New TLDS - brands and defensive applications

[Philip Sheppard <philip.sheppard@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I have been an advocate and commentator for a safe internet - including robust 
intellectual property rights - since 1999.
Currently my organisation Sedari is advising applicants, including global 
brands, in the new TLD round.

There are two key observations to make in this debate.
1. The best defense is attack
2. This debate would not be taking place if ICANN had been listening closer to 
IP interests during policy development.


THE BEST DEFENSE IS ATTACK
Any globally famous brand should be considering the relatively trivial cost of 
its own TLD at the very least as part of protecting its multi-million 
investment in its brand equity.  Moreover there are six good reasons to do so.
1. Delight the consumer – with imaginative sub-domains and integration of 
mobile and smart apps.
2. Consolidate – your web presence.
3. Be found – by your customers.
4. Look safe – by creating a safe area for e-commerce and other consumer 
focused activities.
5. Feel safe – by having full control of the company Intranet.
6. Talk safe – by telling the consumer that here their money is safe and the 
goods are genuine.

ICANN DID NOT LISTEN
While it is true there are good trademark protections such as the legal rights 
objection, it is a shame that the protection designed to simultaneously protect 
the user against fraud  and to protect brands - the URS - was so mucked about 
during the policy debate, to devalue its utility to close to zero. 

If there is one fix required - and its not too late - it is making the URS 
quicker and more robust and with less hypothetical fuss about the misuse of the 
URS itself. 
                        
Philip Sheppard 
Director Policy, Governance and Public Affairs