The New CEO of ICANN Rod Beckstrom Posted a “Message From The CEO” on ICANN site a few days ago.
We welcome Mr Beckstrom to his new position and agree with him when he says:
“”In the end, every single name must be unique and only one party can own it.””
True.
ICANN, WIPO, trademark holders disputes, UDRP’s, The IRT, the URS all summarized perfectly in one sentence by Mr. Beckstrom.
Only one party can own it.
Now as to the two points in this message that causes me some consternation:
In discussing the new g’TLD’s, Mr. Beckstrom says:
“””The Internet has historically thrived whenever the system is opened up further to allow users to express their creativity and innovation. We are now working on opening up the top-level domains so that not only nations but also other peoples and groups can have a unique identity on the Internet.
For example, the chief of the Zulu tribe, His Majesty King Goodwill Zwelithini kaBhekuzulu, recently sent a letter notifying us of his intent to register the dot-zulu domain name so that different but related businesses and other groups can be linked by their domain name to the entire Zulu community. According to His Majesty, “We believe that the .Zulu TLD, as conceived and proposed by the Dot Zulu Project Inc. represents the best interests of the Zulu community and will be able to provide a viable structure for us as an evolving community.” New York City and the city of Berlin have expressed a similar interest in their own domain names. It is impossible to imagine the possibilities that could occur when these and a multitude of other TLDs are opened.
The ICANN responsibility to support methods for securely introducing new TLDs was specified in the original White Paper that led to our formation. And our original 1998 memorandum of understanding with the U.S. Government stated one of our key responsibilities this way: “Oversight of the policy for determining the circumstances under which new top level domains would be added to the root system.” It went on to say, “The Parties will jointly design, develop, and test the mechanisms, methods, and procedures that will achieve the transition without disrupting the functional operation of the Internet.” According to Chairman of the Board Peter Dengate Thrush, “We are . . . declaring success on these points. It’s been 11 years. We have developed and tested those mechanisms, and we find that they work.””””
He’s the problem that I have with this line of reasoning.
Most importantly what the financial crisis should have taught all of us, is that just because someone want to offer a product for sale, it doesn’t make it a good idea.
Sometimes the sale of certain products can undermine the entire system.
Look at some of the products that Wall Street offered, which in large part lead to the failure of Bear Sterns and Lehman Brothers, products which capitalists offered for sale but which damaged the underlying economic system.
This brings us back to the comments of Mr. Beckstrom.
The question isn’t how many companies want to offer new extensions.
The question is how many end user want to build a site using a .whatever extension.
Yes certain communities can probably show support.
.nyc, .berlin and other cities maybe able to show support by end users for the extension, yet that should be required of any new g’TLD sponsor.
Any new g’TLD application should be required to be accompanied by a showing of support for it, from real people wanting to use the extension to put up a site.
I’m not talking about a Pool.com scenario where largely domainers place their “interest” on a new extension and backorder a .whatever, for no cost and under no obligation.
I’m talking about expression of interests by community members, citizens, end users.
Mr. Beckstrom in discussing ICANN role said:
“”Oversight of the policy for determining the circumstances under which new top level domains would be added to the root system.”… design, develop, and test the mechanisms, methods, and procedures that will achieve the transition without disrupting the functional operation of the Internet”
Mr. Beckstrom goes on to say ICANN has been around for 11 years and its worked so far.
However in 11 years ICANN has only allowed 21 TLD.
Now ICANN is going to allow hundreds or maybe thousands of new extensions in a very short time span.
How does ICANN successful 11 year history with administrating 21 TLD’s going indicate it is prepare or capable of handling hundreds or thousands of new extensions “without disrupting the functional operation of the Internet”?
Certainly an sudden expansion by just doubling the number of extensions could be argued to have substantial likelihood of disruption, but an expansion by 10X the current number, or 30X or more, how can that in and of itself not have the effect of disrupting the operation of the internet, and how can the organization be certain such a plan will not disrupt the operation?
