We wrote a post back on January 3rd about ICANN annual report.
In chatting about ICANN plan to introduce hundreds or maybe thousands of new extension I commented, that in my opinion, the is little demand for the new extensions and that its seemed to be driven by ICANN to generate additional revenue.
Kieren McCarthy, General manager of public participation, for ICANN has responded to the post and due to the importance of the response and the fact that ICANN rarely responds publicly, I have put this discussion into this new post.
Kieren stated to us in response to our post:
“””””This motive that is ascribed to why ICANN is creating new generic top-level domains – to make money – simply isn’t true.
ICANN is a not-for-profit organization. The whole process has been specifically and explicitly set up to ensure that it is “revenue-neutral” i.e. that ICANN as an organization doesn’t make money from it.
ICANN’s budget is reviewed and agreed to by its community – and you – any of you – are entitled to comment on it each year, as well as define what ICANN should spend the money on.
When ICANN recently took in more money than was in the budget, it responded by lowering the per-domain fee it charges registrars.
It is perhaps only natural when a large chunk of the domain name market is now focused on making profit with the product itself (the domain name) largely irrelevant beyond its value, that ICANN will be judged to be following the same pattern.
It is not the case however. The new gTLD process was devised by the Internet community itself over several years.
ICANN as an organization is carrying out the wishes of a consensus policy arrived at through discussion with businesses, governments, the technical community and civil society.
In short: ICANN is demonstrably not in it for the money.
Cheers””””””
I responded to Kieren’s comments as follows:
“””””Kieren
Thanks for your response, but when you say this new gTLD process was devised by the Internet community itself, where was the demand for these new gTLD’s demonstrated?
I have been to every domain conference since the first TRAFFIC show years ago, meet with large domain holders, parking companies, representatives of Google and Yahoo, and I never heard one person ask for or discuss the need for any new domains, (other than .xxx) much less hundreds or thousands of new extensions.
If ICANN is not “in it for the money” will the new gTLD’s be revenue neutral to ICANN?
Will the fees generated by the new extension in either application fees or registration fees paid to ICANN per new gTLD registrations, not increase ICANN budget?How can money not be an issue when the proposal will raise so much of it?””””
Mr. McCarthy then responded as follows:
“””””Hi MHB,
“Where was the demand for these new gTLDs demonstrated?”
It was demonstrated in the previous two rounds of gTLD extensions in 2000 and 2003.
In both those cases, the number of new Internet extensions was purposefully limited so that their impact on the Internet could be carefully assessed. In both cases, despite everything knowing there would be a tight limit, there were many more applications that applications approved.
The 2000 round details are here: http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/app-index.htm
The 2003 round details are here:
http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/stld-apps-19mar04/
It has always been the case that ICANN is going to expand the Internet domain space in line with its remit to promote competition on the Internet. But things were done slowly and carefully.
The difference in 2008 is that with the lessons learnt from the two previous rounds that a new system was developed in which there would be no arbitrary limit on new gTLDs.
The policy took roughly two years to develop, and then the implementation of that policy has taken around one year. It is that implementation process that is currently out for review by the whole Internet community.
Will the new gTLD’s be revenue neutral to ICANN?
The application process will be. But that leads to your next question:
“””Will the fees generated by the new extension in either application fees or registration fees paid to ICANN per new gTLD registrations, not increase ICANN budget?
It depends. ICANN has estimated that there will be 500 applications. If there are fewer, ICANN will be out of pocket. If there are more ICANN will have extra money.
Will the extra fees paid for by the new gTLDs increase ICANN’s budget? Yes. But at the same time there will be greatly increased costs in administering those new registries.
If, even with the extra costs, ICANN makes more money than its budget, it will do one of two things (both of which are explicitly stated in the Applicant Guidebook for new gTLDs).
ICANN will either lower per-domain fees; or it will consult with the community on what should be done with the extra money. It may do both.
Why “consult with the community”?
Because ICANN is a community and it is the community that ultimately decides what to do. If ICANN’s staff was to say “we will do this with any extra funds”, we would be asked to explain how we had come to that decision without consulting the community.
So, assuming ICANN does have more money at the end of this process – which is probable but nowhere near definite – we will have to ask people to come up with ideas on how to use the money.
One idea that I personally like – although it can be expected that parts of the community will not like – is to set up a foundation similar to that which Nominet has set up in the UK and disperse funds on community-based programs that expand Internet use.
I would also like to see extra funds going to charities that promote Internet use and I would like to see funds going to getting people online – in Africa in particular.
And I would like to see a greatly increased budget within ICANN for expanding participation in our processes – because that would make my job 1,000 times easier.
But there are personal preferences. It will be for the wider community to decide.
I hope that answers your questions.
Kieren McCarthy
General manager of public participation, ICANN””””””
Well we have to applaud Kieren for coming in and explaining ICANN position on the issue.
Matter of fact I think this is the best and most detailed explanation I have seen from ICANN, anywhere, on the new gTLD’s, including their own material.
