gTLD	Full Legal Name	E-mail suffix	Detail
.booking	Booking.com B.V.	markmonitor.com	View

In line with Booking.com’s mission and purpose for the .booking gTLD, it is first and foremost important for Booking.com to safeguard and protect the key element out of its BOOKING.COM trademark at the top level of the DNS’ hierarchy. Such protection does not only extend to the actual registration, delegation and use of the TLD, but also to the domain names that are registered therein, and how these domain names are used.

Considering the fact that the actual award and delegation of the .booking gTLD to Booking.com is subject to the successful evaluation of our application, we have not yet defined in detail:

* the types of domain names that will be registered;
* who will be entitled to select which domain names will be registered
* who will be entitled to register such domain names;
* who will be entitled to use such domain names, and
* which types of use will be allowed or recommended.

As we believe that the development and implementation of one or more business cases could likely take a couple of months or even years, we have only focused on a number of high-level characteristics of our plans in relation to the operation of the .booking gTLD.

By all means, it is in Booking.com’s self-interest to, on the one hand, make the most of this initiative, promote its own business interests, and mitigate risks for its brand and brand reputation, whilst also reducing the (social) costs for others.

In this context, we intend to devise policies that encompass and comprise the following features:

At least during the initial months or even years following the delegation of the .booking gTLD to Booking.com, this extension is likely going to be a so-called “single registrant TLD” as contemplated by ICANN in Article 4.5 of the template Registry Operator Agreement (“Transition of Registry upon Termination of Agreement”). For the avoidance of doubt, a “single registrant TLD” is a TLD where “(i) all domain name registrations in the TLD are registered to, and maintained by, Registry Operator for its own exclusive use, and (ii) Registry Operator does not sell, distribute or transfer control or use of any registrations in the TLD to any third party that is not an Affiliate of Registry Operator.”

Therefore, parties who are not Booking.com will not be entitled to register domain names in the .booking gTLD.

Booking.com believes this to be in line with two of the main elements in its vision and mission statement, namely:

* Protecting and safeguarding the BOOKING.COM brand and its reputation, by keeping full control over the entire operation of the .booking registry and every domain name registered therein; and

* Guaranteeing to Booking.com’s key stakeholders who are interacting with Booking.com, by using domain names registered in .booking that they are in fact interacting with the brand owner.

Consequently, there will be no (social) costs for non-eligible (third) parties, given the fact that they will be unable to register domain names in the .booking gTLD in the first place.

However, even if only Booking.com will be entitled to register domain names, this does not exclude the hypothesis that disputes may arise with one or more third parties as regards domain names that are registered in the .booking gTLD.

In order to avoid these risks, Booking.com intends to implement the following policies and processes:

First, the domain names to be registered by Booking.com will likely relate to the following:

* registered trademarks of Booking.com;
* names of affiliates or hotel partners of Booking.com;
* names of departments within Booking.com
* names of subsidiaries.

Furthermore, Booking.com envisages registering a fair number of generic words that are directly or indirectly related to the day-to-day business activities and operations of Booking.com and its Affiliates.

Prior to effectively registering such domain names in the .booking gTLD, Booking.com will require its legal department to review the list of these domain names on a regular basis in order to satisfy itself that they will not infringe the rights of third parties.

In any case, Booking.com shall claim to have a legitimate interest in these domain names, as they are merely descriptive of the activities, products or services of Booking.com. So even if one or more of these domain names would be protected by a registered trademark, held by a third party, it is likely that a claim under the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy or Uniform Rapid Suspension policy will fail.

As regards the names referred to in Specification 5 to the template Registry Operator Agreement, Booking.com will follow the processes and procedures established by ICANN and the Governmental Advisory Committee.

If Booking.com would determine, at its sole discretion, that it will gradually allow certain categories of stakeholders to register domain names in the .booking gTLD in their own name, Booking.com will devise policies to that effect.