Once again I would call for a much slower roll out of no more than 10 new extensions per year, determined by ICANN to have the most demand for it fro END USERS, not sponsors.
Want to be more aggressive?
How about doubling the number of g’TLD every year?
So we have 21 now; how about 21 new one’s next year, if they go alright without an major problems and the system absorbs then without major issues, then allow 42 new extensions the follow year, and so on and so on.
The second point in Mr. Beckstrom’s message of concern for me is his statement regarding the protection of intellectual property rights:
“As with the acceptance of any innovation, there are areas of concern and friction, and a healthy debate is taking place within the many ICANN stakeholder groups on how to handle the key facets of these new TLDs smoothly. Some of the more interesting debates have centered around protection of intellectual property rights. We have been pleased with the concrete solutions being developed by experts in the intellectual property field“”
My translation is that he IRT committee and the proposed URS is going to get ICANN’s blessing.
ICANN has failed to take into consideration that domains are intellectual property as well.
The IRT, comprised of trademark groups and completely unrepresented by domain holders groups, proposed the URS, to give additional protection to trademark holders.
Well what about our intellectual property?
I can only hope that Mr. Beckstrom realizes that the abuse of intellectual property cuts both ways.
Domain name holders interest in their intellectual property should be of equal importance to ICANN as trademark holders rights to their intellectual property.
Because as Mr. Beckstrom correctly noted:
“In the end, every single name must be unique and only one party can own it”
Excellent article, Michael. These new TLDs need oversite to protect themselves. It won’t take more than a couple of failures to make the public wary of them. To date, there have been some TLDs that have been questionable successes, but none have actually gone bankrupt.
David, I completely agree. It will take 2 to 3 years and unfortunately a few of the new gTLDs will fail. What is the plan when a TLD fails and intellectual property is taken away from the owners? Do you want to operate a business on .whatever when in 2 or 3 years you are mercy to the overall success of the gTLD? What will that cost businesses when they have to completely re-brand because of this? I think this could be a big issue for the TLD expansion. It won’t be seen immediately, but over time can create fear and hesitation for all alternate extensions.
You wrote, “Well what about our intellectual property?”
I’m not sure I understand. This venue has consistently complained about trademark owners overreaching, beyond existing laws, to take away domain names from registrants. See for instance http://www.thedomains.com/2009/07/08/trademark-holders-dont-think-the-urs-proposal-is-tough-enough/.
But now you are suggesting that generic names that don’t even qualify as trademarks should have intellectual property rights as well?
I understand (and agree) that domain names in and of themselves are property, but why are they intellectual property?
Antony
Honestly, it is starting to really appear like Rod gave us some lip service when he seemed to want to include us in on the decision making. It would seem that domain owners won’t get any concessions from him based on his wording. He’s happy with the concrete solutions? Like what?
If this flies, I can see millions of new registrants saying, “Why can’t I get anyone to come to my sites?” It will be the big joke. “You bought what in what extension……LOL! How’s that going for you?” Only a few will make it, the rest will be awash in a sea of failed attempts and subsequent realizations that they should have invested in a .com or .net.
Antony
Sure trademark holders always say that they can have a intellectual property rights in unregistered generic terms just by use of the term:
see:
http://www.thedomains.com/2009/07/13/correction-clarification-on-syfycom-it-did-not-sell-for-250k/
And the comments thereto.
Also in the IRT report they call for a the IP clearing house to be established to secure registered as well as unregistered rights.
So if someone can claim ownership and intellectual property in an unregistered but use term, domain holders should be able to claim the same.
Johnny
The only solution he is pointing to is the URS and the full IRT trademark holders report
@MHT – The rights to intellectual property rights from use of a name is a trademark claim. That is the legal form of that claim. In that case it would make sense (especially if the name is valuable) to assert that claim to the USPTO, or the trademark office of any country for that matter. It would seem to me that doing this would (a) give you standing to object to a new TLD that infringed those rights, (b) inoculate you from other claims, either at a UDRP proceeding or in court, and (c) give you a good chance if you wanted to file a UDRP proceeding against someone else’s use of a second-level domain, perhaps in one of the new TLDs.