The fact that ICANN is now engaging people in discussions is a very positive step.
If you would like to ask questions to a representative of ICANN or make any additional comment, do it here and on the original post as well.
Michael, Paul Levins responded to one of my posts about the new TLDs and a couple of the comments, but didn’t respond to the most recent comment asking pointed questions. You might find his responses interesting:
http://domainnamewire.com/2009/01/05/icann-advertises-to-the-mainstream-update-on-new-tlds/
Andrew
Thanks
ICANN is totally in it for the money. They are corrupt and need to be replaced. The new gTLDs are a money grab – plain and simple.
Further proof of ICANN greed is their agreement with Verisign allowing them to jack up prices every year. It seems ICANN is setting itself up to make more and more money every year – but its not about money?
@ tony – to be fair, the VeriSign price increases were basically part of a legal settlement. I don’t like it, but they didn’t do it for the fun of it.
@ Tony K: VeriSign is indeed entitled to raise prices by, I believe, seven per cent each year. But ICANN doesn’t make any extra money per domain – it still has the same per domain fee.
It’s about a free market. If VeriSign was to see people dropping their dotcoms because of price rises, it would be forced to lower its prices.
Now you may disagree with the percentage but that is something that is open to debate. In pure money terms, VeriSign would probably be able to make more money if it charged much more for domains that had a greater value. So, for example, how much do you think Google would pay to retain Google.com?
That’s not the market in place for domains – thanks in no small part to ICANN. But without constraints I could easily see VeriSign raising the price of dotcom domains to $20 and still retaining a significant percentage of registrations – certainly enough to make up for the loss in revenue from lapsed registrations.
So, the agreement ICANN reached with VeriSign (and with the US government) was that it was entitled to raise its price by a certain percentage each year.
There was an enormous amount of discussion over what those controls should be at the time – but what exists at the moment is certainly a lot better in terms of cost to the consumer that it would be if VeriSign were free to set its own prices.
Anyway your point was that the VeriSign agreement is “proof of ICANN’s greed”. You are simply wrong in that assertion. ICANN’s fee does not increase in line with any VeriSign increases.
Please see my comments reproduced above about what ICANN would do with any extra funds if in fact they do appear from the new gTLD process.
Cheers
Kieren
Kieren–
I appreciate your comments – but you are right that this suggestion will not be liked:
“One idea that I personally like – although it can be expected that parts of the community will not like – is to set up a foundation similar to that which Nominet has set up in the UK and disperse funds on community-based programs that expand Internet use.”
When ICA objected to the Revised proposed Agreement for .xxx in our comment letter of February 5, 2007, one of the major reasons was a similar proposal —
“The RPA would set a number of extremely undesirable precedents, including–
• Requiring registrants to involuntarily contribute, through a designated “tax” built into their registry fee, to specified public interest organizations based upon the nature of the content hosted at their domain name… we object strenuously to establishing the precedent that DN registrants can be required to provide financial support to any third party organization as a component of their DN registry fee, regardless of how laudable the organization’s activities. Registrant fees should be properly restricted solely to supporting the registry operator’s costs of maintaining a secure and accurate database. If .XXX registrants intending to engage in legal activities can be required to fund hotlines, technology developments, and educational efforts directed against illegal activities they neither promote nor engage in, what logical argument can there be against requiring the same of all other registrants who provide adult content at other TLDs? Similarly, if the good cause of child online safety can be used to extract mandatory financial support, what other promoters of good causes will petition ICANN to mandate similar involuntary contributions to their efforts in future TLD agreements? Will the websites of corporations that manufacture tobacco products as well as websites that feature ads for those products be required to support anti-smoking and cancer research organizations? How about automakers and auto ads and global warming? Fast food restaurant chains and good nutrition and anti-obesity campaigns? Video games and youth violence? The meat and fur industries and animal rights? The list of potential supplicants is as long as the organizations which pursue “good causes”. Once ICANN establishes the precedent that registrant fees can include mandatory contributions to organizations who have claimed, however tenuously, that the registrant bears some responsibility for the ill it seeks to cure it will have opened the floodgates to being looked to as a funding source for them… such contributions should be entirely voluntary and separate from the fee that registrants pay to acquire a DN. The administration of the DNS system does not confer upon ICANN any right to engage in or authorize quasi-taxation activities that require registrants to fund activities that bear no direct relationship to the technical costs of maintaining a particular TLD. ”
The ICA has not altered its position since sending that letter. Our view is quite simple– whether it’s application fees for new gTLDs or registration fees for domains, the cost should reflect the price of providing the service, period. Any excess should be returned to applicants or used to lower fees in the future. Once the door is opened to building “taxes” for “good causes” into these charges their will be no end of suggestions for doing so, and no limit to the improper costs that may be imposed on applicants and registrants.
