Difference between revisions of ".bank"
| Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
==Reactions== | ==Reactions== | ||
| − | Companies within the financial sector | + | Companies within the financial sector have had varying reactions regarding the proposed .bank gTLD. Some believe that it will help curb incidences of domain name abuse. Avivah Litan, an analyst from Gartner, said that a TLD dedicated to banks and banking will provide more security because monitoring would be easier. Litan explained that under the [[.com]] TLD, anyone can register a domain name. Forrester Research marketing analyst Jeff Ernst said that several big banks are considering applying for their own TLD registry, while smaller banks are considering using a .bank domain name.<ref>[http://www.americanbanker.com/btn/24_12/dot-bank-gets-mixed-reviews-1044372-1.html Dot Bank Gets Mixed Reviews]</ref> |
| − | === Reaction from OSFI Canada=== | + | ===Reaction from OSFI Canada=== |
| − | On November 13, 2009, the Office of the Superintendent of the Financial Institutions in Canada (OSFI) informed ICANN through a letter addressed to [[ICANN CEO]] [[Rod Beckstrom]] about the possible problems that | + | On November 13, 2009, the Office of the Superintendent of the Financial Institutions in Canada (OSFI) informed ICANN through a letter addressed to [[ICANN CEO]] [[Rod Beckstrom]] about the possible problems in connection with Canada's Bank Act that would be faced by entities applying for a .bank gTLD. Under the provisions of the regulation, any person is prohibited from using the word bank to indicate or describe a financial service other than banks regulated by OSFI. In lieu, the OSFI explained that any entity in Canada found using a .bank gTLD in violation of Canada's Bank Act will be required to abandon the domain name regardless of associated costs or expenses incurred.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/correspondence/evanoff-to-beckstrom-13nov09-en.pdf OSFI Letter to Beckstrom regarding the proposed .bank gTLD]</ref> |
===Concerns from European Banking Authority (EBA)=== | ===Concerns from European Banking Authority (EBA)=== | ||
| − | On February 2012, the European | + | On February 2012, the European Banking Authority expressed its concerns to ICANN regarding the possible risks of proposed financial TLDs such as .bank and .fin. According to EBA chair Andrea Enria, consumers may assume that a particular operator of a particular site under the .bank domain space is a regulated entity by a competent authority in their own country. EBA was also concerned with the possibility that banks and other regulated entities would need to spend significant amounts of money to protect their trademarks from abuses and frauds. Enria also cited that the benefits in operating the proposed TLD is not yet established and there are still technical issues that needs to be discussed and resolved. EBA requested ICANN to ban any applications for the two proposed financial TLDs.<ref>[http://eba.europa.eu/cebs/media/Publications/Consumer%20Protection/EBA-BS-2011-197--EBA-Comments-on-Top-Level-Domain-Names--bank-and--fin-.pdf Comments of the European Banking Authority on the Planned Top level Domains .bank and .fin]</ref><ref>[http://domainincite.com/europe-to-warn-consumers-about-bank-risks/ Europe to warn consumers about .bank “risks”]</ref> <ref>[http://news.dot-nxt.com/2012/03/08/eba-dot-bank-warning EBA asks ICANN to scrap dot-bank]</ref> |
| − | [http://domainincite.com/europe-to-warn-consumers-about-bank-risks/ Europe to warn consumers about .bank “risks”]</ref> <ref>[http://news.dot-nxt.com/2012/03/08/eba-dot-bank-warning EBA asks ICANN to scrap dot-bank]</ref> | ||
| − | ICANN COO [[Akram Atallah]] sent a response letter to Enria and explained that the new gTLD program does not prohibit the application for the two possible gTLDs in question. Atallah also informed Enria about the available objections which can be utilized by EBA such as the string confusion objection, legal rights objection, limited public interest objection and community objection. In addition, he also cited | + | ICANN COO [[Akram Atallah]] sent a response letter to Enria and explained that the new gTLD program does not prohibit the application for the two possible gTLDs in question. Atallah also informed Enria about the available objections which can be utilized by EBA such as the string confusion objection, legal rights objection, limited public interest objection, and community objection. In addition, he also cited that the Governmental Advisory Committee may also provide advice or an early warning regarding the proposed new gTLDs. Atallah encouraged EBA to monitor the ICANN website until the closing period of the application process to determine the actual applicants for the .bank and .fin gTLDs and to work with them regarding their concerns on the use of the strings.<ref>[http://news.dot-nxt.com/sites/news.dot-nxt.com/files/atallah-to-enria-01mar12-en.pdf ICANN's Response to EBA]</ref> |
==References== | ==References== | ||
Revision as of 21:03, 12 June 2012
| Status: | Proposed |
| Type: | Generic |
| Category: | Commerce |
More information: 
| |
.bank is a proposed TLD in ICANN's New gTLD Program.