In all of these cases, I don’t see a distinction between intellectual property rights asserted by big brands, and those who claim rights in a domain name through use. They’re all trademark claims. So I’m not sure that Rod Beckstrom could recognize one set of rights without recognizing the other.
@MHB – Thank you! for posting about this. Below is my letter to Beckstrom in response to his open letter to the public.
Dear Mr. Beckstrom –
Thank you in advance for accepting the challenge of heading ICANN and concerning yourself with the many interests that ICANN will directly impact over the course of years to come.
I am a domain name investor, website developer, and internet stakeholder. And have been active in ICANN public discussion forums, the ICANN blog, and many other venues across the net pertaining to ICANN’s functions and performance.
You represent, to many of us, a chance at a new and improved ICANN. Without going ballistic, suffice it to say that ICANN have been more than controversial. They have failed, please read that failed, often times in listening to and in implementing needed policy changes that affected a great many individuals and businesses.
From allowing Verisign a monopoly instead of participating in a multi-bidder RFP, to pulling the rug out from under biz/info/org registrants in 2006 after failing to expediently correct an obvious renewal contract flaw, to rushing toward implementation of a new gTLD proposal fraught with complex dilemmas which have been identified by top organizations as risky and problematic.
Needless to say, ICANN require great accountability and U.S. oversight via the DOC. Until ICANN can demonstrate consistent impartiality and act in accordance with greater principles, and not self financial interests, then ICANN have much work to do to establish and maintain credibility with the larger internet community.
I do not envy the challenges ahead of you. However, I am hopeful that you will be instrumental in changing the atmosphere within ICANN, and introducing a level of integrity and objectivity that have largely been absent for years.
Mr. Beckstrom, a last request of utmost importance. I want it shouted from the rooftops that domain name investors & developers are NOT cybersquatters. We are legitimate businessmen & women who are completely within our rights and who support the internet, and ICANN, with millions of dollars in funding and entrepreneurship. We are NOT CYBERSQUATTERS.
ICANN, as well as you as its head, have an obligation to embrace the positive contributions made by domain name registrants. We are your business constituency. Cybersquatting is wrong and we are all working to eliminate it. I find it reprehensible, and obviously factually inaccurate, that domainers have been equated with cybersquatting. It’s past time that a distinction be clearly articulated & the air cleared, regarding the positive activities of lawful & ethical domainers.
Thank you very much for considering these comments. And the best to you in your work.
M. Menius
Menius Enterprises, Inc.
Greensboro, NC, USA
Antony
Correct
Mr. Beckstrom needs to take into account everyone rights, including domain name holders.
Seems like ICANN doesn’t get the good old “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”. The current Tld’s work just fine for the majority (may I say “the important majority”, which also seems to be those who are in it for something more than just flipping, or doing it more than only halfway), and few really want to play with like .biz and .whatnot… Anyone seen, or even booked something from, a .Travel site recently?
How’s a .zulu, .nyc or .WeWantOurOwnTld gonna help anyone? The regular user will still resort to what she/he knows, which is the .CcTld or the .Com.. That’s not my opinion – anyone with just half decent generics where the .Something has been developed knows this from their stats.. Heck, even the real .Org’s suffer from it..
That’s a great letter M. Menius. That sums it up well.
Nobody wants these new gTLDS, nobody needs them; the only ones people are screaming for are IDN versions of the popular existing gTLDS… so as far as I am concerned, they can delay, cancel, kill the new ones.. who gives a sh*t. But FFS bring on the new IDN gTLDS, there’s a genuine need there.
@ M. Menius,
That’s a great letter. In order for it to be more effective, I would suggest that you have someone edit it and correct the grammatical errors (there are many) so you don’t come across as an idiot. I’m not slamming your letter, I agree with every word of it.
Dear MHB,
I enjoyed reading your blog piece above as well as the Menius letter and the rich dialogue in the comments.
Many thanks for helping to move the thoughts and discussions forwards.
