In an editorial published by The Washington Post entitled “What’s The .Rush”, the Post says that ICANN is moving too fast on the new gTLD program despite acknowledged that the program has been under consideration for 6 years.
The Post’s editorial concludes;
“Although the plan has been six years in the making, it is not ready for prime time”
Here is the full editorial:
“””For two decades, .com, .org and some 20 other “generic top-level domain names” have served as calling cards for the vast majority of Web sites. That may change dramatically — and not for the better — if the obscure but powerful organization that manages domain names gets its way.
Starting next month, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) plans to take applications from individuals and groups interested in plunking down $185,000 a pop to buy the rights to new domain names — the words to the right of the dot. Some of these could focus on a community of businesses or services, such as .bank or .news. Others may be used to market specific brands or products, as in .Coke or .Chevy. ICANN officials say that they expect up to 500 applications to be filed between January and April when the organization opens the process; those approved would go live in 2013. ICANN believes these changes will lead to innovations that build on the already explosive growth and inventiveness of the Internet age.
Businesses, nonprofits and law enforcement officials take a dimmer view. “A potential disaster,” declared Federal Trade Commission Chairman Jon Leibowitz during a congressional hearing last week. An invitation to extortion, cried a coalition of businesses. A crippling blow, warned a group of nonprofits.
Mr. Leibowitz worries that the proliferation of names will increase the incidence of fraud; ICANN’s error-riddled database of Web site and domain name owners, he testified, already makes it difficult to track down scammers. Businesses say that they will be forced to spend millions in “defensive registrations” to prevent interlopers from claiming their brand or product names; the new addresses, they say, will duplicate existing sites and cause confusion. Nonprofits say that they cannot afford the stiff fees. Representatives from these groups aired their complaints during a Senate hearing Thursday — not that lawmakers have any power to resolve the controversy.
ICANN reports to no one — a decision made when the group was created during the Clinton administration to protect Internet independence. The group has made some adjustments in response to concerns, including creation of a trademark clearinghouse and a “rapid response” process to allow legitimate rights holders to quickly knock out imposters. Officials have said that some nonprofits may be permitted to pay lower fees.
Although the plan has been six years in the making, it is not ready for prime time. ICANN officials acknowledge that they are still working out some details, including certain protections for trademark holders. The Justice Department and other law enforcement agencies have expressed concerns about enforcement.
ICANN should not approve new names until enforcement and protection issues are resolved. Even then, it should approve at most a few, to allow the marketplace to absorb and weigh the changes. ICANN would be wise to move slowly; its legitimacy and Internet efficacy are at stake.””
So The Post says “ICANN would be wise to move slowly” yet they acknowledge it has taken them 6 years to get to the point of approving the plan.
6 years in Internet Time.
I would say that is snail like slow.
ICANN claims that past rounds failed because of restrictions on quantity of new TLDs that were available.
So, on the one hand, if past new TLDs had been successful, that would be proof that they’re a good thing, and that we need more of then.
On the other hand, if past new TLDs had not been successful (and they were not successful), the reason they failed is because there weren’t enough of them, and so we also need more of them.
So, in both scenarios, ICANN would say “we need more new TLDs”!
That’s the idiotic logic coming from ICANN. Is it any wonder that non-idiots are pushing back against ICANN’s plans??
ICANN is a monopoly that just works to make it’s management rich.
ICANN is well on its way to destroy the internet as we know it.
George
Push back is fine but where were this people while the topic was opened for debate?
Okay, @ MHB. ICANN operates in stealth mode. I think, ICANN can be faulted for not broadcasting its intentions, besides post issues for public comment right before the holidays. On top of that, it ignores opposing views in its comments!
BTAPPA amendment comments were UNANIMOUS AGAINST BTAPPA, esp. the 15-day notice losing Registrars would have to supply Registrants if their portfolios were to be moved to a new Registrar.
Registrars are not all the same, in fact, there are vast differences between them, in particular, to put it politely, their approach to business practices and ethics (i.e. their reliability as a de facto bank for your domain and IP property). Many Registrars have “issues” when it comes to customer relations, fees, security, and domain IP and ownership. It takes a lot of effort to choose a Registrar! It should be a long term decision.
