CyberLaw P.C. - Internet Lawyer, Intellectual Property Law Firm

I’m a bit late to discuss this, but I aim to give it appropriately detailed attention now. In Charter Communications, Inc. v. CK Ventures Inc. / Charterbusiness.com the Hon Neil Brown QC, a respected UDRP Panelist, cited my prior post on the potential applicability of laches as a defense to a UDRP complaint:

This panelist was part of a majority in Board of Trustees of the University of Arkansas v. FanMail.com, LLC, WIPO Case No. D2009-1139 that felt that there is scope for looking again at the assumption that laches has no part to play in UDRP proceedings, a decision that has been the subject of at least one commentary at “www.cyberlawonline.com” and which may stimulate some debate.

My article to which the Hon. Neil Brown specifically refers is entitled “A Potential New Defense Under UDRP.”

The Charterbusiness.com matter involved a case where the complainant had waited approximately seven years to file its complaint. While recognizing that laches “is not generally recognized under the Policy” Respondent, correctly in my view, raised a laches defense. The majority rejected the defense, citing decisions in The E.W. Scripps Company v. Sinologic Industries and Tom Cruise v. Network Operations Center / Alberta Hot Rods. Panelist Brown issued a separate opinion. Notably, he opined:

Without going into it in detail here, it may be time for a closer examination of [laches] and whether it is appropriate to exclude it as a defence in cases where the complainant has waited years before filing a complaint.

For better or for worse, a laches defense continues to be a topic of discussion in UDRP decisions. As a result, two questions arise. First, does such a defense make sense in a UDRP context? Second, what is a rational defense practitioner to do?

On the first issue, I am of the opinion that a laches defense, or some related “time-limit” protection, such as a statute of limitations, makes sense in a UDRP context. The present policy effectively allows a complainant to wait for an eternity before filing a case. While there is certainly some unfairness to a respondent in such situations, there is also the added potential problem of “spoliation” of evidence. Furthermore, the preclusion of a laches defense (or a related statute of limitations) has the effect of failing to motivate a mark holder to pursue the action in a timely manner. For example, an unscrupulous mark holder might take advantage of an unsuspecting domain owner by allowing development of the domain prior to the filing of a complaint and potential seizure of the name.

On the other hand, I certainly appreciate the counterarguments that the UDRP policy does not specifically provide for a laches defense or that the specific factual inquiries may be problematic in the context of an arbitration proceeding that is designed to favor efficiency.

In my view, however, the implementation of a laches defense would not be a terrible hindrance to the goals of an efficient arbitration proceeding. In many cases the inquiry could be almost as simple as calculating the time between the registration date of the domain name and the date the complaint was filed. Furthermore, arbitrators regularly decline to reach certain conclusions about, for example, potential trademark infringement or unrelated business disputes when the facts of the matter exceed the scope of the policy. In the end, I see little reason that a laches defense could not be considered in a UDRP context when the circumstances warrant.

The second issue, of particular interest to practitioners, requires us to consider the appropriate course of action when it comes to a UDRP defense. I’m of the opinion that when you or your client has a colorable laches defense, it is proper to raise it. While I appreciate that laches is “not generally recognized under the Policy,” it is also clear enough that the defense of laches is at least “in play.” UDRP respondents would be wise to use that status to their advantage when appropriate.

The recent UDRP decision concerning “razorbacks.com” caught my eye due to a relatively comprehensive panel discussion on the issue of laches (pronounced: ˈla-chəz) under the UDRP.

Laches in law is a defense that calls into question the complaining party’s good faith in bringing its complaint in a untimely manner. A defendant asserting laches argues that a plaintiff that delays in asserting its claims, to the detriment of the defendant, should not be entitled to recover on its claims.

In “razorbacks.com” the Panel noted that “a majority of the Panel (Messrs. Badgley and Brown) is prepared to acknowledge the possible applicability, in appropriate and limited circumstances, of laches in a case under the Policy.”

The Panel supported their decision in several ways. First, the Panel notes that Rule 15(a) of the UDRP provides that “a panel shall decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.”