If ICANN has estimates there needs to be at least 500 new gTLD applications to break even, anything less will be out of pocket, will that require a registration base increase to cover the mistake? I would be interested to see 500 applicants provide the high cost during the current global economy.
Also, is ICANN’s position that .com should be reduced in influence by allowing VeriSign to annually raise rates which will become burdensome to .com portfolios while furthering the creation of hundreds of new gTLD? That seems odd since the global internet community have embraced both the .com and ccTLDs. We need simplicity in direct navigation, something that can be embraced by the larger audience. Understanding what is a global brand moves people under their own guidance.
We currently have a great system in place. Use direct navigation to get to a destination or use a search engine to filter the billions of pages on the net. Are we really going to get billions of people to learn thousands of more TLD? In the bigger picture it just does not make sense.
Michael
I think you make a great point, moreover if 500 applications were actually received for new gTLDs at $185K per, that would bring in $92.5 million in application fees, which is equivalent to 150% of ICANN’s current operating budget.
I will put the money argument to the side for the moment. Kieren, you reference that the demand for more TLD’s in 2000 and 2003 drove the demand for these new TLD’s today. I find fault in this demand analysis.
1) The applications come from primarily for-profit entities, so even though ICANN’s goal may not be for profit but rather for more competition, the underlying goal of the applicants overrides your purpose of these new TLD’s. In my opinion, the applicants are applying not based on a demand from the consumer for more domain TLD’s, which would be a worthy competitive source, but rather for demand from the speculators that these applicants can garner a fee and commission from. (The exception to this are the IDN TLD’s, for which there is much more natural interest from countries, non-profit’s, and governments that are looking to move beyond the language barrier for the good of the Internet, not for profit from consumers. IDN TLDs should be pushed through.)
2) The performance of these new TLD’s since 2000 and 2003 needs to be taken into account. As a general analysis, I see very few domains under those 2000/2003 TLD’s that are competitively used today, 5-8 years later. I think the performance of these new TLD’s needs to be taken into account. Not just performance in terms of number of initial and total sales (which we all know are skewed by speculation, squatters, spammers, etc.), but by the traffic generated by the sites due to true interest. Unfortunately, true interest is difficult to define and quantify. Fortunately, Google and other companies are working hard in the business of creating algorithms to determine worthiness of a site. We should be using a combination of these value assessors to determine the performance of those 2000/2003 TLD’s to help determine the true demand from the consumer for these new TLD’s.
In conclusion, as I have stated before, I am in favor of new TLD’s over time if they are implemented for better rather than for worse. With these TLD releases on the back of unproven results, I fear these have a great chance of being implemented for the worse. The demand is coming from the wrong people, the TLD applicants and their domaining followers, rather than where the true demand should come from, the end user on the web site. The nature of this tiered domain setup is that ICANN is listening to demand from the middlemen who are in it for the commission rather that from the end user who actually use the product. This is similar to having the stock broker determine which stocks are listed on the exchange rather than the investment banker. There is a reason a Chinese Wall was put up in Investment Banks; to prevent commission earners from determining the structure of the market. The job of the investment banker is to find the companies for which there is a lot of demand by the consumer and take them public; take them to the next level. Perhaps ICANN needs to seek advice from Investment Bankers, or more preferably create an Internet derivation thereof.
there no need to much new TLD domain, if in 2009 got 500 new domain then major cor need to pay more than $5000 to register all and it will cause confuse for new domainer and bring confuse for people who not always using the internet
@ Michael Castello and MHB:
There is a much fuller explanation than I will be able to give here on the application fee and number of applications in an explanatory memo on this specific issue.
You can find that memo here: http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/cost-considerations-23oct08-en.pdf
The relevant part wrt the 500 applications is this: “The total expected fees to ICANN for evaluating and processing new gTLD applications will represent a large sum. If ICANN receives 500 applications in the first round (as forecast), the total fees to ICANN would be approximately $92,500,000 for the first application round. What does ICANN intend to do with this amount of money? The fee income will be used to pay for the approximately $92,500,000 in expenses associated
with processing the 500 applications. If all costs were perfectly estimated, after processing all new gTLD applications in the first round (both the simple and the complex), when the last application was fully processed, ICANN fees received less expenses associated with the new gTLD applications would be zero. ”
Wrt the comments about reducing influence or protecting or not protecting the current ways that people navigate the Internet, this has nothing to do with ICANN.
ICANN does not attempt to steer the domain name market in any particular direction. It is simply progressing with an agreed process of increasing competition in the domain name space.
What you have to bear in mind is that ICANN is a decision-making model that includes all the different groups of people that have an interest in the domain name system – and that’s alot of people.
So not only those in the industry – registries and registrars – but also governments, business, the technical community and civil society. All of these people need to agree on a way forward with the ultimate decision made by a Board who representatives are taken from all these different groups.
The difficult part of this process is that it is very hard to get that diverse a group of people agreeing on a way forward. The best part is that the changes made come with the full backing of everyone, which means that decisions are not made according to the latest big trend or money-making model on the Internet but with through a longer-term lens looking at the domain name system overall and over time.