That is close to what my brother wrote, and that comment was never published.
So, what’s the point of a comment period, when all opposing comments get ignored, even if it’s unanimous?
ICANN has some explaining to do.
Thank you.
Here is the link: http://forum.icann.org/lists/vrsn-btappa-amendment
The problem here is not the release of the new gTLDs, the problem is releasing so many at once.
David
I agree with that.
I have argued on this blog that ICANN should roll out the new gTLD in much more orderly process.
I suggested restrictiong the number of new gTLD’s to the number of existing TLD for the previous year, so 22 currently, so 22 new ones is 2012, 44 in 2013, 88 in 2014 etc etc assuming there are no technical or other fundamental issues in the then previous year
Mike: Folks posted repeatedly against the ICANN new TLDs program, but were completely ignored by ICANN. Go back and read all the comment periods.
@MHB:
That is an excellent strategy. If you aren’t already doing so, you and your people should start promoting it on both sides of the aisle.
@ MHB, that sounds like a reasonable suggestion.
@ George, that’s what I’m saying. Opposing comments get ignored.
Further, look at this page of notices, please:
icann.org/en/announcements
ICANN couches lightweight policy notices like:
Talk to Our Web Designers: How Can We Improve ICANN.ORG
&
Nominating Committee Convenes in Dakar
with hardcore issues which affect Registrants, as a form of information overload to fool the public, in order to further its agendas.
How would you address that? That ICANN ignores negative comments, and applies information overload to fool the public?
The owner of JoesGarage.com doesn’t have the wherewithall to fight all the predatory policies against his business.
In short, the case can be made that ICANN swamps important policy notices in a sea of of superflous information, besides ignore dissenting opinions, to move their own agenda forward, while claiming transparency. You’re an attorney, what do you have to say to that?
And it’s no reflection on you – you’re an advocate of the little people. But it’s just hard to keep up with the mafia’s – opps, I mean ICANN’s – evil, conniving ways.
@Berkens “Push back is fine but where were this people while the topic was opened for debate?”
Your vested interest is really starting to show Michael and you are sounding more and more like ICANN itself.
You keep saying why didnt people complain earlier?
People keep telling you Mike…they did but ICANN does NOT LISTEN
Neither apparently do you!
Bottom line is that it’s going to get done.
“ICANN REPORTS TO NO ONE — a decision made when the group was created during the Clinton administration to protect Internet independence.”
My question is, where did the idea for the GTLD program come from in the first place?
I don’t remember an outcry for more domain extensions. Was this purely an ICANN scheme from the beginning? Other that ICANN and companies like right of the dot, who really wants this to happen? We have enough extensions with all the CC domains. With millions of decent unregistered .at, biz, .cc, .ws, .co, .in, etc, do we really need more options? Since when is ICANN supposed to be run as a money making entity?
Either way, its going to get done since ICANN can not be stopped. This is what happens when you give anyone too much power. Nobody can stop this and ICANN knows it. They may as well flip everyone the bird at these hearings. After this colossal epic fail, ICANN will be abolished, but not until all the pockets have been lined. I am sure they can afford to grease a few palms to tone down the noise.
We own over 75,000 domain names and 98% are .com so my vested interest is obvious I sit today is in the current space.
However if there are thousands of new extensions coming, I’m going to be in that space as well.
I left plenty of comments myself during the various comment periods on the new gTLD’s, some even were placed into the ICANN staff reports of the comments.
Most were not followed or adopted but my opinion in on the record.
There were thousands of comments from all sorts of groups including TM groups that wanted much stricter rules making it easier to take away existing domains.
Obviously with thousands of divergent views not everyone is going to be happy.
My question is simple, Did the Washington Post write an editorial on this topic at anytime before the ICANN vote?
You guys can get the popcorn, because I am going to snailmail Lawrence Strickling with thoughts that I composed here on this thread. He will read it, because he only gets two snailmails a month, so that is an exciting event, and I have a voice!