The Panel also addressed previous decisions addressing and dismissing a laches defense under the Policy. First, the Panel addressed whether laches fell within the “‘catchall’ language of Rule 15(a) because, strictly speaking, it is a principle of equity and not law.” Panelists Badgley and Brown disagreed, noting that in many jurisdictions, the “sharp line between law and equity has been blurred if not effaced.” Panelists Badgley and Brown also found that concerns about intense factual inquiry in laches analysis “might be no more difficult than disposition of other questions that routinely come before UDRP panelists.”

In the end, the majority of the Panel did not decide the “case on the basis of a laches defense,” but whether “characterized as laches or not, the considerable delay on the part of Complainant in bringing the Complaint militates against its success in this proceeding.” The Panel went on to deny the relief sought by Complainant.

While the Panel chose their words carefully, the implication seems clear: UDRP respondents that have a colorable laches defense would be wise to raise it in their responses under the Policy. The Panel seems to be inviting laches defenses in the hopes that the issue will become more salient in the minds of other panelists. While there is no guarantee that future panelists will agree with the razorbacks.com Panel, this decision has unquestionably presented an open invitation for future laches defenses under the UDRP.

As this election year heats up candidates in all types of political races are trying to reach likely voters at their doors, on their telephones and on the Internet. In this race for voters you might guess that a candidate’s domain name plays an important role in sharing his or her message with likely voters. What if a candidate’s domain name is already taken by a third party? What if a candidate’s name has already been taken by their opponent? Many of today’s candidates, finally recognizing the importance of a strong Internet presence in races for political office, are facing the reality of this intellectual property concern.

First, candidates may find that an “innocent” third party already has their preferred domain name. A classic example of this was the site “kerryedwards.com” in the 2004 United States presidential election. Kerry Edwards is the name of an individual, who had registered the site for his own personal website. Of course, “Kerry” and “Edwards” were also the two last names of the Democratic presidential candidate, John Kerry, and his vice presidential running mate, John Edwards. While the Kerry political campaign reportedly inquired about the name, Mr. Kerry Edwards declined to sell. Because Mr. Kerry Edwards was using the name for his personal use the Kerry campaign had no legal grounds to obtain the name (whether it would have been a wise political choice is another story entirely).

Sometimes, there are more legitimate infringement issues. In Montana, for example, both major political parties have taken turns at registering the names of an opposing candidate. Candidates who are victims of the practice routinely accuse the respective registrants of infringement. Registrants of the names proclaim that their actions are protected under free speech laws.

Some state legislatures, undoubtedly containing some politicians that were victimized by the practice, have offered legislation seeking to combat the practice. At this time only California has passed such legislation into law. The California Political Cyberfraud Abatement Act defines “political cyberfraud” as:

A knowing and willful act concerning a political Web site that is committed with the intent to deny a person access to a political Web site, deny a person the opportunity to register a domain name for a political Web site, or cause a person reasonably to believe that a political Web site has been posted by a person other than the person who posted the Web site, and would cause a reasonable person, after reading the Web site, to believe the site actually represents the views of the proponent or opponent of a ballot measure.

Effectively, California’s law seeks to provide trademark protection to political candidates, at least to the extent that the site refers to the candidate’s political campaign.

The intersection (or clash) of free speech and intellectual property rights as protected by this law suggests that it is only a matter of time before it is challenged as unconstitutional by a domain registrant. When the time comes, a potential challenger will have a good chance of invalidating the law. Courts have historically been uneasy to limit speech when it comes to matters as open as a campaign for public office.

In the meantime, potential political candidates should always do the simple thing: register your most important domain names before you even consider entering the political arena.

Given that ICANN recently voted to expand the possibilities for gTLDs, the oversight organization must now deal with the logistics of selecting and assigning administrators for each of the soon to be available gTLDs.

One issue is the possibility that two potential organizations may want to be responsible for allocating the same gTLD. For example, perhaps Group A, a non-profit group, wants “.money” for purposes of identifying sites concentrating on proper personal financial management. Group B, a financial services firm, wants “.money” for identifying financial advisors, stockbrokers and other finance professionals. ICANN’s solution for such a quandary: auctions.

ICANN has determined that, assuming all other things are equal, the competing parties will determine the winner of the coveted extension by auction. This is a method that has been used by new extensions in recent years to determine ownership of particular domains. For example, the “.mobi” extension famously auctioned off several of its “premium names,” as opposed to opening them up in a “landrush” public registration format.