The other good thing about this model is that you – meaning you reading this – are fully entitled to get involved. There is no fee, you don’t need to have anyone’s approval, and you can have an influence sat at your desk if you wish. All you need to do is persuade all the other people – who also all believe that their ideas are a good way forward – that your approach is the best and it will happen.
If you want a guide to how to participate in ICANN, just ask.
Kieren
@ Conor Neu:
Respectively Conor, I disagree.
There is no evidence at all that people want new gTLDs for purely speculative purposes but there is plenty of evidence otherwise.
A well-known example is .berlin. The group behind .berlin have been coming to ICANN meetings for years. They want a community-based top-level domain. And they have got the backing of local government and, I believe, business groups, in Berlin.
I know of another one – .fam. They want a TLD based entirely around the family and in fact have produced a wealth of information and a video explaining precisely their vision. This has nothing to do with speculation.
Another group wants .cym in order to promote and push content written in Welsh. Nothing to do with speculation.
There are a whole range of people that have already gone public with their plans – and none of them fit your claim.
I would also argue that your analysis of the TLDs created in 2000 and 2003 is way off the mark.
And I would note that one of the big determinants of Google ranking is actually the domain name itself. And I would note that Google is just one company providing one service. The fact that the Internet’s structure did not bend itself to fit around the previous view of how the Internet worked is exactly what enabled Google to become Google.
And by not focussing on the current view of the Internet but merely recognising that the Internet is at its most powerful when it gives people the freedom to expand in whatever direction they wish, then we can expect to see the next Google. And the next Google after that.
But all of this is just a personal view from someone whose job it is to get people involved in ICANN’s processes. It is not ICANN staff but the community that decides what happens to the domain name system. And those changes will have little impact with the people out there in the world doing terrific things with the Internet.
The domain name system is an enabler, not a determiner.
Another quick comment – the ex-CEO of Global Name Registry, which runs .name – told me that he welcomed new gTLDs. He wanted more competition. And his reasoning was that the average consumer simply didn’t realise that there were domain names beyond dotcom, dotnet and what the country code was from the country they lived in.
His feeling was that as soon as the average person realises that they can have a .football or .car or .hair or .bank or .newyork or .friends, then he will be able to sell the uniqueness of his domains – .name.
Then a new form of competition would exist between registries where they have to fight for customers – make it easier to set up a website, provide free software, offer e-commerce options or design, who knows? At the moment, that level of competition only exists between registrars – which has led to an extraordinary depth of services at a range of prices. When registries compete more, well then we will see a whole new world of Internet ideas and services.
Kieren
Hi Kieren, thank you for the response.
I would have to argue that your examples of associations such as the .berlin group are still examples of the middleman requesting the domains. You believe that there is interest from business groups in Berlin? Should not that be a huge factor that ICANN is fully aware of? Demand from the end user should be the driving factor, not a minor extra point. I would guess that the .fam and .cyn TLDs have very little demand from the public (.cyn maybe…again, I am in favor of TLDs for languages, especially IDN’s). Even though the .fam association may pass themselves off as doing it for the good of the people, where are the people that want it?
I agree that using only Google to analyze worthiness of a web site is wrong, however I do not see any other tools out that that seem to want to drive traffic toward any domains on the 2000/2003 TLDs. Why? Because there are not enough good web sites developed on those domains.
This brings me to another point. You seem to argue that adding a whole lot more TLDs will make the public more aware of these TLDs. I would have to disagree. While the end web site user may not be entirely aware, I do think the web site creators and domain owners are aware. Anyone who goes to register a new domain for their web site is flooded with the opportunity to buy non .com TLD domains by the registrars. Adding more TLD’s will not help the .name TLD succeed. Creating great domains on the .name TLD will. Selling the .name TLD brand has not worked thus far and I do not think it is because of the lack of domain owner awareness of that TLD, but rather the domain owners avoiding the TLD knowing that the public will not use the TLD.
Now, I do not want to sound like I am opposed to all and any new TLDs. I think the .biz TLD was a great decision to add (was that 2000?). It has flourished. I am just opposed to flooding the market with new TLDs as the solution to public awareness of these TLDs based on the demand of the middleman. There are new TLDs that should be added, specifically IDN TLDs. I think littering the Internet is wrong and we should be careful with how these things are added. If these new TLDs create even one more way for a spammer or phisher or cybersquatter to succeed, than I think that negates the entire positive side created by those who actually use the TLDs.
@ Conor Neu:
Hi Conor – thanks for your response but I’m afraid I’m not persuaded by your arguments.
The reality is that markets are created by businesses and entrepreneurs – not people suddenly banding together in a collective effort. Entrepreneurs identify what they believe is a need that is not being met and take a risk. That’s how markets work.
And the new gTLD process gives that entrepreneurial spirit a big opening. That has to be a good thing. After all, it is exactly that process that enabled the Internet to be what it is – who could have imagined that eBay would work? Or that Wikipedia would work?