There are few simple and clear cut decisions to be made, so the contributions by all parties to the public dicussions and stakeholder processes is much appreciated.
Warmly,
Rod Beckstrom
It seems painfully obvious to me that the gTLD propsal now under consideration is a modern day Pandora’s Box which clearly should not be opened. To do so will cause untold legal litigation, consumer confusion, intellectual property horrors and fraud.
If such a need truly exists, why was .TRAVEL such a flop? Know any firms using .COOP, .MUSEUM, .AERO, .MOBI or .JOBS in lieu of a .COM? Nah, me either.
What makes ICANN think this will be any different? I concur with the above author who worries about the ramifications of a sponsoring gTLD going out of business. With the hig risks involved, that is a realistic concern. Then what? You’ve built up a large enterprise operating under the .FART extension and then, one day it is no longer suported? What company is going to risk that?
Just as ICANN ultimately came to their senses regarding the ramifications and complexities involved in .XXX, it is my hope that they will similarly see the inherent danger involved in opening unlimited TLDs at the same time.
Now there is talk about putting together an international IP Database. What a knee slapper! Mr. Beckstrom and the ICANN Board: the best way to get out of a hole is to stop digging.
I think you are picking the wrong pony in this race. Let them have thousands of new gTLD if they want. Right now domainers have a big bulls-eye on them because of what they own. Only one business can own Columbia.com and that leaves a lot of trademark owner’s with the same name unhappy and getting unhappier by the day. Why not let them have a Columbia.inc or Columbia.records?
Sooner or later they are all going to realize that Columbia.com is the game changer and they MUST have it. So then it becomes a much bigger payout OR you and your company have had more time to profit and leverage. Right now they are the battle ship and most domainers are on a dingy with a treasure chest. Does not look good.
My biggest worry is IDNs. That could reduce global market share to a name like Bullion.com that already has an international audience. If ICANN allows every nation, even those that speak English as a second language, to somehow have the IDN Bullion.com owned and made into a different site then we am a going to lose market reach. Bullion.com should resolve to Bullion.com in every language because most would except to find it at that address in any country as they currently are. It’s like someone from Mumbai sending you a package and it ends up with someone else in India because they now have the same address but in a different language. IDNs have more possibility of long term confusion and reducing our traffic then gTLDs.
Thanks for commenting Rod.
However, I have not seen you mention our concerns and interests yet in any capacity in your communications with any party.
Do you have plans to address our concerns formally with ICANN at some point, and also define the difference between domain investors and cybersquatters?
We need some recognition and clarification, and I don’t see it yet.
Thanks!
Johnny
Great to hear about the .zulu and the opinions of everyone here. I believe niche communities and IDNs are an important step to improving the net. The responsibility of Rod is quite large and the trademark issue is quite complicated IF it is made complicated. Every additional layer of protectionism creates an additional layer of complexity as well as loophole manipulation. Trademarks are crucial but in a global economy there are always grey areas. Trademarks can be abused as indicated in the .eu fiasco. The ONLY way to improve upon a system is to test it and then fix it. The Google approach. Noone can predict the future because only the market knows if something is a winner or not. It always does. There is no way that anyone can solve the trademark issue entirely and there is no way that anyone can solve the copyright issue on the web. You can have policies but you can not solve it. The internet is bigger and faster than all of us.
Let’s talk typosquatting and the big brands. Hasn’t Time Warner, Comcast, Dell, Gateway, Verizon and the almighty Verisign taken advantage of this? Hasn’t the Cameroon government wild-carded the .cm (similar to .com) for typosquatting profit (Wasn’t Yahoo providing them the feed)? Doesnt .tv stand for Tuvalu and not television (99% of the public thinks its television). How about .la (laos). Is that really Los Angeles? How did generic domains like sex.eu and music.eu get trademarked in Sweden under the coconut oil class and verified by Pricewaterhouse Coopers as valid trademarks?