The primary problem with an auction is the concern that our fictitious “Group A” would not have the financial means to compete with “Group B” for our example ".money" gTLD. ICANN attempts to resolve this problem by implementing a system of handicaps. These handicaps would favor for example, “community-based bidders whose community is located primarily in [the] least-developed countries.”

Are these procedures enough to ensure fairness? More than likely, they will be more than enough, because it is quite unlikely that there will be many disputes at all. One can imagine certain gTLDs, like “.sex,” may be disputed, but the chances are good that there will be no need for auction handicaps when the proposed gTLDs are propounded by for-profit industries. Even if the auction process is not particularly favored by all interested parties there is peace is knowing that there will be few, if any, auctions implemented in practice

ICANN, holding its 32nd International Public ICANN Meeting June 22-26, 2008 in Paris, France, is set to vote on an substantial expansion of opportunity for new Generic Top-Level Domains (gTLDs). gTLDs are top-level domain extensions such as (.com, .net, and .org). It is expected that the voting bloc will approve the proposal when it comes up for the vote Thursday.

Late last summer, the ICANN Generic Names Supporting Organization issued their final report about the potential expansion. In a nutshell, the report recommended that ICANN liberally grant new gTLDs so long as the new gTLD and their operators would meet certain requirements.

First, strings in new gTLDs must not be confusingly similar to an existing top-level domain. So, you’re not going to see extensions like .con, .comm, or .nett. Second, strings must not be a “Reserved Word.” This includes no single letters, no two-letter extensions, and no Single Letter/Single Digit combinations. You wont see .a or .hq or .4H.

Third, “strings must not be contrary to generally accepted legal norms relating to morality and public order that are recognized under international principles of law.” Will “.xxx” be appropriate? We’ll likely see some type of dispute between the powers that be before that question is resolved.

Fourth, “strings must not infringe the existing legal rights of others that are recognized or enforceable under generally accepted and internationally recognized principles of law.” Just as the current policies prevent trademark infringing .com or .net names, any new gTLD would require similarly.

Finally, there are some technical and procedural requirements, mandating that any operator have the financial, technical and legal means to successfully run the extension.

So what does it all mean? In a word: confusion. There are already numerous gTLDs that do not receive much use. Adding hundreds of others could mean a very complicated web browsing environment. Time will tell, but chances are good that this means little for the average consumer unless business and industry start to heavily adopt the new extensions. Given the fact that use of the current alternative gTLDs is limited it is hard to imagine that additional gTLDs will attract much attention.

McAfee is releasing a report that identifies the highest risk domain extensions. McAfee reports that the “most dangerous” domains to navigate to are ".hk" (Hong Kong), ".cn" (China) and ".info" (information).

About 19% of .hk domains were dangerous, 12% of .cn sites, and 12% of .info sites. Of course, the majority of sites with these extensions are still safe, but McAfee’s report suggests that users should exercise additional caution when accessing sites with these extensions.

A recent article discusses the continuing problems with accurate WHOIS records, many registrars’ complacent allowance of such inaccuracies, and ICANN’s limited involvement in enforcing the accuracy of such records.

Specifically, there is a discussion about the concentration of inaccurate WHOIS registration at certain registrars. Unsurprisingly, the registrars that have the most inaccurate WHOIS records also have the greatest amount of domains that appear in spam email messages.

ICANN came out with a response shortly after the report broke, which effectively reminds registrars that ICANN has the right to terminate the status of registrars that do not comply with the requirement of maintaining accurate WHOIS data in their records.

Public Interest Registry (PIR), one of the more progressive domain extensions, may be the first major top level domain extension to adopt the DNA Security Extension (DNSSEC) on .ORG top level domains. The system is a method of authentication that helps to ensure that clients (such as a home computer) requesting a particular domain name is sent to the appropriate IP address hosting that website.

For example, if a home computer enters http://www.cyberlaw.pro in their web browser, they want to be sure that they are sent to this CyberLaw PC website instead of a competitor or a forgery. The “standard” DNS system takes a user’s request for a particular domain name, checks it against a database of IP addresses, matches the appropriate IP to the domain name, and sends the user to the appropriate web page. DNSSEC creates an additional protection by digitally signing the information sent from the DNS server to the user. This additional layer of security helps to prevent against forgeries or similar criminal or fraudulent efforts.

