Latest news of the domain name industry

Recent Posts

ICANN adds 266 new gTLD applicants in a week

Kevin Murphy, March 24, 2012, 10:21:29 (UTC), Domain Registries

Remember that last-minute rush I was telling you about?

ICANN has revealed that it now has 556 registered users in its Top-Level Domain Application System, up from 290 just a week ago.

Each TAS account can be used to apply for 49 new gTLDs (not 50 as previously reported), so we’re looking at anywhere from 0 to 27,244 new gTLD applications.

Based on what I’ve heard from consultants, I estimate that the true number of applications represented by these 556 accounts could be over 1,000.

Companies applying for dot-brand gTLDs are in many cases also applying for a couple of keyword gTLDs related to their vertical industry too, I hear.

Fairwinds Partners, which has been mostly working with skeptical brands, said this week that its clients on average are applying for 2.7s gTLD each.

Applied across all the TAS accounts registered to date, that would mean 1,501 applications.

The deadline for new TAS registrations is this Thursday, March 29, at 2359 UTC. That’s 1659 in ICANN’s native California and 1959 on America’s east coast.

Remember that while the UK switches from GMT (which is the same as UTC) to BST tomorrow morning, UTC does not observe daylight savings and remains the same.

Tagged: , ,

Comments (14)

  1. Scott says:

    “so we’re looking at anywhere from 0 to 27,244 new gTLD applications”

    What an absolute clusterf*** this is going to make the Internet. Simply amazes me that this entire gTLD process hasn’t yet been halted by some governing body. As many others have stated before, this is all about making money for ICANN, the corrupt that preside over it (and have left to profit from it), and the companies that will run them. I foresee many issues that will come about in the May time frame.

  2. Gotta Agree WIth Scott says:

    @Scott,

    COuldn’t agree with you more. It is a Pandora’s Box that never should have been opened and will cause unforeseen legal complexities as a result. Moreover, a lot of innocent people will be losing a lot of hard earned money as they create businesses on unstable tld’s. It is my hope that the IANA or some government entity does intervene before this intellectual property fiasco is actually allowed to take place.

  3. Growth and Renewal says:

    Firstly – all the tld haters best get on the bus or wind up under it. This is a non-stop trip to the future. We’re moving up a level – as we should be. There is no government that should or can stop this and if they try you will absolutely see that government in a weaker future position as a result. The best outcome is to shape the inevitable to your (web users) advantage. It goes with saying that I think this is terrific, it will change navigation for our children, and their children. Long live evolution, innovation and freedom in names and naming.

  4. John says:

    @growth and renewal

    Spoken like an investor that already has money put towards the new gTLDs. Is this Peter Thrush? LOL. The US is already under pressure to have the “Internet” moved to NATO. The only people standing behind the gTLDs are those that stand to monetarily benefit from it. If they come to light this might be the final straw before a segregated Internet thanks to ICANN,s greed. My bet is there are more that are against it that are just waiting until the window is closed and all will be revealed.

    How about this….please enlighten us how the new gTLDs will add to the Internet? How will they be different than the plethora of other failed TLDs? How will they add to the existing digital space? My bet is you either don’t reply or don’t know because you are on your knees praying everything works out and you can quite your job. I don’t think that’s going to happen.

    As for our children….DNS won’t be needed forever. Someone is bound to figure out a way to run the net in some way other than translating numbers (IP addresses) to ordinary words. The new gTLD “thing” is nothing more than an unneeded money grab adding to an already over TLD’d Internet. The world knows it but those in power haven’t done enough to stop it. My bet is the new gTLDs never see the light of day. I guess we shall see.

  5. Google Wins says:

    @Growth and Renewal:

    John brought up some excellent points. If you have something concrete to discuss, now would be a good time to bring it up. Otherwise, it seems obvious that you are bias and either a consultant, registrar or IP Lawyer, since those are the only groups that can possible benefit from what seems like a pathetic loser of an idea.

  6. DRASK says:

    Only time will tell.

  7. Scott says:

    Another thing to keep in mind is that just this past December, the FTC publicly stated their concerns about this new program. The FTC wants a “pilot” program. ICANN basically thumbed its nose at the FTC and now has 556 registrations. Far from a “pilot” program. Toss in all the large organizations that rep the trademark holders showing their strong dislike and you can see that this will not go as smoothly as those with money on the line are hoping it will.

    Link to the ANA response to the FTC letter:

    http://www.ana.net/content/show/id/22659

    Quote from the FTC:
    “If ICANN fails to address these issues responsibly, the introduction of new gTLDs could pose a significant threat to consumers and undermine consumer confidence in the Internet”

    If there is anyone out there that doesn’t think the FTC can squash this in one way or another hasn’t been around long enough.

  8. Ray Marshall says:

    “so we’re looking at anywhere from 0 to 27,244 new gTLD applications.”

    Shouldn’t the starting number be 556, or, could you submit an application for zero gTLDs? I realize a certain number will be declined, but, are we not starting out with a minimum of 556 gTLDs?

    • Kevin Murphy says:

      Technically, you can sign up for an account and not file an application. You’d have to be pretty damn stupid, but it is possible.

      • Rubens Kuhl says:

        Signing-up costs only USD 5,000 ; filing costs USD 180,000 more. There might be organizations buying time to think, with a few more days costing USD 5,000.

  9. Growth and Renewal says:

    There is nobody – not a soul in this forum that doesn’t have a commercial interest or an emotional interest (tied to a commercial interest) in the outcome of the new TLD process. We’d all be watching American Idol if there wasn’t another “reason” to be here.

    Those “for” the process, like myself, are vilified as applicants or consultants for applicants. Those “against” are either employees of existing registry operators about to see their monopoly marginalized by the advent of thousands of alternatives, or they are existing portfolio holders about to see the value of their .com/.net and .other investments, winnowed away.

    The naked truth is that more choice, brought all at once like this.. and unsponsored no less (unlike previous new tlds which came with a pile of rules and restrictions), well those choices are a downright good thing for everyone.

    The truth is, it would be healthy to live in a non-com world.. to have have choices over time. I am in that camp. I own a lot of great .coms and would happily burn them all in favor of a world full of great TLDs.. because that would be better for the web.

    556 names is a pilot program. There will be tens of thousands of tlds in 10 years. This is a fait d comply

    The “somebody is bound to figure out a way” to make my eyes glaze over. Nothing is going to change the need for a unique address online. More names will bring more choices and alternatives and put pressure on second level name speculation.

    THAT will be a good thing for all in the long run.

  10. more dependence on the search engines.

Add Your Comment