INTA Warns ICANN of Risks from Ignoring Intellectual Property Concerns

The International Trademark Association (INTA) has expressed serious concerns about ICANN’s approach to the new gTLD program, warning that the organization faces an existential threat if it continues to overlook the interests of intellectual property (IP) stakeholders. According to INTA, trademark owners are growing increasingly disillusioned with the ICANN process and are now seeking more balanced outcomes through other channels, including regulators, legislatures, and courts.

In comments submitted yesterday on the draft rules for the new gTLD program, INTA emphasized that interest in ICANN’s work has declined. Previously engaged members are losing faith, feeling that their extensive time investment—amounting to thousands of hours—has yielded little benefit in terms of ICANN’s improvement. INTA stated:

“The ICANN Board, Org, and review team members would do well to consider the consequences of continuing to ignore the input of non-contracted parties, particularly when addressing ongoing harms within the domain name system. At a time when governments are seeking greater control over DNS policies, ICANN has a unique opportunity to strengthen the multistakeholder model by seriously considering and adjusting proposed policies in a balanced way.”

INTA’s frustrations appear to stem from ICANN’s refusal to incorporate the IP lobby’s recommendations when it implemented new DNS abuse requirements in registry and registrar contracts earlier this year. INTA is now calling for a halt to new gTLD application rounds until ICANN undertakes “substantial reforms” in its approach to domain abuse and contract enforcement.

These comments were among the most strongly worded in response to ICANN’s public consultation on the new gTLD program’s Applicant Guidebook. Prior to its sharp criticism, INTA also urged ICANN to provide brand owners and potential dot-brand applicants with clearer information about the timing of future application rounds.

While ICANN expects the Next Round to begin in Q2 2026, the application process remains subject to a list of complex triggering events that many find confusing.

The threat of government intervention undermining ICANN’s multistakeholder model is not new. Such concerns have been raised for over two decades. However, INTA’s latest warning may be less potent than it appears, given that ICANN’s Governmental Advisory Committee has also submitted comments on the same issues and appears comfortable with the current state of the Applicant Guidebook.

This version refines the message and provides a concise overview of INTA’s concerns, emphasizing the key points. Let me know if any further adjustments are needed!