The system has been implemented by several country-specific TLD with some success, and potential expansion is now being considered. ICANN (The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) is currently accepting public comments on the system.

A lawsuit seeking class action status has been filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against Network Solutions and ICANN. The suit arises under Network Solutions’ practice of “holding” domain names for a set period of time after a potential registrant searches for the names. If the potential registrant does not immediately purchase the name Network Solutions itself will register the name, and “holds” it for about four days, allowing the potential registrant to register the name at Network Solutions, but preventing a potential registrant from registering the name anywhere else during the four day period.

A copy of the complaint is here. The suit seeks injunctive relief, asking that Network Solutions cease the practice, as well as unspecified damages. The complaint seeks to certify a class of:

All persons or entities in the United States who searched for the availability of a domain name through Network Solutions and subsequently registered that domain name through Network Solutions.

The suit’s first burden will be certification of the proposed class. The Plaintiff makes suitable arguments for typicality of claims, commonality of issues, and numerosity. This means that the class has enough people, all the proposed members of the class are similarly factually situated, and that the legal issues relevant to each person are common to others in the class. A plaintiff must prove all three elements for a court to certify a class action.

Even where a class may be certified in this action, no one should expect a check in the mail as a result of this suit. The best possible result for the Plaintiff will likely be an injunction preventing the practice of holding names in the future. More likely, the parties will settle by reaching an agreement out of court, though it remains to be seen if Network Solutions would be willing to entirely eliminate the process without a court order.

The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers has announced a proposal to start charging a non-refundable annual ICANN fee on registrar domain registrations immediately upon registration. The ICANN Board resolved to:

. . . encourage ICANN's budgetary process to include fees for all domains added, including domains added during the AGP, and encourages community discussion involved in developing the ICANN budget, subject to both Board approval and registrar approval of this fee.

The resolution passed 13-0, with one abstention.

While the ICANN fee is nominal, about $0.25 per name, it will likely be more than enough to terminate the “tasting” practices because it eliminates the economies of scale. Currently a taster can register hundreds or thousands of names for a short time with no investment, even when the names provide absolutely no monetization to the registrant.

For example, if a registrant chose to register 1,000 names, and only made $200 during the five day period, it was still a profitable practice. The registrant could cancel the registrations, register them again shortly thereafter, and make another $200 over the next five days.

If the ICANN resolution is fully implemented that same registrant would now have to invest $250 ($.025 ICANN fee x 1,000 domains) to register the names for a potential gain of only $200. This would lead to a loss of $50 under our scenario, which would effectively eliminate the practice. The numbers will vary, of course, but under any numerical scenario the profitability of the practice will certainly take a hit.

The original goal of the AGP was to protect those “legitimate” registrants who had mistyped or otherwise made an error in the domain they intended to register. This goal, while of less importance than ICANN continues to believe, is still achieved. The difference is that a “legitimate” registrant will now pay the nominal ICANN fee to cancel the registration as opposed to getting off the hook totally free of charge.

Overall, the plan is well designed, although one could imagine a situation where ICANN makes a greater effort to reduce the practice immediately. If the economics somehow continue to be attractive to tasters, however, ICANN may be forced to revisit the issue.

ICANN, the agency responsible for global coordination of the Internet's system of unique identifiers, including domain names and Internet protocols, is eyeing the practice of domain name tasting for policy changes.

Tasting, originally designed to keep typos from becoming permanent errors, is also used by domain name entrepreneurs to test the profitability of certain names before committing to purchase them.

ICANN is now taking a hard look at the practice, issuing a report that identifies the need for further investigation of the practice. The report identifies several potential problems with the practice, including:

Potential impact on the stability of the gTLD name space potentially on the entire DNS; Potential consumer confusion and other concerns about potential negative affects on the consumer experience; Potential increased costs and burdens to legitimate registrants; Potential for facilitation of trademark infringement; [and] added difficulty for law enforcement to access records and pursue cases of criminal activity.

The report identifies two potential primary solutions. First, the potential solution of making changes to the grace period, such as totally eliminating the grace period. Second, a proposed option is to make contractual changes in individual registry agreements with ICANN. This might entail imposition of an “excess deletion fee” such as that currently employed by the “.org” extension registrar.