The internet unfortunately can not entirely fixed because it is changing every day at a great rate (faster than any law) and it will continue to do so. Like in any business, the chances are that most gTLDs will be not be overwhelming success stories. However some will thrive if they are innovative.
How can people say that there is no demand and new gTLDs are not needed? You look at .tel which is supposedly innovative (maybe back in 2001 when it was though of but its the 2009 Twitter era today and .tel was released last year!). That is dinosaur technology for the end consumer. People want dynamic up to the minute stuff today. Even newspapers are slow today. The real driving force is the user. Some TLDs will indeed be innovate and some will not. Not all entrepreneurs or gTLDs are created equal. They are all different and all pending execution. So back to the demand issue. I have been working bringing together the global music community the last few years and lobbying at ICANN for .MUSIC. We just crossed the 800,000 signature petition mark and yes indeed, there is global demand from industry organizations, musicians and professionals. Our Music.us community has hundreds of thousands of bands who want their name. So whoever says noone wants gTLDs does not understand what a domain could be with the right execution/business plan, the future of the web and innovation. Please do not offend many gTLD applicants who indeed have a plan that has great potential to work.
I read Rod’s book about starfish and spiders. You all believe centralization is the reality of the web, or is it decentralization? I have been looking at one layer deeper than trademark law with music copyright issues which are critical to the music industry. Does the average user care if they share an intangible, homogeneous files? Its illegal but millions do it. To most it is not theft because there has not been a tangible loss. The piracy issue is a challenge and not much attention is paid to it because the collaborative and social culture of the newer generation. Trademark is important but seriously, why does the internet have to be different than any other area of business? Arent trademarks national and international? Why was the UDRP set up? Why hasnt anyone dealt with Verisign who run the .com 1000 pound gorilla with their issues? If .com is so important and constitutes a big chunk of domains, why arent its issues addressed? Let me guess – is it pre-existing contracts? And if .com works why cant the new gTLD work under a similar system without all these distractions?
I always believed in the Keep It Simple Stupid Ideology. The Internet is too decentralized for universal law. Too many governments, cultures, languages and demographics to put everyone under one umbrella. It is so un-internet. ICANN can not be the policeman and ICANN should now bow to special interest groups who have gamed the system in the past.
I believe the introduction of IDNs ( I am looking forward to having Greek at last!) will be one of the most important milestones on the internet. ICANN has their work cut out for them. They can dig as deep as they want. However when it gets really deep I hope they can build a ladder tall enough to get out of the hole.
Love the discussion from everyone. I am glad we are all talking. I agree with many of the points made. Let us get this thing launched. Then we will have a better idea on how things are progressing. Maybe unlimited gTLDs is not the answer I agree. Huge quantity will undermine quality.
Thanks for listening,
Constantine
.MUSIC/Music.us
P.S Answer me this. What happens when you mix 2010 web users with new complicated laws/systems and the Internet? The answer is….
Constantine
Actually I agree with a lot of what you say.
“The ONLY way to improve upon a system is to test it and then fix it.”
Exactly, this is again why I say that the rollout of the new extensions should be limited, so that it can be fixed before we have hundreds of these out there.
I still suggest no more 2x the number of g’TLD’s that existed in the previous year.
Moreover we still do not have a proven trademark solution to the existing TLD problem, how is this solution going to be “proven” by releasing more TLD’s?
I’m glad you have the support of over 800,000 people for your extension.
I’m saying each applicant needs to show significant support for their proposed extension. There is nothing in any of the guidebook that demands any amount of support by end users be shown.
You ask:
“Trademark is important but seriously, why does the internet have to be different than any other area of business? Arent trademarks national and international?”
The Internet is different because as Mr. Beckstrom said “Every domain is unique and there can be only one.”
SO in the real world you can have 10 products using the same name in every “class” of goods or service, but in the online world there is only .com.
How do you fix what we have?