Don’t nobody dare to breathe a word against @MHB! He has done more for the domain world with his little pinky than most of us do with our entire bodies – thanx @ Mike@ 🙂
@ MHB
Mike, there are way too many unresolved issues to move forward and dump hundreds of new extensions on the market at once.
If it was a measured approach, with fewer, uncontested extensions as a test, it is one thing.
As much as you are for the new extensions now, you seemed to have a totally different opinion in February of 2010 –
http://www.thedomains.com/2010/02/14/2-hours-on-the-panel-its-clear-that-the-new-gtlds-are-just-about-the-money/
You basically called the new extension a cash grab, and also mentioned the burden to TM holders.
The problem is many people don’t trust ICANN’s judgment. I believe they are out for their own interest not for the public interest.
The rollout of .XXX just shows how ICANN can basically legalize extortion. It was an extension the adult industry does not even support that is being paid “protection money” by TM holders to avoid abuse.
Brad
@Brad: “The rollout of .XXX just shows how ICANN can basically legalize extortion.”
Nearly every article I’ve read in the last week about dotXXX has been about some college or university buying their name in dotXXX as a defensive move. Not good.
David J: When you say “not good”, do you mean the extortionist core of these new gTLDs and the companies behind them, or that you think that they deserve a better reputation?
In all honesty, if we think about how we navigate the connected world today, and how we would want to do it in the future, are these new suffixes the right choice for us? (assuming we pay no attention to the potential upside in €$ for a handful companies).
ICANN is a total disgrace to the United States of America.
I’d almost venture to call it terrorist activity as they are hurting huge swaths of businesses with this at the worst possible time, during the Great Recession .
Their votes and actions, their salaries, and their connections should be inspected by Congress.
What ICANN has done with these new gTLDs is sickening and the worst thing that ever happened on the Net for general businesses.
The fact is, really only domainers understand domains and ICANN should be comprised of at least 70% domainers.
Techies, developers, webmasters, SEO gurus, and other “Internet Experts” know virtually nothing about domain names and they should never be working for ICANN . This is why we are at where we are at now, a total lube-job of the general business community.
@ David
“Nearly every article I’ve read in the last week about dotXXX has been about some college or university buying their name in dotXXX as a defensive move. Not good.”
The main problem is who really trusts ICANN to put public interest before their own financial interest.
ICANN has put themselves in position of picking winners and losers and that is the major issue.
The original question could be flipped around. After 6 years how does ICANN not have a better plan in progress? Why are so many questions left unanswered?
Brad
Brad
Actually ICANN by opening the space to all comers is doing the opposite.
If they limited the new gTLD’s to a certain number (as i did suggest) they would be in a position that they would be “picking winners and losers”
But by opening it up to all they are going to let the market decide.
Its the best argument for opening it up rather than hand picking
Batching has not yet been determined and actually could result in a ‘measured rollout’, to a small degree. Hundreds of new TLDs won’t be dumped ‘at once’. Close but not literally. It may actually turn out to be quite staggered.
.XXX is not painting a good picture for New gTLDs, and the timing is horrible. But ICANN really didn’t have a choice. They denied it, were challenged within their own mechanisms, and lost. The .XXX defensive registration business model is highly disappointing.
But many new tld models are being developed with the intent of adding value to a market segment. Some innovative concepts are planned, which will be in stark contrast to the XXX approach.
I’m still confused by references to past tld ‘failures’. Which tlds have been introduced that have literally failed, as in, no longer function, out of business, no longer available, will not resolve? Just because they haven’t registered millions of domains, or had vibrant aftermarket sales does not mean they ‘failed’.
Definitions of success or failure are varied.
There were parties that were NEVER going to be happy with ANY new gtld plan. Just because the program was not entirely scrapped does not mean they were ignored. Is the Christian world simply ‘ignoring’ Muslim extremists opinion they should convert or die? Or, is it simply just an irresolvable difference of opinion?
@ MHB
ICANN is an organization that exists with no accountability to anyone.
Who decides what entity is awarded an extension?
Who decides what order the applications are processed in?
Who decides if there will be another application window and when it is?