The public comment period will be from 8 January 2008 to 28 January 2008. Comments may be submitted by email to This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it and may be viewed at the ICANN site.

The writing on the wall seems clear. The report is heavily anti-tasting, and the report recommends that the policy be completely eliminated. Barring substantial public support for tasting, domain tasting is likely to become a thing of the past in upcoming years.

Dell Inc. is pursuing a major cybersquatting lawsuit against several alleged defendants claiming that the alleged used numerous domain names made up of slight misspellings of well-known trademarks. This method, known as typosquatting, sees domainers register domains that surfers are likely to hit if they misspell a common web site name. Users that misspell the address they intended to load are then taken to non-affiliated sites filled with advertising that generates pay-per-click commissions for the domain holders.

In addition to the cybersquatting allegations, Dell alleges that there has been a cyclical practice of “tasting” domains, where the domainers move a particular domain from registrar to registrar during an ICANN sanctioned trial period. By moving the domains from registrar to registrar the alleged infringers avoid ever having to pay for the domains.

Dell alleges that the domainers are infringing on their trademarks and seeks relief under federal cybersquatting statutes. Dell also seeks relief under several Florida state statutes that deal with falsity and deception. More interestingly, Dell is alleging that the practices violate an anti-counterfeiting statute, 15 USC 1114, and seeks statutory damages of up to $1 million per violation under 15 USC 1117.

The anti-counterfeiting claim is one that is not typically alleged in cybersquatting cases. However, it is a unique claim that has a serious chance of success. 15 USC 1114 prohibits:

use in commerce any reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation of a registered mark in connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution, or advertising of any goods or services on or in connection with which such use is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive;

Dell’s allegations as to the defendants seem to comfortably fall within the purview of the statute Dell maintains that the various domains would not have been registered but for the use of its name, which is designed to lure consumers seeking Dell products and services to the misspelled domain name. Of course, any domain name that did not contain a Dell trademark would be equally exempt from the statute.

Dell’s attempts to apply anti-counterfeiting laws to domain name disputes may be a new idea, but it is an idea that has some teeth. If the court agrees with Dell that the statutes should apply, it would be a substantial boon to trademark holders and a serious blow to domain name prospectors.

A prime example of the growth of domain name speculating was seen today, when virtually all four letter .com domains were registered. The growth of domain name speculating has increased in recent years as cyber-property speculators, businesses and individuals all scramble for valuable names.

Whether the newer top level domains do anything to reduce the speculating remains to be seen. While it is likely that the newer top level domains may replace the second-tier .com and .nets of the world, it is unlikely that the highest quality .coms will ever see a substantial reduction in value.

There will soon be a new TLD available for domain name shoppers. .asia will become available to any business or individual that would like to register a domain with a .asia extension. Before general registration is available, however, the DotAsia authority is implementing certain policies to prevent cybersquatters and others from getting first crack at certain domains.

Known as “sunrise provisions,” these policies are intended to protect trademark holders and others with interests in protecting their names. The process is set in three separate categories. First, “governments in the community” may reserve and register domains. The second phase allows Registered Mark owners to obtain domains corresponding to the marks they own; and Sunrise Phase 3 allows registered companies, organizations and other entities in the DotAsia Community to obtain domains corresponding to their entity names.

These procedures were implemented in part due to the problems seen in the .euro registration, where the registration process was simply opened up and led to a free-for-all in name registrations. Many mark holders were then embroiled in battles to recover their names.

Bottom Line: The sunrise provisions are great news for trademark holders who were often thrown to the wolves when it came time to protect their marks when new TLDs were introduced. On the other hand, domain name investors will not be excited about these provisions. If the sunrise provisions prove successful it is a safe bet that future provisions will be in place for future TLD roll outs.

Even with these provisions, however, it is unlikely that domain name investors will be totally deterred. Many mark holders will fail to take the necessary actions at the appropriate times to protect their marks. Even if every mark holder did act in a timely manner, there will still be ample supply of names for investors.

GoDaddy is making a push to take control of the “.us” top level domain (TLD). Along with Afilias, a provider of registry services, the two firms have teamed up to create a joint venture seeking to become the registry operator of usTLD. The firm’s intentions became known when the venture submitted a proposal to the U.S. Department of Commerce's National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA).