I know your not going to come up with a balanced solution when you only invite one side to the table to create the rules, which is what happened with the IRT which devised the URS, which is much worse than the UDRP ever was.
http://www.thedomains.com/2009/06/01/hate-udrps-say-hello-to-something-much-worse-the-uniform-rapid-suspension-system-urs/
You can read our comments on the URS here:
http://www.thedomains.com/2009/07/06/our-comments-to-icann-on-the-urs/
This is the same proposal that mr. Beckstrom referred to in his comments the other day.
Finally If you read this blog for a while, I have defended the new g’TLD and I’m on record saying that some of them will be successful as extensions and business models.
I do not think everyone will fail, but many will.
We do not need an internet full of non-used extensions.
Therefore ICANN needs to be selective with the initial rollout to those extensions who have proven interest from end users to establish websites under that extension, and to invite all parties with interests in domains to the table to discuss solutions.
@ Michael Castello
Your logic on IDN’s is flawed.
You say “Bullion.com should resolve to Bullion.com in every language because most would except (sic) to find it at that address”.
You and I have had conversation before. IDN’s were not created so that on opening day all 81 million current dot com domains x 300 languages are given to the English registrant and pointed at the English dot com site. Seeing as every word and phrase is taken in dot com, that is hardly going to help the cause of bringing the internet to non English speaking countries.
Your example of Bullion and user confusion:
If I see written Bullion.com, I know where this will resolve to.
If I see written 地金.com (Japanese for Bullion), this will resolve to a different location.
so there’s no confusion in written form. Maybe you mean verbally/the “radio test”?
Well I can tell you that the English word Bullion and the Japanese term Bullion sound nothing alike.
So there isn’t any confusion verbally or written.
Using your example and your solution, what exactly would a Chinese visitor who cannot read good English do now he’s been re-directed to the “real” Bullion site. It’s not like your site interface serves other languages.
Can I suggest that rather than hope this all goes away, you take some of your own advice and pony up for the domains you are interested in.
Of course this would have been a cheaper exercise 5 years ago, but the Domain Elders were too busy calling anyone who mentioned the acronym IDN, a “moonie” and trashing the value of IDN’s. Clearly you are smarter than they are, as you are concerned about international traffic.
ACtually I think Michael’s idea is great, except for one thing.
He has decided that the English language gets precedence because they were “here first”.
I say the language with the most users gets precedence, because that will cause the least amount of “user confusion”, won’t it?
So the owner of bullion.com in Chinese gets to have the English version. The Rubber Duck will be initiating a transfer request shortly, Michael. Please unlock bullion.com and confirm it when it arrives in your email.
Good night, and thank you for playing.
I have nothing against IDNs. It’s a great idea and will bring in many more users to the internet.
Translation is a two way street. In order for me to register 地金.com I would need to first translate an English word. If there is no reference in the other language there is no harm done. But if there is a match translation then there is a chance for confusion. Look, I am not saying that if I own Italy.com I should have rights to Italia.com, be but when you use cyrillic.ascii there is going to be confusion. Make it cyrillic.cyrillic or ascii.ascii
The end result of what I am worried about is if someone in China IS trying to get to our Bullion.com, will they. That is a fair question.
You can have all the rights you want in .us but .com is global. If you want [bulloin].us in all languages to protect your bullion.us that’s fine. Go talk to the .us guardians.
If you wanted ascii.com to be protected from idn.com you should have sorted it out in 2001. You missed the boat by nearly a decade.
The ASCII vs IDN debate is essentially going away.
IDN cctld fast track for JP CN and RF is locked down based on the media in Japan, China, and Russia..
Verisign is going to use DNAME for making IDN dot com into IDN dot IDN for a dozen languages +. Probably direct mapping for a dozen others.
With regard to gtld’s, again new GTLD’s are going to be ASCII and IDN together from the start.
Very important for Arabic and Urdu because of right to left typing.
but on the domainer risk front:
55% of Japanese watch mobile TV on their 3G phones.
It is called ‘Keitai TV or Keitai Teribi …. teribi being an alliteration of television but shortened etc…
And ‘tv ‘ is very common in ASCII in Japan and elsewhere in the world of course..