Seems like ICANN still has plenty of room to be the kingmaker in the process.
Also, can you please let me know what ICANN did from Feb 2010 to today to help alleviate your opinion that the new extension program is a cash grab and that it created an undue burden on TM holders?
Brad
Brad
Who decides what entity is awarded an extension?
If there is one applicant and no objection then the extension will be awarded.
Who decides what order the applications are processed in?
ICANN hasn’t clarified it but it seems luck of the draw.
Who decides if there will be another application window and when it is?
ICANN
It pretty clear and common logic will dictate the second period will not open until the 1st period is pretty well settled.
My guess will be years.
“.XXX is not painting a good picture for New gTLDs, and the timing is horrible. But ICANN really didn’t have a choice. They denied it, were challenged within their own mechanisms, and lost. The .XXX defensive registration business model is highly disappointing.”
I agree the timing could not be worse.
You have an extension that is not supported by the adult industry that is cashing in on defensive regs. That is the exact template of what is not needed in new extensions.
Marketing to people who’s only interest is not having their brand abused is not acceptable. In fact many of the defensive regs are to just have domains that don’t even resolve.
In most industries paying “protection money” is considered a shakedown.
Brad
@ MHB
“Who decides what entity is awarded an extension?
If there is one applicant and no objection then the extension will be awarded.”
Right, it is not these extensions that are going to be an issue.
It is the competitive extensions where a monopoly could be created that are the major issue.
Why are so many questions about the process left unanswered after 6 years of preparation?
Brad
@Brad
Finding myself in agreement with you about .XXX and competition issues.
I don’t see many universities feeling they need to register defensively in .SHOES.
But the potential for Nike owning the .SHOES namespace to be used entirely at their discretion is troubling.
Brad
there are not that many questions left.
You can’t predict who will or won’t apply, how many applications there will be or who might object.
There are hundreds of pages of rules on this crap, its a huge book of rules which I brought to the session on the new gTLD’s at TRAFFIC.
“The adult industry” didn’t apply to operate .XXX.
If someone not in the “legal” industry applies for .Law rather than a lawyer or group of lawyers that is going to be run by someone outside the legal industry.
On the other hand more the reason to apply and control the “legal monopoly” that ICANN can grant by contract by the US government, than sit around and bitch about it for the rest of eternity
@ Tom
“Finding myself in agreement with you about .XXX and competition issues.
I don’t see many universities feeling they need to register defensively in .SHOES.
But the potential for Nike owning the .SHOES namespace to be used entirely at their discretion is troubling”
Both are valid points.
Take an extension like .Music, there are already several groups angling for it.
Will it be assigned as a community extension since so many could benefit from it or will ICANN just allow a major company, say Sony, to outbid others and buy the namespace and create a monopoly and uncompetitive advantage?
There are a ton of legal issues with competitive extensions. People are already trying to game the system by trademarking entire extensions as well.
Brad
@ MHB
What did ICANN do from Feb 2010 to today to change your opinion that the new extension program is not a cash grab?
You clearly had concerns in the past that these extensions put undue burden on TM holders. What has changed?
I can’t imagine the rollout of .XXX did anything to alleviate TM holders from their concerns.
Brad
@Brad
USPTO Appeals Board laid down a precedent setting decision denying trademarks for Top Level Domains. Covered here:
http://www.circleid.com/posts/20111201_the_death_of_tld_front_running/
New TLD registries are going to find their rights to their ‘.TLD’, or ‘DotTLD’ resemble ‘COLA’ more than ‘COKE’.
This presents an interesting marketing dilemma for new registries attempting to differentiate themselves. They may be caught by surprise.
@ Brad said: “The problem is many people don’t trust ICANN’s judgment. I believe they are out for their own interest not for the public interest.”
@ MHB said: “On the other hand more the reason to apply and control the “legal monopoly” that ICANN can grant by contract by the US government.”