You are looking at things from how it is right now. You want a domain, you go to a registrar, they give you a long list of possible TLD choices. More TLDs means a longer list in a drop-down menu.
But is there any reason in the world why this should be the way in which you register a domain?
What if Apple applied for and was awarded “.mac”? What if with every purchase of an Apple computer it gave you your own .mac domain? You take a voucher out of the box, type in the code at a specific website and enter the domain that you want. If it’s not gone already, you’ve your own .mac domain name. And there you have it – Apple picks up the cost because it can see the enormous value in having its customers all working through .mac top-level domains.
What if every .blog domain came with an automatic WordPress installation? And how would you register that .blog domain? Would you go to GoDaddy and type in “conorneu” and then scroll down the list until you hit .blog? No. You would click on an ad on some site somewhere on the Internet put there through affiliate marketing. That ad would let you register a .blog domain straight off – no need to go through menus.
These are just two ideas that I have come up with sat at my desk. I’m a man, in my 30s and English. What ideas will a woman in her 50s in Japan come up with?
With regard to your last point and where I think at lot of your concern comes from: “If these new TLDs create even one more way for a spammer or phisher or cybersquatter to succeed, than I think that negates the entire positive side created by those who actually use the TLDs.”
I understand your perspective, and the technical community and ICANN (and businesses, and governments and consumer groups) will continue to do all it can to ensure the security and stability of the Internet.
But you’re missing the point. If the people that created the Internet had worried about every possible risk associated with creating a network of computers before they started building it, then the Internet would not exist.
A fundamental – possibly the fundamental – human trait that has been behind mankind’s advancement as a race is the willingness to jump into the unknown. Without that we would not have airplanes, we would not have found new continents, we would certainly never have put a man on the moon and we most definitely would not have had an Internet.
The new gTLD process is not even close to that level of risk. Rather than jumping on a ship and heading off into the sunset, this is more like crossing a river where you can already see the other side, with a map and instructions drawn up by everyone that lives on your side of the river.
But I tell you what, as the Internet does continue to grow and expand itself and into our lives, there will inevitable be new ways in which criminals try to make a living. If you get involved with ICANN, if you participate in its meetings and debates, you can join the many thousands of people that are already a part of the organization and who dedicate themselves to making sure that the Internet continues to work in the broader interests of society and the world.
If the downside to all the upsides worries you, join the people that work every day to make sure those downsides are kept as small as possible.
Kieren
Hi Kieren, IMHO Conor has made some strong points backing up his argument in last two posts.
The only thing that I think is holding you from agreeing to these points, is of you being associated wit ICANN at this time.
Conor very rightly said that demands always analyzed by the need of end user and not a middlemen or middle companies who are just there for their cut of profit.
Public opinion plays a MAJOR role, and trust me analysis 2001 -2003 demand needs to be re-analyzed, for that matter taking public opinion into consideration and not just middlemen demanding for more to jack up their profits.
Releasing extensions like .parking .domain again doesnt really make sense to me. It would definitely make sense to very thin group of people who are in the business relevant to that particular extension. For example if ICANN was to launch an extension like .parking, who would be really be interested in it? Vehicle Parking firms? Domain Parking companies, maybe? I failed to identify any other companies or end users interested in that particular ext. Can you find some?
Guys
First I would like Kieren for answering all the questions and posts. Up to this point I know many of us have looked at ICANN as being unresponsive to domainers questions and concerns.
The fact that Kieren has responded to many readers and myself is greatly appreciated.
I think what many of the readers are saying, and if not, what I’m saying is that all of the new top level domains introduced over the last few years have been busts.
.biz, a bust (We own internet.biz)
.info, a major destination for spam and phishing
.travel, a non event
.mobi dying a slow painful death.
.aero, grounded.
.coop, is there any of these domains registered?
.pro, DOA
This is the track record.
And we need 500 more of these?
If ICANN’s position is we don’t care if they are successful or not, its not our problem, then so be it; but its hard to see the demand for these extensions by end users or how the new extensions are going to move the internet forward if all it does is create 500 failed extensions.
@ ParkingFirm:
I responded to Conor Neu and I think I cover most of your points (my comment is above yours as I think we were both writing comments at the same time).
Wrt your comment: “The only thing that I think is holding you from agreeing to these points, is of you being associated with ICANN at this time.”
In fact, it’s quite the opposite. Quite a number of the community dislike any ICANN staff member from expressing an opinion or view one way or another. I have purposefully stated that these are my personal views so that they are mistaken to be the view of the organization itself.
ICANN staff collectively do not have a view one way of another – we are simply carrying out the wishes of the community and the Board to the best of our ability.
I choose to express my view because I think this sort of dialogue is extremely healthy. And of course because I love to think out the possibilities and imagine where the Internet is going next.
Kieren
@ MHB
Well, I’m with you on the fact that many of the newish gTLDs have not lived up to the promise that everyone thought they showed.