Current Applicants
- Domain Security Company, formerly Asif LLC, a start-up company based in Wisconsin, who filed a trademark for the TLD which was later revoked.[1]
- Joint project between American Bankers Association (ABA) & BITS, the technology policy arm of the Financial Services Roundtable.[2]
Application Details
Domain Security Company
On August 31, 2010, Mary Iqbal, CEO of Domain Security Company filed an application (85, 120, 345) with the United States Patent Office (USPT) as the rightful owner of the .bank intended for domain name registration services.[3] A similar patent application for .bank was also filed by the company in Pakistan. According to Iqbal, she had been working on the idea for several years and she is serious about her application with ICANN to become the registry operator of the .bank TLD. On January 10 2012, the USPTO issued the patent no. 4, 085, 335 for .bank to Asif LLC, the previous name of Domain Security Company.[4] However on January 19, the USPTO cancelled the patent because of error. In a letter sent to the company’s lawyer, the USPTO explained that a protest letter filed against the trademark was not processed before entering it in the Supplemental Registration. Under Trademark Act 1, 2, 3 and 45... TLD would not be perceived as trademark.” The trademark office cited it has the “broad authority to correct mistakes.”[5][6]
ABA and BITS
The .bank application by American Bankers Association (ABA) and BITS is headed by Craig Schwartz, former Chief gTLD Registry Liaison of ICANN. He serves as General Manager for Registry Programs of the project.[7] According to Schwartz, ABA and BITS will establish a new company that will be responsible for filing the application for .bank. Their plan is to file a community-designated bid to avoid the ICANN auction in anticipation for any possible string contention from other applications. Schwartz explained, “We’ve looked at the scoring and while it may not come into play at all, we do believe we can meet the requisite score. But we’re certainly mindful of what’s happening in the space, there’s always the possibility of contention." He added that their plan is to begin the operations of .bank as a business to business and it will be primarily used for secure inter-bank transactions and will partner with several ICANN accredited registrars able to meet the company’s security requirements.[8]
On April 2011, ABA & BITS announced that they signed a contract with Verisign to serve as their exclusive provider of back-end registry services.[9]
On December 2011, BITS submitted to ICANN 31 proposed requirements to ensure the stability and resiliency of “high security” gTLDs like .bank and .pay, covering topics from registration, acceptable use policies, abusive conduct, law enforcement, compliance registrar relations and data security. BITS calls the proposed gTLDs intended for the use of the financial industry as “fTLDs.” In addition, the organization strongly urged the internet governing body to accept the standards proposed by the Security Standards Working Group (SSWG). Seventeen companies are endorsing BITS proposal.[10] The 2011 Proposed Security, Stability and Resiliency Requirements for Financial TLDs submitted by BITS to ICANN is available here.
Reactions
Companies within the financial sector have had varying reactions regarding the proposed .bank gTLD. Some believe that it will help curb incidences of domain name abuse. Avivah Litan, an analyst from Gartner, said that a TLD dedicated to banks and banking will provide more security because monitoring would be easier. Litan explained that under the .com TLD, anyone can register a domain name. Forrester Research marketing analyst Jeff Ernst said that several big banks are considering applying for their own TLD registry, while smaller banks are considering using a .bank domain name.[11]
Reaction from OSFI Canada
On November 13, 2009, the Office of the Superintendent of the Financial Institutions in Canada (OSFI) informed ICANN through a letter addressed to ICANN CEO Rod Beckstrom about the possible problems in connection with Canada's Bank Act that would be faced by entities applying for a .bank gTLD. Under the provisions of the regulation, any person is prohibited from using the word bank to indicate or describe a financial service other than banks regulated by OSFI. In lieu, the OSFI explained that any entity in Canada found using a .bank gTLD in violation of Canada's Bank Act will be required to abandon the domain name regardless of associated costs or expenses incurred.[12]
Concerns from European Banking Authority (EBA)
On February 2012, the European Banking Authority expressed its concerns to ICANN regarding the possible risks of proposed financial TLDs such as .bank and .fin. According to EBA chair Andrea Enria, consumers may assume that a particular operator of a particular site under the .bank domain space is a regulated entity by a competent authority in their own country. EBA was also concerned with the possibility that banks and other regulated entities would need to spend significant amounts of money to protect their trademarks from abuses and frauds. Enria also cited that the benefits in operating the proposed TLD is not yet established and there are still technical issues that needs to be discussed and resolved. EBA requested ICANN to ban any applications for the two proposed financial TLDs.[13][14] [15]
ICANN COO Akram Atallah sent a response letter to Enria and explained that the new gTLD program does not prohibit the application for the two possible gTLDs in question. Atallah also informed Enria about the available objections which can be utilized by EBA such as the string confusion objection, legal rights objection, limited public interest objection, and community objection. In addition, he also cited that the Governmental Advisory Committee may also provide advice or an early warning regarding the proposed new gTLDs. Atallah encouraged EBA to monitor the ICANN website until the closing period of the application process to determine the actual applicants for the .bank and .fin gTLDs and to work with them regarding their concerns on the use of the strings.[16]
References
- ↑ Tiny start-up secures .bank gTLD trademark
- ↑ BITS may apply for six financial gTLDs
- ↑ Trademark Application Filed for .Bank Top Level Domain Name
- ↑ Tiny start-up secures .bank gTLD trademark
- ↑ .Bank Trademark Canceled After “Mistake”
- ↑ USPTO Letter Regarding Patent 4,085,035 .bank mark
- ↑ Senior ICANN Staff Hired by .bank Project
- ↑ BITS may apply for six financial gTLDs
- ↑ Verisign Now Frontrunner for .bank
- ↑ High-security .bank spec published
- ↑ Dot Bank Gets Mixed Reviews
- ↑ OSFI Letter to Beckstrom regarding the proposed .bank gTLD
- ↑ Comments of the European Banking Authority on the Planned Top level Domains .bank and .fin
- ↑ Europe to warn consumers about .bank “risks”
- ↑ EBA asks ICANN to scrap dot-bank
- ↑ ICANN's Response to EBA