I own the 4 possible combinations in dot JP and dot com to own the IDN category for the 2 words in katakana. (used 10X more than kanji on phones )
keitai teribi
keitai tv
ケータイテレビ.com
ケータイテレビ.jp
ケータイtv.jp
ケータイtv.com
As an entrepreneur, I thought grabbing the 4 names was prudent.
I do not intend to sell them or develop them separately.
Am I injuring mobileTV.com or mobile.tv ???
I really doubt it.
Am I injuring in any way mobileTV.jp …in Japanese in their own country ???
No…since generic words can’t be copyrighted there either….
Keitai means mobile, handheld, and also portable .
Every language is going to have its peculiarities.
So will Bullion.com lose Chinese and Japanese traffic…..
I guess a little bit.
but if it were to develop great Chinese and Japanese landing page content …it would have nothing to fear.
the days of search engine ‘ keyword box’ for type in traffic are about to decline a great deal for
English words from foreign language translations on the fly in Asia.
Not so much for European Latin based languages of course…
generic IDN’s will get a lot of that traffic in many cases because Google weights the domain name heavily if there is real and frequently changed content there.
English word dominance ends around the world when the Web is on one’s phone…
2009 : 4 billion mobile phones……500 million truly web-capable
2009: 1 billion PC’s
regards,
Steve
lots of confusion in this thread. . . LOTS
Regarding IDNs, there really isn’t much confusion at all. As most domainers have recently “discovered” with ccTLDs the “natives” or non-English speaking people that comprise 80% of the world population are searching to find websites in their own native languages. This is going to be magnified in a huge way with IDNs for the betterment of the worldwide internet community, and no doubt some loss of traffic for the current English.com holders. The opportunity to register idn.com was presented nearly 10 years ago, and most english.com holders chose to ignore the opportunity during each of the successive sunrises for idn.com, idn.net, idn.jp, idn.cn, etc etc in the various languages when they happened. I don’t think there is much to argue about with idn.com holders that have been paying anual registration fees or possibly have developed sites up for 8+ years.
ICANN is finally stepping on the gas with IDNs after decade of what many see as having been dragging their feet. What is “new” is IDN.IDN where we will see a few “sunrises” later this year, but most of the action will be 2010 and on. Other than Russian, who are restricting sunrise to passport holders, most of the idn.com and idn.ccTLD are taken in most languages and idn.com, idn.net, idn.cn, idn.jp etc etc are expected to “alias” to the various languages (where possible) to bring those into the fold to become idn.idn.
To many peoples surprise, they are just “discovering” that IDN.com, IDN.net IDN.jp, IDN.cn etc have been around and many registered since the year 2000 for .com, 2003 and on for .jp etc. Unfortunatly Microsoft did not provide IDN compatable browsers (until IE7) and that has been the main holdback to their popularity and use during this time. The recent idn.idn publicity in Russia alone has ramped up idn.com traffic immensely, and the same is expected to happen across the board with other languages as they publicize and implement idn.idn. The reality is that the IDN train left the station long ago, and the IDN “gold” was also long ago registered and already onboard.
Guys
Just to point out that I did not mention, 1 item in the post about IDN.
All these comments are directed to Michael C’s comments and have nothing to do with the post.
to : MHB
I grant you that you did not call out IDN’s in your post.
But IDN gtld’s are equally eligible for the new GTLD program as ASCII gtld’s.
Thomey and Beckstrom have confirmed this in 3 different sessions at least , of transcripts that I have read from the Sydney conference.
IDN gtld’s are a subset of GTLD’s to be sure in 2010.
But Tina Dam ICANN/ IDN lead believes that IDN gtld submissions/ or Non English ASCII gtld’s will equal and then surpass English ASCII gtld submissions in short order after 2010,
when the cctld fast track and gtld processes are essentially combined in 2011.
This dichotomy of ASCII and IDN ‘s will be irrelevant to 2 billion users on mobile phones
by 2011.
My apologies for not being specific on this particular point earlier when commenting on
Michael’s post etc….
thanks…
Steve
Steve
NP just wanted to clarify my position.