It would be interesting to interview all the people that are/were behind them and see what lessons they have learned, and what mistakes they feel they made.
But I do think it’s a huge misjudgment to assume that because these domains haven’t taken off in the way people thought they would, that any new gTLDs will also disappoint.
The Internet continues to change at an incredible rate. Five years ago, for example, only half my family had email addresses. Now half my family has websites. The Internet is only going to get bigger and more entrenched in our lives, and that means that the domain name system will need to do the same.
No matter how many Googles you have, you still need addresses on which to put information.
And the domain name system *is* growing massively – what gTLD owners need to do is learn from others that have been more successful – particularly the country-code operators.
There is nothing inherently striking in .uk or .de that would make you want to have that domain. Except of course that Nominet and Denic have been very focussed on their particular markets and offered a great service, a great name and brand.
They have also tried different models. Many of the gTLDs have tried – to my mind at least – to be mini-dotcoms. I think that some of them will say that in hindsight that was a mistake. I don’t know – I’d be interested in what they had to say.
The other side of this is that you are looking at TLDs being a success or failure from the number registered. Well, for every Wal-Mart there are thousands of small community shops. Alot of people prefer those small shops and alot of the shopkeepers are very happy with their living running their small shop.
That’s the huge, impossible thing about the Internet – it is many things at the same time.
Kieren
Kieren
Again thanks for your comment and instead of calling me MHB, its Michael
Michael Berkens to be exact.
Kieren
On a whole different issue, let’s talk about sex.
.sex or .xxx to be exact.
As a holder of many adult extensions I’m seriously considering an application for an extension be it .sex, .xxx or .adult or something along these lines.
Without recounting all the details involved in the .xxx application, bottom line it was rejected on “moral” grounds.
Before asking a bunch of people to pony up $185k each to see if ICANN will approve any adult extension, shouldn’t ICANN out of fairness to all, make an announcement if such an extension will be accepted or not?
Hi Kieren,
First of all thank you for all of the responses. This is extremely healthy dialogue in my opinion.
I am entirely in agreement of venturing into the unknown for change and innovation. I do not see these new TLDs fitting that mode at all. They were a great idea to try out 5 and 10 years ago that have not proven to be any platform for innovation so far. Even TLDs made for technological innovation such as .mobi are not being built upon or used. If adding new TLDs on top of failed ones is the best platform for improvement on the Internet that ICANN can create, then I am dissapointed with ICANN’s ability to innovate.
To throw another point into this discussion, which I am unsure of the current policy on, what happens if these new TLDs are failures? What happens if they encourage more bad then good? For instance the Hong Kong TLDs (.hk and .co.hk) have been proven to be a major source of phishing fraud. Has ICANN shut down that TLD or taken action against these crimes? Will ICANN police the new TLDs that are created as well? We must accept responsibility for our creations.
I would like to finish by responding to your call to action. I wholeheartedly agree that we all need to be involved in this process. Unfortunately, we also have businesses to run and work to do. This is why I really appreciate your effort to interact on these forums for feedback from the community. You act as a congressman for all of us, taking our views into account and voicing them within ICANN. Hopefully more within ICANN do the same.
@ Michael:
Now that’s an excellent question re: .xxx.
It certainly wasn’t rejected on moral grounds. I think I’m right in saying that the Board rejected it because it said the application hadn’t met the sponsorship criteria that was needed for this particular round of TLDs – which were given their own specific “sTLD” acronym.
If you want you can read ICANN’s full explanation in a letter sent to the Independent Review Panel. I think this issue is still ongoing.
The page you want is here: http://www.icann.org/en/irp/icm-v-icann.htm
Now, would a .xxx application be approved this time around? Well, if it didn’t fall foul of any of the checks and balances in the Applicant Guidebook then yes. The most likely issue I could foresee is that different groups would object to it after the application was put in. And they would most likely use the morality and public order clauses in the guidebook. It would then go to an independent review panel.
Or it could be that someone has a trademark in “xxx” and they try to assert that.
But I have no way of knowing and this is just speculation – I only know as much as you do by reading the Applicant Guidebook.
Wrt the $185,000 fee, a certain percentage of that would be returned if the application was rejected, depending on how far along the process it had gone.
So the answer is: I don’t know. But I hope I have been able to provide some information on the process.
Kieren
@ Conor:
In all seriousness Conor, I would be interested in devising ways in which people like yourself who are busy and do have day-jobs are able to keep up-to-date with ICANN and also put your points forward.
Please feel free to paint a perfect scenario of how you could participate in ICANN and I will see what I can do to get there.
Kieren
Kieren
So you saying if I spend $185K for an application for .sex or .xxx and the US department of Commerece or some religous group objects and all the application for such extensions are denied I will get “a certain percentage of that returned”, would that be 99% of the application fee or 1%?
You can assume that no .xxx trademark exists and there will be plenty of groups opposed to it.