Just mailed my missives to NTIA, DOJ, with a copy to Obama, with six pages of documentation attached. ICANN”s contract is up for renewal, and you don’t know but the gov as well as the public are fed up.
if they can wait 6 yrs, they can wait one more.
at least now they have more attention to the proposed new gtld program. more stakeholders are coming forward to participate in the “multistakeholder” process.
still, internet users are not one of the stakeholders taking part. and they’re probably the most important one.
if the plan is sound, then new gtld proponents should have no worries about more participation in the planning process, and a little more delay. past new gtlds have been largely forgotten or overlooked. internet users have continued to stay with .com and the original tld’s.
however if the new gtld plan is *not* sound, and it is now getting more attention from stakeholders who “should” have been participating earlier, then that might explain why new gtld propoents are so opposed to any further delay. they seem to be in a rush.
otherwise they should be happy that these stakeholders are now willing to particpate.
the web is doing just fine without new gtld’s.
Reality is, The WaPo article and all the comments in this post are opinion.
ICANN isn’t going to delay, NTIA is not going to intervene.
Application Window to open Jan 12
Selling non.com’s is like selling a white wall as being purple.
It just does not matter how many are approved at a time – some folks just want (and need) to be lied to – beyond the cherry picked .me’s or whatever that serve no purpose other then a “cover-your-ass” marketing gimicks.
It just ain’t so friends
Why would anyone want a tld other than .com? Think about it. if you do have and non-.com and you take out a large ad on the radio or tv, a good 75% of your visitors will accidentally go to the .com version of your domain. Knowing that, why you anyone not just get the .com version to start with?
This whole argument seems silly to me. Noone is going to want gtlds and when they ultimately do become available, they will all go down in .flames.
not so fast
it seems slow to me
Why would Icann want to limit who could apply for a tld?
They want everyone to apply so Icann can bank the fees.
Plus the icing on the cake is the romancing from all of the
parties involved.
And, when they narrow it down, they can negotiate behind
close doors that the winning bidder offers the management
and board a long term employment contract.
When the pendulum swings too far in one direction, forces
makes it swing back.
I wonder when Icann’s absolute power will be trimmed and by whom?
There were at least 5 different ways that new TLDs could be allocated, as I pointed out in my comments at:
forum.icann.org/lists/rysg-proposal-cof/msg00000.html (add “http” up front to turn it into a URL)
ICANN chose the one that offered the *least* benefits to the public. For example, compare their plan to the following simple plan:
Policy Alternative: Allow all .com domain names to ascend to the root, for free.
That would create 100 million new TLDs immediately and instantaneously. If new TLDs are so great, aren’t 100 million of them even better?? Of course, ICANN would oppose this, because they can’t profit from the policy, i.e. charging $185,000/application, and giving insiders/consultants the ability to soak additional money from the public. ICANN is doing the following:
(a) create instability intentionally
(b) charge people money to get to a new equilibrium
(c) profit at the expense of the public
ICANN wouldn’t like moving *immediately* to a new equilibrium (100 million .com domains ascending to the root for free). This goes to show that ICANN *wants* instability, and thrives from it. That’s not what we want in a trusted custodian. NTIA/DOC/DOJ should give them the boot.
Meyer and George are spot on. TLD’s do not cost money, per se.
For example, if all .com names were put into the root, users could just download a (signed) copy of the root and serve themselves the fastest DNS possible (yes, it would be faster and more reliable than even the most expensive “DNS service” you can buy). All for free.
The absolute fastest way to navigate the web is to have a local copy of the DNS information on your PC or device. And this costs nothing. It’s like the telephone book. It’s free.
Opponents would no doubt say, “But the information is dynamic. It’s always changing.” By and large that is untrue. Most new sites are some sort of scam. And most sites do not change their IP’s very frequently (and if they are smart they notify users in advance). Then there are some who might argue that load balancing tricks justify making lookups all day every day. DNS was not designed for the purpose of load balancing, or playing CDN games. There’s nothing to stop anyone from telling users which IP is closest to them geographically and letting users decide. Some even question whether load balancing this way is even effective (happy to provide the citation if requested). There are no doubt other silly arguments over small debatable “benefits” (to whom? users?) of pretending every IP address on the internet is a moving target, but they do not even come close to the costs (to users) of letting ICANN run their crooked DNS racket.