However, Booking.com will at all times be entitled to restrict, limit or expand, among others:

* the category or categories of stakeholders who will be entitled to register one or more domain names in the .booking gTLD, including their criteria for qualification;
* the choice of domain name(s) registered in the .booking gTLD by and per such eligible stakeholder (category);
* the use made by an and per eligible stakeholder of a domain name registered in the .booking gTLD;
* the transfer of domain names registered in .booking..

Booking.com shall reserve the right to subject the registration or use of a domain name to internal approval processes and procedures, at each and every step of the domain name life cycle.

Given the fact that Booking.com may release such available domain names post launch in a highly controlled manner, this also reduces the likelihood that two or more applicants qualify for the registration of the same domain name in the .booking top-level domain;

As a method of last resort, and subject to the actual domain name registration policy adopted by the Registry Operator and in force at the time of registration, domain names will be allocated on a first-come, first-served basis.

In any event, Booking.com reserves the right to change or restrict any policies, procedures and practices at any point in time, especially if it is of the opinion that there would be a risk that, e.g. the reputation of the BOOKING.COM brand would be damaged.

The Applicant intends to make the .booking top-level domain available to qualifying domain name registrants at no cost to them; if the Applicant ⁄ Registry Operator would be required to charge a fee for the registration of domain names under the .booking TLD, the fee will be set at a cost-recovery or arm’s length basis, to be determined at that time by the Registry.

If Booking.com will be required to or would decide to increase the fees for the registration of domain names, such increases will keep pace with the comparable market rates at that point in time.

So, in brief:

1. The Applicant ⁄ Registry Operator may reserve, delegate and use a potentially large number of domain names that are directly or indirectly relevant to Applicant’s business in its own name. Since some of these domain names could be of a descriptive nature, the chances for qualifying ⁄ eligible applicants ⁄ registrants to register such domain names after the launch will be limited;

2. The Registry Operator shall be entitled at all times to release available domain names post launch in a highly controlled manner, which also reduces the likelihood that two or more applicants qualify for the registration of the same domain name in the .booking top-level domain;

3. As a method of last resort, and subject to the actual domain name registration policy adopted by the Registry Operator and in force at the time of registration, domain names will be allocated on a first-come, first-served basis;

4. If the Applicant decides to allow third parties to register a domain name under the .booking TLD, the Applicant intends to make.booking top-level domains available to qualifying domain name registrants at no cost to them; if the Applicant ⁄ Registry Operator would be required to charge a fee for the registration of domain names under the .booking TLD, the fee will be set at a cost-recovery or arm’s length basis, to be determined at that time by the Registry;

5. If the Applicant ⁄ Registry Operator will be required to increase the fees for the registration of domain names, such increases are intended to keep pace with comparable market rates. However, the Registry Operator shall at all times be entitled to bundle the registration of domain names with other products or services offered by or on behalf of Booking.com at a fee to be set by the Registry Operator.

gTLD	Full Legal Name	E-mail suffix	Detail
.osaka	Interlink Co., Ltd.	urbanbrain.com	View

Interlink has constructed a sound financial plan that correlates with marketing and operational plans to reach its goal of running a financially fit operation and ensure profitability within 5 years of operation.

Interlink believes having a strong financial plan is key to minimizing social costs. Interlink has committed to putting in place a financial instrument to ensure continued operations for three years in order to better protect its users. Interlink has fully issued a letter of credit that allows for fluctuations in registration volumes that exceed its projections. In addition, Interlink has deposited an equal amount into a separate account to further show its commitment in protecting registrants from a failed registry.

Interlink fully expects to be able to provide customers with top-notch services though its registrars. With the synergy created by working together with its registrar partners Interlink is certain to that “.osaka” will become an innovative domain name space that benefits the Osaka community.

According to the most recent JPRS Registry Report, for 12⁄31⁄2010 (last accessed Feb.2011), approximately 9.6% of all organizational⁄geographic names in the .JP zone originate in Osaka. Furthermore domain name registrants are responsible for 13% of general use ASCII names and 4.8% of IDN names registered in the .JP ccTLD. This is second to only Tokyo. (See http:⁄⁄jprs.co.jp⁄doc⁄report⁄registry-report-2010-e.pdf for the full report).

