Ever since ICANN announced its intention to expand the number of Internet top level domains it met noisy opposition from brand and trademark holders egged on by their intellectual property lawyers.  They were concerned about the possibility of online fraud and cybersquatting.

Their totally appropriate demands for safeguards and the apparent lack of interest in the new gTLDs by brand marketers combined to slow the program’s progress to a snail’s pace.  But in recent months, the marketers have begun to warm to the possibility.  A report commissioned by the French domain name registrar, Gandi, called “Liberalisation of the Internet,” found that only one-third of companies surveyed even knew about the program.  But of those that did were “excited about the opportunities in the areas of global branding.”

This prospective value has now been matched by retrospective advantage to gTLDs that already exist but reflect the likely approach of those to come.  Like .travel which was approved in 2005.

In recent days, the organization which manages the .travel registry has reported increased consumer familiarity with the address.  And industry partners and others who report on them are noting that the new names are drawing increased attention by search engines, like Google. Even earlier, ICANN’s Implementation Recommendation Team offered a view of additional safeguards that seem to be getting some traction.   What is certain is the program will adopt stronger brand and trademark protections than have heretofore been seen.

A reasonable person would think that these moves would cause the intellectual property lawyers to take a step back and review.  But that reasonable person would be wrong.  Despite the evidence of what good has happened, even those most closely a part of ICANN continue to focus on the darket clouds they can imagine.

In a recent news report, “Steven Metalitz, president of Icann’s Intellectual Property Constituency, has warned that firms failing to register new domain names with generic extensions could become victims of cybersquatting.”   At a time when the gTLD program is gaining ground among the clients for whom they work, the lawyers constructive criticism has become just criticism.

Remember when Ross Perot criticized General Motors for being risk averse and decision impaired?  He said if a snake slithered in the board room, rather than kill it right then and there, they’d appoint a committee to study the options.  The same, it seems, can be said of ICANN.

In the face of criticism from brand and trademark holders, the Internet’s guardian for security, stability and competition appointed an Implementation Recommendation Team or IRT to study and offer advice on how to properly introduce new gTLDs.

Even before this IRT train left the station, it drew potent and credible criticism.  It has now offered its draft report.  As some might expect, it is not all that helpful.

Domain Name Wire, a helpful guide to the often dark world of the DNS, called the recommendations “drastic” and they come practically on the eve of the program’s implementation.  More though, and as is often the case, the prescription is bitter and helps only a few.  Note this from the report:

“…(A) Globally Protected Marks List would allow holders of worldwide marks to have them added to a ‘white list’…The requirements to be included are steep: ownership of the trademark issued in at least 90 countries across multiple regions with 200 registrations, must be issued before November 2008, registered the trademark across 50 or more TLDs, and the second level domain for the main company must be identical to the mark.”

If man is the perfect study of man, then the market can be the only perfect study for the demand and use of new gTLDs.  No one is arguing against brand and trademark protections, but to only argue is to let the side with the biggest megaphone dominate.  Even the flawed economic studies offered by ICANN are better evidence than the current “did not/did to” back-and-forth offers.

Let the market decide.  Free the ICANN gTLDs!