Als ein­zi­ger Ver­tre­ter der Inter­es­sen von deut­schen Mar­ken­un­ter­neh­men, haben wir nach­fol­gen­den Kom­men­tar zum Vor­schlag von ICANN für eine dot­Mar­ke-Vor­re­gis­trie­rungs­pha­se ein­ge­reicht. Es gilt dabei zu ver­hin­dern, dass Spe­ku­lan­ten, z.B. eine .oran­ge Top-Level-Domain in einer ver­pflich­ten­den öffent­li­chen Vor­re­gis­trie­rungs­pha­se anmel­den um damit gleich­na­mi­ge Unter­neh­men oder Gebiets­kör­per­schaf­ten zum Her­aus­kau­fen des Vor­re­gis­trie­rungs­plat­zes zu zwin­gen. Wir haben uns dazu mit u.a. dem euro­päi­schen Mar­ken­ver­band AIM sowie dem Welt­mar­ken­ver­band abge­stimmt. Lesen Sie unse­ren Kom­men­tar unter http://forum.icann.org/lists/draft-eoi-model/msg00206.html:

Dotzon-Kommentar zum EOI

The EOI was initia­ted to pro­vi­de ICANN staff with more plan­ning relia­bi­li­ty by pro­vi­ding data on key open issu­es. This refers to how many app­li­ca­ti­ons will the­re be in the first round, and what kind of strings will be filed. In the mean­ti­me it loo­ks like the EOI repla­ces the peren­ni­al, bot­tom-up con­sen­sus based gTLD pro­cess in parts with a pre-regis­tra­ti­on pro­cess that favors insi­ders and encou­ra­ges spe­cu­la­tors. It even sup­ports new busi­ness models just filing an EOI for spe­cu­la­ti­ve rea­sons, and after publi­ca­ti­on of the string approa­ching the TLD app­li­cants with good faith to get a “gol­den hand­shake” from them for drawing back the application.

Plea­se find below our comments based on the feed­back of our cli­ents (Ger­man brand owners):

  1. The EOI must be vol­un­ta­ry, sin­ce some of the over­ar­ching issu­es have not been sol­ved yet. To start the app­li­ca­ti­on pro­cess or so-cal­led pre-regis­tra­ti­on pro­cess without a clear defi­ni­ti­on of requi­re­ments is against ICANNs prac­ti­ce and not accep­ta­ble. Incen­ti­ves for the EOI
  2. app­li­cants could inclu­de regu­lar app­li­cant-only brie­fings, one-on-ones with ICANN staff and other ser­vices. The EOI depo­sit should be a rea­son­ab­le amount, and depend on the cate­go­ry of the app­li­ca­ti­on. If the regu­lar app­li­ca­ti­on win­dow doesn’t open wit­hin 6 mon­th after filing the EOI, the amount shall be refunded.
  3. The EOI com­mu­ni­ca­ti­ons’ cam­pai­gn should sub­sti­tu­te any fur­ther com­mu­ni­ca­ti­on campaigns.
  4. The spe­ci­fic set of infor­ma­ti­on gathe­red should be limi­ted to as few infor­ma­ti­on as necessa­ry rela­ting to the initi­al goal of the EOI – num­bers and kinds of app­li­ca­ti­ons. With regards to the publi­ca­ti­on of this infor­ma­ti­on we oppo­se the sug­gested public avail­ab­li­li­ty. Ger­man com­pa­nies don’t want to publish their app­li­ca­ti­on for stra­te­gic issu­es – so publi­ca­ti­on of the EOI app­li­ca­ti­ons should be anony­mi­zed by cate­go­ries and without the enti­ties’ name.

In sum­ma­ry, we urge ICANN to recon­si­der the scope and effec­ti­ve­ness of the EOI with regards to the initi­al goals of the EOI. We would like to encou­ra­ge ICANN to com­ple­te the gTLD pro­cess as soon as pos­si­ble to keep faith in ICANN, and fos­ter com­pe­ti­ti­on and choice for con­su­mers through new gTLDs. The EOI pro­ce­du­re must not delay ICANNs task of resol­ving the few remai­ning over­ar­ching issues.

Kat­rin Ohl­mer, CEO, Dot­zon GmbH