Based on information gathered by Interlink, the “.osaka” domain market is viable and Interlink as based its financial planning to support the TLD in a conservative matter. Addition details regarding Interlinks market projections and financial planning can be found in response to Questions 45 through 50 of this application.


Protection of Rights

Numerous parties have expressed concerns over the introduction of the new gTLD program with the belief that new TLDs could harm consumer welfare due to consumer confusion. Trademark holders have also brought up the issue of new TLDs imposing additional costs due to the necessity of participating in “defensive” registrations.

Interlink believes these concerns will be sufficiently addressed by its full implementation of ICANN’s new Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) and rules for new TLDs. Listed below is each policy that Interlink will implement, followed by a brief description, to minimize social costs:

　1. Trademark Clearinghouse
　2. Sunrise and Trademark Claims Process
　3. Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP)
　4. Uniform Rapid Suspension URS
　5. Other Rights Protection Mechanisms


1. Trademark Clearinghouse

The trademark clearinghouse is a mandatory RPM that has been developed in order to serve as a central repository for information to facilitate other RPMs such as the Sunrise Period and Trademark Claims process. Though this RPM is still under development, Interlink’s partners, including its back-end registry services provider, Neustar, are actively playing a role on the IAG to ensure that protections afforded by the clearinghouse and associated RPMs are feasible and implementable. Further information regarding the implementation of this mechanism can be found in reference to Question 29: Rights Protection Mechanisms.


2. Sunrise and Trademark Claims Process

The Sunrise Period is a mandatory launch phase that a registry is required to implement for a minimum of 30 days. Interlink’s back-end registry service provider, Neustar, has extensive experience in implementing sunrise registration periods, most recently under the .CO TLD.

The Trademark Claims process is tied into both the Trademark Clearinghouse and the Sunrise Period and is also a mandatory RPM that is intended to provide ʺclear noticeʺ to a potential registrant(s) if he⁄she attempts to secure a domain name that matches a trademark that is registered in the Trademark Clearinghouse. Though only required by ICANN to implement for 60 days during open registrations, Interlink believes that implementing the service over the life of the registry will prove to be an effective tool in reducing the number of bad-faith registrations and other cases of abuse in the “.osaka” TLD. Interlink’s back-end provider, Neustar became the first TLD with a Trademark Claims service with the launch of the .BIZ TLD in 2001 and Interlink plans to work closely with Neustar to ensure the service is run smoothly.

The sunrise implementation process is described in more detail above, and in response to Question 29: Rights Protection Mechanisms. More information about the implementation of the Trademark Claims process can be found in answer to Question 29: Rights Protection Mechanisms.


3. Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP)

The UDRP is an ICANN Consensus Policy instituted by ICANN in 1998. The UDRP provides trademark holders an alternative method to resolve domain name disputes. Interlink will monitor UDPR decisions regarding domains in the “.osaka” TLD and take the necessary steps to ensure that decisions rendered by ICANN approved service providers, such as the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), are correctly implemented by its registrars. In the event that the registry is notified by a trademark owner that a registrar failed to implement a decision Interlink will investigate the claim and take action by either notifying the registrar of its obligations or by proactively implementing the decision itself.


4. Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS)

During the planning and policy discussion that took place in the past few years regarding the New gTLD Program, trademark owners identified that the UDRP may not be the most cost effective means to protect trademark owners marks when there are hundreds of new TLDs in operation. Furthermore, the majority of UDRP cases were clearly cases of cybersquatting, however, the UDRP did not produce immediate results. The URS is the result of many discussions with rights holders and offers a more cost effective and speedy mechanism for trademark owners to enforce their rights.

The URS requires a greater deal of participation from the registry than the UDRP and Interlink is fully aware of the requirements involved in the URS.
According to the current draft procedures, Interlink will lock the name within 24 hours or receipt of the complaint from the URS provider in order to ensure the name is not transferred or deleted and to restrict all changes to the registration data. The name will continue to resolve as normal at this point.

