Comments (13)

1. gpmgroup says:

   December 9, 2011 at 6:08 pm

   The differences between the competing positions could easily be resolved. – Introduce new gTLDs where they are actually needed.
   Of course this doesn’t sit well with those who see “demand” as simply a metric of the volume of domains sold.
   Why does it have to be a one size fits all approach? (Community applications excepted)
   Different types of new gTLDs will have markedly different benefits, reach and implications for innocent third parties. They are not suited to a single regulatory framework.
   At the time I could never figure out why Peter Dengate Thrush was so adamantly opposed to even any discussion on the matter.

   Reply
   • Tim says:

     December 9, 2011 at 6:30 pm

     It’s a nice idea- “where they are actually needed”, but you’ll find yourself in the same position… who defines “need” exactly? Can you show me one example of an existing TLD that is “needed”? If we’re only talking about “need”, who needs domain names at all? IP addresses are all that are strictly needed.
     “To make money” – would that be a justifiable need? If not, then all registries should be non-profit right? (Which personally I’m not opposed to)
     At some point surely “want” has to feature, and it doesn’t have to be entirely wrong – it just needs to be within the context of a regulatory framework, which will never be perfect, but I’m yet to see a better option.

     Reply
   • Kevin Murphy says:

     December 9, 2011 at 6:33 pm

     It’s one-size-fits-all to prevent the kind of exploitation we saw in the last round. There’s no way, in my view, that .xxx and .mobi should have qualified as “sponsored” TLDs, for example.
     If you carved out exceptions for .brands, say, you can guarantee that all the domain industry participants that have been trademark frontrunning, for example, would all instantly declare themselves “brands”.

     Reply
2. Top Domain Deal says:

   December 9, 2011 at 7:44 pm

   How much money are spent so far on new TLD project can not be compared to how much money can be lost after it goes live!
   Risky business!!!

   Reply
3. TAG says:

   December 10, 2011 at 1:03 am

   I so totally called this reaction from the NTIA 🙂

   Reply
4. gpmgroup says:

   December 11, 2011 at 11:11 pm

   Tim,
   I would see need when there are public benefits and very limited consequent costs and implications for those not involved. As opposed to benefits primarily for contracted parties, especially ones which are predominantly derived from costs to innocent third parties with little or no value in return. I think Mr Strickling’s remarks were considering the need to make the multi-stakeholder model work.
   Profit and non profit organizations can both be either extravagant or good custodians of the namespace. I think the banking industry provides a useful analogy here; most people think that using peoples savings to lend to people buying property providing it is done within a responsible framework is good. However when those same organizations use their customer’s money to speculate on more exciting risky ventures, more people would think this wasn’t such a good thing.
   Most people would also expect a regulator to have safeguards in place so that any unreasonable or irresponsible behaviour would not normally be possible, but if it does occur in limited cases it will be quickly detected and punished sufficiently.

   Reply
5. gpmgroup says:

   December 11, 2011 at 11:19 pm

   Tim & Kevin,
   A better option than the single one size fits all would be to have the community agree on a categorization of gTLDs into classes such as scripts, cultural, cities, brands, open, generic etc. Having seen the ones already stating an interest this shouldn’t be a too difficult task. Work out the costs and benefits for each class and then open the first RFP’s rounds for TLDs in the classes where there is the most demonstrable benefit.
   Careful design of the classes would enable ICANN to focus the growth of the Internet where it is most needed (that word again) or where the most public benefit could be derived.
   We know this would work as we need to look no further than all of the benefits of IDN ccTLDs. With the exception of Bulgaria’s application, would it be fair to say this program seems to have been successfully implemented without complaint or contention?
   Compare and contrast the implementation of IDN ccTLDs with .xxx, .jobs and ICANN’s proposal for a one size fits all for new gTLDs, where in each case significant numbers of people feel ICANN’s proposals are unjust and irresponsible.

   Reply
   • Kevin Murphy says:

     December 12, 2011 at 12:20 pm

     The IDN ccTLD program has been very controversial.
     Greece also had an application rejected, because .ελ looks too much like .EA (which isn’t a ccTLD, but may be in future).
     http://domainincite.com/greek-idn-blocked-due-to-non-existent-domain/
     Some governments have been upset that ICANN requires them to show local community support for their scripts, which they don’t think they should have to do.
     http://domainincite.com/review-reveals-cctld-fast-track-criticisms/
     In addition, some countries are apparently declining to pay ICANN’s voluntary application processing fees.
     http://domainincite.com/some-countries-not-paying-icann-for-their-idns/
     You don’t hear much about it because the affected parties (with the exception of some Bulgarians) tend not to talk about it, and when they do it’s generally not in English for obvious reasons.

     Reply
6. gpmgroup says:

   December 12, 2011 at 7:52 pm

   Thanks for the interesting links.
   One thing that comes across is; it is the applicants who are complaining about ICANN’s processes and procedures in the IDN ccTLD applications.
   .xxx .jobs and new gTLDs the complaints are predominantly from others affected by someone else’s application.
   A lot of the concern stems from the notion that someone can “control” a vertical or at least have bought or will be able to buy an unfair advantage from ICANN, through ICANN allowing a contracted party to buy exclusive rights to the top level and in turn use those rights to compete against others who have to use the second level.
   Trademark Law doesn’t allow this to happen for very good reasons. Can you imagine what would happen if a single company could buy exclusive rights to trademarks for generic terms in each vertical market and then use that advantage to exclude or compete against all others?

   Reply
   • Kevin Murphy says:

     December 12, 2011 at 8:01 pm

     The new gTLD program does have objection mechanisms.
     It’s going to be interesting to see whether they prevent that scenario or not.

     Reply
     • TAG says:

       December 12, 2011 at 8:23 pm

       The GAC in Dakar indicated they will be looking at business models of applicants in addition to merely evaluating the string itself for possible GAC advice. Perhaps this is something they may consider.
       Competition is one issue that ICANN did not budge on in the last set of concessions to GAC concerns, though that specifically relates more to vertical integration.
       One entity monopolizing a vertical industry naming category could easily lead to corporate censorship of the web, unfair competition etc. Bad News
       Objections can come from a variety of sources. Businesses should be vigilant of this process to be sure.

       Reply
       • gpmgroup says:

         December 13, 2011 at 3:41 pm

         One entity monopolizing a vertical industry naming category could easily lead to corporate censorship of the web, unfair competition etc. Bad News.
         Objections can come from a variety of sources. Businesses should be vigilant of this process to be sure.
         I don’t think relying on businesses to vigilant is a robust enough solution to ICANN’s design failings in the new gTLD proposal.
         http://domainnamewire.com/2011/12/12/dot-secure-trademark/#comments
         In any system and especially ones where there appears to be lots of easy money to be made, some people will become very innovative to secure what they believe will give them an advantage.
         Then ICANN ends up being shamed into acting, but after the fact – a bit like trying to instill ethical behavior into a former board member who struggles with being able to define the difference between public interest and personal interest behavior.

         Reply
7. Joe says:

   January 9, 2012 at 11:23 pm

   Who cares? The gTLD concept will quickly fail after ICANN is reminded (once again) that the world only wants .COM and is not interested in any silly alternative extensions.

   Reply