@ Michael:
Well, any objection would go through an independent review process. So if after that, the application was denied then yes a certain percentage would be returned.
Those percentages are still being discussed as far as I’m aware. The most I can offer in that respect is a response to the same question when it was raised recently in Cairo:
http://www.icann.org/en/participate/cairo-public-forum-response.html#refunds
How much will the refunds be and in what cases will refunds happen? (AP)*
ICANN Staff response: The issue of refunds is still being reviewed – and so we would welcome community feedback on it. However, current thinking points to a percentage refund based on how far an application proceeds through the stages outlined in the guidebook.
There are three obvious points in which an application may be halted as part of the review process and current thinking is that a diminishing percentange of the application fee based on which stage an application has reached would be the fairest way to proceed. That approach is tentative at this change however and we welcome and encourage community feedback on the issue. You can email your comments on this issue directly to: gtld-intro@icann.org.
Kieren
Kieren
Not to pick at you, because it is clearly out of your control, but it seems like it is a “play at your own risk” type of deal.
I have NP with an application denied at the applicant level, i.e., applicant is a know sex offender, offering to run a child registration site, but if as a matter of policy if ICANN is going to reject a $185K application on the basis of a religious, or philosophical or US government based arguments, then ICANN should say so before the money comes pouring in.
I have to say I’ve been against the idea of a massive new tld release from day one. I decidedly sit on the marketing side of things though.
I think your average person needs to be able to look at a name and know if its a web address. Name means name and name.com means its a website. simple! Good arguments can be made for country specific or language specific tlds, but once you make anything.anything an address theres no longer any correlation to the end user what they are seeing.
Realistically I forsee 450+ of these 500 gtld’s failing as there simply isn’t real demand to support them. The remaining tld’s will draw registration dollars away from the barely surviving tld’s now. (maybe some restructuring is a good thing?) As an end user I know I won’t spend any more on extra names just because I can. The same budget is there, it just might be spent differently.
The real question that arises is what happens to the ever growing price of my current registrations if a significant portion of these new tld’s fail. Will the failure of .fam drive up the cost of .com?
if people in berlin want to have a .berlin, can’t they all get together and create their own namespace without ICANN. . . or am I missing something here ?
btw ICANN is super lucky to have scored Kieren . . . which should be totally obvious in this thread.
Adam
Unless ICANN approved the extension would not be added to the root servers.
Kieren,
I agree, I would love to participate more. I think you do a great job with the blog you write on the ICANN site, which I track and read regularly. I have looked at the Public Forum available there also.
Personally, I am not sure what the best solution is for getting more people active. I do think ICANN needs more people like yourself to be active on forums and news boards. ICANN can improve the web by being web experts and using it to the best of the webs abilities. That includes, social media (ICANN twitter, Facebook, Myspace, etc.), blogs, forums, and any other tools available these days in order to reach the mass market and get the most feedback. I also think ICANN (or yourself) could benefit to attend many of the conferences out there (be it Web Marketing, Domaining, SEO, or development, etc) created around Internet development. You may already be doing this, I’m not sure. But it will really put you in touch with the industry leaders and allow you to speak from and to those who put a lot of time, money, and thought into the web.
As for myself, I will try to track and respond as well as possible via these methods of communication. It really comes down to you providing platforms of communication and us to allocate time to communicating. I do hope I am able to do so more. If you ever want to bounce thoughts off me directly, feel free to contact me via email at conor [at] neptuneventure.com.
Regards and thank you for your feedback on these topics,
Conor
A lot of comments above, I will respond to the ones I can recall – please feel free to prod me of there are questions I have missed.
@ Conor: Thank you for the offer of bouncing ideas. In fact I am planning to do alot more of exactly what you outline. I’ll be quite frank – I have been in this job for a year-and-a-half and I have spent most of that time trying to get the communication channels in place so that the organization doesn’t intimidate people that come to it the first time.
It’s still not right but it is much better. Now I think it’s time I went out there and tried to pull in people and explained to them why they should be involved in this process. I have put in a participation budget for the first time for the next fiscal year so that I have some resources to just get out there. So far, I have been restricted to what I personally am able to do, or persuade others to do.
@ graphpaper: I saw an ad on the TV last site for a dating website based in Los Angeles. Its URL – it’s entire business entry point – was something like “date-in-la.com”. That’s not right – which also goes to show that this is a bad URL. My girlfriend – who I have been trying to persuade about the value of new gTLDs – turned to me and said: “Ah, I see. That would be much better if it was ‘la.date'”.
The fact is that once you get your head past the fact that somehow every domain should have a dotcom, the possibilities start opening out. I view this change as inevitable. What I hope is that people work within the ICANN processes to make sure that this process is as effective and efficient as possible.
@ Michael: I don’t agree with your summary of the new gTLD process as a “play at your own risk type of deal”. What does need to be remembered is that you are talking about an entire arm of the domain name system here. It’s not a $6-deal. Of course there is no certainty that you will get a top-level domain but there is rarely any certainty in business when you are talking about significant infrastructure.
