country (e.g., .cairo) you will have to get the permission of the national government.
• Use of zone files (Section 2.2.3.3). If you want to do a TLD that makes innovative use of the DNS (as .TEL did), you will now have to ask for special permission from ICANN, who will check to make sure that your plan won’t harm the stability of the DNS system.
• Incorporation of IRT recommendations (e.g., Section 5.4.1). Parts of the recommendations of the Implementation Recommendation Team (IRT) have been incorporated into the DAG, including the Uniform Rapid Suspension requirement.

Overall, this version of the Draft Applicant Guidebook differs from the previous version by adding some incremental changes and extra back doors for fidgety governments and the IP interests who lobby them. None of the changes are unexpected or especially egregious. We are satisfied with the new document, and hope and expect that ICANN will move expeditiously to issue a final guidebook with application dates and final rules.

ICANN Board Member Bruce Tonkin gave a good post-Nairobi webinar (signup required) last week. Among other things, he gave his sense of the timeline going forward, which accords with our own estimate, which we publish below.

This is ICANN, so further delays are always possible. If ICANN is able to make the progress it thinks it can on the remaining open issues, however, the timeline below looks reasonable. Also available for download as a PDF.

Until today’s announcement by Canon, no large brand had broken the “thin brand line” by revealing their plan to apply for their own new top-level domain. Now with Canon’s announcement, other major companies have been challenged to either announce their TLD plans or else state that they plan to forgo the chance to brand themselves at the top level of the domain name space.

Until now, in public, large brands have marched in lock step in opposition to new top-level domains, ostensibly because of the high cost of defending and enforcing their marks in multiple new namespaces. The worst-kept secret in the industry, however, is that brands have been making private plans, and brand-service registrars have been prepping their clients for new gTLDs in anticipation of healthy fees for application submission services.

Canon, at least, has decided that the marketing benefits of their own top-level domain outweigh the costs. In the U.S., legal departments, which are good at identifying risk — though not necessarily expert at quantifying it –, exercise a much stronger presence in the corporate boardroom than they do in European and Asian companies.

Could it be that the highly defensive stance of U.S. intellectual property interests, hardened by the file-sharing wars, is not shared by the rest of the world’s brands?

In Japan, Canon has decided to cast its lot with the money-makers instead of the money-hoarders. I predict we will see more brands opt for engagement with the Internet by visibly branding themselves with their own new gTLD, but that the the last ones to do so will come from the United States.