The venture cites several improvements over the current operator, Neustar. Specifically, the venture promises reduced pricing, “enhanced locality support to enable every city and town in America to have its own dedicated space within the usTLD (e.g. anytown.us),” and improved security and marketing.

Bottom Line: While NTIA is unlikely to make a quick switch, the proposal seems to supply some substantive improvements that would likely be welcome for a TLD that has, by all accounts, underperformed compared to other nations’ TLDs. If Neustar fails to meet the challenge there is a real possibility of the GoDaddy/Afilias venture being successful in its takeover bid.

Paul Twomey, President and CEO of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers recently gave a presentation entitled “The Future of the Internet” which set out Twomey’s personal view of the future of the Internet including issues such as the IPv4 to IPv6 transition, new gTLDs, IDNs and more.

Bottom Line: The presentation is an interesting read for those interested in opinions as to the future of connectivity, interoperability and online advertising spending.

ICANN has announced a new opportunity for public comment on new generic top level domains (gTLDs). Top level domains are the suffixes on domain names, such as .com, .net, .tv, .info and similar.

The idea of having more TLDs is attractive to many because there are more options to register and market the best name for a particular registrant. In addition, one of the primary motivations for making this change is reducing the value of the “major” TLDs for purposes of reducing the gains of cybersquatters, who register certain domains with no intention of using the domain, but to resell the domains for higher value that they would typically cost to register from a licensed registrar.

The competing view, however, suggests that the numerous other choices available in the marketplace would make the “premium” TLDs more valuable, because the marketplace has been saturated by presumptively less valuable real estate. The “cream would rise to the top” as is said and the additional domains would be seen as “lower tier” domains that would require more work on the part of the registrant to “brand” the name in their customers’ consciousness.

If ICANN wants the new domains to have commercial success there will need to be a greater integration of the new names in the public eye. A classic method to promote the new names is a price lower than the more traditional domains. This increases the likelihood that the name will be registered. This has previously been implemented in marketing of the .name extensions which are intended for personal web pages, and the .info extension, which is a “general use” TLD.

The other method, and one which seems to be gaining greater traction, is the method of marketing specific extensions in certain industries. For example, the .travel extension is intended to be used for travel and tourism sites, and the .jobs extension is similarly intended for sites that will be focused on job-seekers and similar issues. By creating “categories” for TLDs the average consumer will eventually be exposed to newer names that are outside the realm of .com, .net and .org. This exposure, if only in certain realms of a consumer’s online life, will allow newer domains to eventually be more readily accepted.

Bottom Line: While newer top level domains will take some time to be accepted, it is likely that they will eventually become more integrated with the existing domains heavily in use today. Still, it is hard to imagine the .com ever falling from grace as the Internet’s “go to” domain for major business and industry, given its past branding and substantial integration in world commerce.

In recent years, ICANN has been introducing and maintaining numerous generic top level domains (gTLDs or TLDs). These are the suffixes on many popular domain names, and include the names .aero, .biz, .cat, .com, .coop, .info, .jobs, .mobi, .museum, .name, .net, .org, .pro, .tel and .travel.

Currently up for public comment as to its renewal is the “.coop” TLD. This domain suffers from an ambiguity problem. Most of the other top-level domains are, on their face, indicative of the type of site a surfer would likely find by visiting that top-level domain. For example, one might expect to find a business at a .biz web site, an employment related site at .jobs, and a professional services website at .pro.

While one could imagine that a “.coop” site might be an apartment building or a network of non-profit sites, it could just as easily be a cooperation of adult websites, a grassroots political site, or a for-profit business cooperative.

There are other TLDs that are more obvious on their face, which would be of greater help in facilitating Internet navigation. ICANN recently rejected the .xxx domain, for example, which would have helped to facilitate classification of adult sites.

While not immediately at issue, the “.cat” TLD suffers from similar problems. A surfer may not know if she is visiting a website about housecats, categories of a library, or a catalogued shopping site.

Bottom Line: Facilitating the "obviousness" of information on the often convoluted Internet is a worthwhile goal, especially given the highly visible nature and frequent use of TLDs. The TLDs “.coop” and “.cat” do not succeed in making their likely content obvious to viewers. ICANN would be better served examining and approving TLDs that are “facially obvious.”