Take for example the auction processes for bandwidth across the world. Or what about property development? That is a constant high-risk business. Putting a new product into any fast-moving market is complex and difficult. So none of this is new or destabilising – it is how things are.
BUT the new gTLD process is only a risk in part. If you choose a TLD that is not controversial and/or which is unlikely to have people dispute it such as a trademark or a recognised generic term such as .blog or .news – then you have a good likelihood of success.
ICANN’s job is three-fold in this case: to look after a public good; to ensure competition in the domain name market; and to make sure that the stability and security of the Internet is maintained.
An application that may conflict with one of these goals is going to have a harder time getting approval through the wider Internet community.
The top-level of the Internet is likely to remain safe and conservative at this time – and in the wider scheme of things, that is probably a good thing. When people have difficulty even imagining a world beyond the current crop of dotcoms and dotorgs, the community is probably likely to conclude that now is not the time to expand the top-level to reflect the fullness of society.
And the important point is this: would that stop people being able to freely express themselves online? Not for a second. The second-level is extremely free and open. You can have an enormous array of domain names. And of course you can post whatever you want on any domain.
But this increase in the top-level allows more possibilities, more creativity, more approaches to the Internet and its communication revolution.
So, anyway, my point was: this is not a high-level risk process. There is some risk but the Applicant Guidebook is designed to make it as clear to people as possible the way forward. And of course this whole public comment process is designed to enable people to understand the process better while also spotting possible problems and pre-empting them by suggesting changes.
I think once this is all done, we will all look back and wonder what we were arguing about. Of course it is the argument that will mean the process is done right. Or, at least, not done wrong.
Cheers – and please do get involved in the discussion. There will be big conversations on this in Mexico City on 1-6 March. We will have audio streams and chatrooms and live transcripts of discussions on the Mexico City website at: http://mex.icann.org/.
Kieren
Thank you Kieren. I’m very glad to hear public conversation is being budgeted for. As Adam said, ICANN is very lucky to have landed you as an employee.
Conor
I do agree that .com probably wasn’t the best marketing choice for the concept of (.com = internet) Http:// is even worse. Still the average internet user has had ten years to become accustomed to .com.
If a three second commercial came on that said la-date.com my mom would know what that meant. if it said la.date she’d be outright confused. The only way she would know what that commercial was about is if someone explained to her it was a website. If it said http://la.date she might know but she’d think its a dumb name because of all the added fluff at the beginning.
I’m not saying we should stop these tld’s because of this. la.date might have a strong website someday after millions in marketing and a five to ten year battle to make sure people know what they are. I am saying opening up the way to .date isn’t going to bring immediate attention to the business that a marketer wants. That in turn will limit registrations and renewals enough to make the 100K+ investment in a tld a poor move for all but a few of the best tld ideas.
Outside of the city where I live in every direction theres a stretch of unused land that goes for at least a hundred miles. I’m sure the land isn’t all that expensive, but you dont’ see people buying it up to build houses. Whats someone going to do with a plot of desert when they have to drive an hour and a half to a grocery store?
My real question again is what effect the (possible) failure of a large number of these tld’s will have on the rest of the existing tld’s? In other words, is the cost associated with .date fairly separated from ICANN’s other costs so that if .date goes under it won’t drive up the renewal price of .com .net ect?
Thanks for this interesting discussion. Kieren, fwiw, I think that one of the barriers to communicating with ICANN is a lack of clarity regarding the organisational structure. For example, at the moment potential registrars who are bidding in the current gTLD round can’t take up membership in the GNSO – because they’re not welcome in the non-c0mmerical group, they’re not considered to be registrars yet by the registrar group, and they’re not considered to be businesses by the commercial & business group…!
After you spend a while debating with the points of contacts for those groups, and then try and find out who you should be talking to in ICANN, where it seems to be that the problem has been identified but not acted on, and no-one seems sure who is or will be responsible for acting upon it…
You lose the will to live, let alone to explore further channels of communication with ICANN…;-)
There are no simple answers – but some kind of properly identified and promoted initial point of contact for all questions might be a start…
***
In terms of what has been said above about the lack of consumer demand – as I think Kieren has implied – you can’t measure consumer demand for non-existent products and services.
No-one sat around thinking ‘Why the heck won’t anyone invent pizza, for heaven’s sake?’ in those dreadful days before pizza.
It’s the job of entrepreneurs, whether they be business entrepreneurs or social entrepreneurs, to take the risks of creating new products and services in order for us to be able to see if there is a consumer demand or not.
Groups like .berlin and .cym should be thanked for taking the financial risks to open up new possibilities for their potential end users.
UPDATE
It appears ICANN is in it for the money and they just lost a bunch of it in the Stock market
http://www.thedomains.com/2009/02/03/icann-losses-46-million-of-your-money-in-the-stock-market/