ICANN has a certain way they want this TLD process done and it is crafted so as to make money for ICANN and prop up ICANN’s continued existence.
But it is certainly not the only way “new TLD’s” can be done. If users are desperate to be able to type strings like newyorkcity.shoes in order to navigate the web easier, then there are ways this can be implemented without charging anyone a dime. ICANN is supposed to be operating in the public interest. But it is clear to even the most passive observer they are operating in their own interest.
Underlying all this is the still unanswered question of who really needs new TLD’s? It’s clear who *wants* them. But who really needs them?
The US Commerce Dept asked for market studies. ICANN did not deliver.
New TLD’s may launch. They even sell to naive buyers. But whether users will use them is still an unanswered question.
How many names in myriad TLD extensions does a company need to purchase to represent a single or single set of IP addresses?
Wait for it. ICANN has the answer…
@ George Kirikos, Let me call you out publicly that I have begged you to write the concerned US agencies, and you said, “But I’m Canadian – they don’t want to hear from me!”
Have a little empathy for your neighbors to the South! Not many graduate knowing how to put two sentences together down here!
Everybody who comments on this thread, this is what you do:
1. Type your thoughts or copy and paste one of your comments.
2. Run them through the Office Word spell checker.
Name and address at the top; that’s your header. Date, and name and address of the party you’re writing on the left. Salutation is Dear so and so.
3. Print out your comment. Everybody must have a printer! I don’t know how you can operate without a printer/copy machine in your house! Nice Lexmark inkjet for sale at Fry’s for $25.00.
4. Sign it.
5. Put it in an envelope and address it:
Mr. Lawrence E. Strickling
Assistant Secretary for Communications
U.S. Department of Commerce / NTIA
Herbert C. Hoover Building (HCHB)
1401 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20230
Mr. James Tierney
Chief
Networks and Technology Section of the Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
US President Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500
Everybody here who articulates concern, you speak well, and you should write the above entities, or write one, and copy the other two. That is what I mean. You have an obligation to make your voice be heard! Just copy your comment here, and say, “These are my thoughts.”
FTC Warns That Rapid Expansion of Internet Domain Name System Could Leave Consumers More Vulnerable to Online Fraud
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2011/12/icann.shtm
FTC List of Suggestions to ICANN
*strengthen ICANN’s contractual compliance program, in particular by hiring additional compliance staff;
*develop a new ongoing program to monitor consumer issues that arise during the first round of implementing the new gTLD program;
*assess each new proposed generic top level domain’s risk of consumer harm as part of the evaluation and approval process;
*improve the accuracy of Whois data, including by imposing a registrant verification requirement.
Suggestions that actually make sense? You’re talking to ICANN, here.
Even @ MHB wouldn’t be against these restraints.
I think the whois verification duty placed on the registrars are going to get a push back by the registrars.
If they are forced to do more work to verify identities for each registration costs of registrations are going to go up and if ICANN adopts it for the new gTLD’s the FTC will push for it to be applied on all extensions including .com.
Personally I never use privacy and have no problem taking ownership of any of the domains we own so Its fine with me, but expect to pay more
“I never use privacy and have no problem taking ownership of any of the domains we own ”
Me too I got nothing to hide
whois is such an old, tired topic. sorry ftc but you missed your chance to comment. where were you on the listservs back in the 90’s?
not.
if registrars like godaddy go our of business because their customers can’t mask their identity whose loss is that? the consumer’s?
not.
if sopa fragments centralised dns or even resigns it to irrelevance, whose loss if that? the consumer’s?
nope.
It is reasonable for agencies to comment at this late date, since ICANN buries important notices for public comment in superflous information, ignores what dissenting opinions there are, and post notices at holiday time, in order to push through its agendas.
There is a case to be made ICANN doesn’t advertise notices for public comment on important issues properly; therefore the process surrounding gTLDs could be assessed.
Oh-oh.
Expanding domain names poses risks for consumers, says Klobuchar
http://hometownsource.com/2011/12/23/expanding-domain-names-poses-risks-for-consumers-says-klobuchar