New gTLDs could look like:<br />The<br />ICANN New gTLD <br />Program<br />www.iPod.apple<br />www.travel.paris<br />www.ipr.lawyer<br />presented by<br />SatyajeetMazumdar<br />firstname.lastname@example.org<br />www.canon.printer<br />
The Anatomy of a Domain Name<br />First or Top Level<br />Second Level<br />www.example.com<br />Generic Top-Level<br />Domain (gTLD)<br />.aero .asia .biz .cat .coop .edu .gov .info .int<br />.jobs .mil .mobi .museum .name .net .pro .org <br />.tel .travel<br />
The Anatomy of a Domain Name<br />First or Top Level<br />Second Level<br />Third Level<br />www.registry.ernet.in<br />country code <br />Top-Level Domain<br />(ccTLD)<br />Currently there are 273 ccTLDs like <br />.in .us .uk etc.<br />
Q. Should an entity go for the registration of a gTLD same as its TM / Brand name?<br /><ul><li> It is not necessary for an entity to have its name, brand or trademark registered as a new gTLD. However, registration is advisable for entities which invest heavily on creating brand value and for those who conduct business primarily on the web. It is however not necessary for an entity to register all of its brands or trademarks as domain names. What could be done instead is that the name of the entity could be registered as the gTLD while individual products could be registered as sub-domains, e.g., www.iPod.apple / www.shoes.adidas This would help information dissemination to prospective customers since remembering the URL www.shoes.adidas is easier than remembering www.adidas.com/products/shoes
An option available for entities which do not have the technical / financial capability of operating a gTLD registry but want a function / business specific domain is to apply for a second-level domain from the owner of a generic gTLD same as the function / business of the entity, e.g., www.reynolds.pens.
The ICANN has an elaborate screening procedure involving background checks of the applicant, general business diligence, criminal history and history of cybersquatting behavior. Hence defensive registration of brands or trademarks as gTLDs by entities to prevent malafide registration by cybersquatters is unnecessary since it is unlikely that any such attempt made by cybersquatters would be successful.</li></li></ul><li>To sum up…<br /><ul><li> The biggest advantage that would accrue from introduction of new gTLDs is that it would make available to organizations / brand owners more choices regarding the identity that they may wish project online.
The introduction of new gTLDs would also add to the ease of use of Internet since an Internet user can merely by looking at the TLD string determine the nature of activity undertaken by the owner of the website or be assured that he has reached the correct website.
With regard to the registration fee (USD 1,85,000), the ICANN could prescribe differential registration fees for registration of new gTLDs. Such fee could be based on the average per capita income of a country. Thus, the registration fee could be lower for countries with low per capita incomes thereby promoting greater number of registrations and hence widening the user base of Internet in developing and least developed countries.
Trademark issues need to be resolved. Allowing the registration of a gTLD to the holder of a trademark while denying another holder of a similar and legally valid mark on the basis of an auction defeats the purpose of introduction of new gTLDs.</li></li></ul><li>New gTLDs could look like:<br />www.iPod.apple<br />Thank you<br />for your patience!!<br />www.travel.paris<br />www.ipr.lawyer<br />presented by<br />SatyajeetMazumdar<br />email@example.com<br />www.canon.printer<br />