Once a determination has been made, and the URS provider has received notification of such a decision, Interlink will act accordingly to implement the determination. Therefore, in the event of a decision for the complainant (trademark owner), Interlink will immediately suspend the name in accordance with the policy, which is currently for the balance of the registration period. Additionally, the name will no longer be allowed to resolve to the original website, thus the registry will change the nameservers to redirect to an informational page provided by the URS provider.

Finally, Interlink will take steps to ensure that the WHOIS information appropriately reflects the current status of the domain name. In doing so, Interlink will leave all the original registration data, except for the nameservers, in place, and clearly reflect that the domain name cannot be transferred, deleted, or modified for the remainder of the registration period.

The current draft policy states that there shall be an option for a successful complainant to the extent the registration period for one additional year at commercial rates.

Additional details regarding the implementation of the URS can be found in response to Question 29: Rights Protection Mechanisms


5. Other Rights Protection Mechanisms

Interlink will fully comply with the Trademark Post-Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedure (PDDRP) adopted by ICANN as described in the new gTLD Applicant Guidebook and Specification 7 of the Registry Agreement and other rights mechanisms approved and implemented by ICANN.


i. How will multiple applications for a particular domain name be resolved?

Multiple applications for names under the Founders Program will be handled by objectively reviewing the application against the criteria set forth in the RFP. At which time, the Registry shall make a final selection based on how well each applicant fulfilled the evaluation criteria.

Multiple applications for the same domain name in both the Sunrise and Landrush will respectively be resolved by an auction as described in section (iv) related to domain registration policies. The use of an auction to allocate names with multiple legitimate applications will benefit sunrise applicants because they will not have to rush in order to be the first to submit such an application. This also reduces the load to the systems as in past first-come, first-served launches, applicants have been known to place registration requests with several other registrars in order to optimize their chances of being the first in line.

Settling competing applications though an auction mechanism is more desirable than a first-come, first-served method. This is due to a number of factors; for example, sunrise applicants (trademark holders) should not have to rush to submit an application for a domain name. If an applicant is forced to try to be first in line, the applicant is likely to submit a registration request through multiple registrars. This causes a sub-optimal use of energy on behalf of the applicant, and causes unnecessary work on behalf of the registrars and registry. Another important factor in Interlink’s decision to settle competing applications through an auction mechanism is due to the assumption that the highest bidder has more desire for the name, therefore, the winning applicant is likely provide more utility to Internet users.


ii. Explain any cost benefits for registrants you intend to implement.

The registry will allow local governments of protected geographic names (both local and international) the ability to register their names during a period of no less than a year. This will ensure that they have first rights to register their names for a minimal cost from an ICANN accredited registrar rather than have to dabble in the speculative markets.

As stated above, the registry will handle competing applications in the Sunrise and Landrush periods by implementing an auction mechanism. The auction mechanism is a fair way to solve the issue of competing applications. A traditional first-come first served mechanism will create more load for registrars as one prospective registrant may choose to place the same application for a domain name through several registrars. Additional issues with the first-come, first-served model in that there may be disputes of which registrar’s connection hits the registry first for a certain name.

An auction at the early stages of a registry will benefit registrants by allowing them to purchase the domain name for much less that the cost that they would incur in the domain aftermarket. Furthermore, an auction will allow the users to place a value on the domain name. It can be assumed that the bidder who places the higher bid places a higher value on the domain name, and therefore will be more likely to develop the domain name to be beneficial for Internet users.


iii. Do you intend to make contractual commitments to registrants regarding the magnitude of price escalation?

As stated in draft Registry Agreement in the New gTLD Applicant guidebook, the “.osaka” registry will commit to only adjusting prices based on market conditions and staying consistent with the current inflation rate. The issue of price increases will be adequately reviewed on a biannual basis. Interlink will provide advanced written notice regarding any price adjustments in accordance with the new gTLD Registry Agreement.