We know that .com/.net registrations as of the last report sits at 116 million registrations is growing at the rate 8 million new registrations a year.
We also know including the 116 million .com/.net registrations, there are 225 million domains name registered as of March 31, 2012 with 10% or some 20 million new registrations coming since 4th quarter of 2,010.
So basically your looking at growth in the total domain name space of 17 million or so for the last year including all ccTLD’s and half of those are going to .com/.net.
This begs the question of where are all the registrations for the new gTLD’s going to come from?
Lets assume registration rates stay where they are with 17 Million new registrations a year.
If even 1/4 of all these new registrations lets just call it 5 million a year go to the new gTLD’s, with 1,000 non brand applications, that only leaves 5,000 domain names on average for each new gTLD registry.
If each new gTLD registry charges on average $20 a domain, that’s only $100K gross before all of the costs, including back end costs the $25K minimum to ICANN and of course marketing costs, plus the cost of acquiring the string.
There will be some registries which will much higher registrations which will mean other registries may only get registrations in the 4 digits.
With prices for some generic TLD’s expected to reach into the seven and eight figures its going to take a lot of registrations to make that money up.
So it seems the only way that a substantial number of these new gTLD’s registries will have a chance to recoup their investment and make their strings into profitable businesses is to hope that the overall registration rates increase substantially from say 18 million a year to 30 million or more and/or that their share of new domain registrations come at the expense of existing domain registrations of incumbent strings substantially more than 25%.
New gTLD applicants will look at the numbers of registered domain names, 225 million and point out there are 6 billion people on earth and conclude its only logically that in the years to come there will be hundreds of millions of new domain registrations increasing the total registrations to close to 1 billion meaning there will be plenty of business for everyone.
One can also assume that businesses and people might buy multiple domains, call them defensive or protective or just smart business, which will increase the overall totals without increasing the number of users.
For example I would buy thedomains.blog when available, how could I afford not to?
Anyway you look at it the total number of registered domain names and the percentage of growth will have to increase substantially from current numbers for a substantial number of new gTLD operators to make their money back and a profit.
New gTLD’s investments must be viewed as a long term investment
If the total new registrations continue at the same pace of 17 million a year and remains the same over the next ten year period, there would be 170 million new domain registrations and a large registry with 50 or more strings could get what would then be a market share of 7% of all new registrations.
Its only over the long term that investment in new gTLD’s starts making sense.
The total population of the planet exceeds 7 billion now. However, I think those arguments were used by .name and .tel, and look where they are now….
There’d be no value to thedomains.blog — anyone developing it would not have your content, and it would get zero type-in traffic.
My best guess:
Asian domainers?
Very good point.
I suspect the theory amongst new TLD backers is that they’ll create demand with new and “innovative” offerings. A band may not want to go get another .com when they have one, but they might want a .music if it comes with added features to promote themselves.
You might also see some additional demand from defensive registrations.
But overall I think you’re right — registrations will be spread rather thin across new TLDs.
Also, most business models are probably predicated on a 75% renewal rate, when trying to calculate the expected level of “churn” in a gTLD. I think that assumption will prove incorrect, and that it will be far lower. We’ll get to see dot-xxx renewal rates in a few months, as a data point.
I was thinking this same thought yesterday.
Supply and demand.
Supply is going through the roof.
Demand may not be increasing much more than the figure you cite above.
Over supply of something means “less valuable”.
I’m wondering how the over supply will effect the .com values as well.
Over supply of something new with little demand (gTLDs)
Finite supply of something already in demand (.coms)
“The Second Edition of the 20-volume Oxford English Dictionary contains full entries for 171,476 words in current use, and 47,156 obsolete words. To this may be added around 9,500 derivative words included as subentries. ”
Certain (a large percentage in my estimation) of the new gTLD’s will get a running start with speculators, investors, etc,. registering keywords. You know that Mike, and that needs to be factored in. Even the lowliest of gTLD’s is going to get sizable registrations, of keywords like Sex, Poker, Cloud, etc, etc, etc,. Most new extensions will have a “Sunrise” period where a lot of those sought after keywords will sell for a premium. Again, let’s keep it real!
P.S. that is just considering the English language. Shall we factor in languages like German, Spanish, French etc,. That will covet certain keywords, of certain extensions for their own?
“Over supply of something means “less valuable”.”
except for .com’s – in fact just the opposite.
The real issue here is this “new” economy where the middle class continues to go away and no one has money – but the consumer want to be part of this new thing called the Internet (that Al Gore Invented) and the consumer WILL become an overnight genius and pay $10-$50 for a new non.com -but still call the .com owner and tell them how much they know about the Internet – and why the value of the .com is going away.
Point is – considering folks are desparate to be part of the Internet – these new registries will dramatically expand registration – and renewals for years to come – albeit there will be virtually no secondary market
“I’m wondering how the over supply will effect the .com values as well.”
If there’s a rush to adoption- if this really breaks up the preeminence of .com in the minds of the public- then it will have a massive negative impact on .com value.
If it doesn’t effect the preeminence of .com in the minds of consumers, then it will raise .com up even higher in the minds of consumers, further entrenching it as the ‘credible and familiar’ extension in a world of confusing alternatives. Brands spend billions to develop familiarity with their products. It’s a very big deal.
Just because Frank Schilling owns a lot of .com domains and is also applying to be a new TLD registry doesn’t necessarily mean Frank Schilling believes .com is going to be unseated. He’s simply making a “picks and shovels” play at the same phenomenon we’ve all witnessed over the years, where a horde of idiots are willing to register (and renew) speculative domain names that don’t have a chance in hell at ever selling to somebody else, but the’ll still keep that debit card on autorenew, “just in case”…
The whole narrative of there being (X) billions of people on earth as being somehow relevant to domain names was the stupidest- and I mean the STUPIDEST- implication ever, to the point that I seriously question the intelligence of anyone who advances that idea. Discounting the percentage of them who still don’t have running water never mind a domain name, the notion that everybody on earth wants (or even needs) a domain name is just incredibly dumb, even more so now that free social media has filled the personal web presence void.
Either way, this boils down to one of two things happening.
Either brands start heavily marketing vanity TLDs and those become the default ‘big-boy’ web presence (which will cause a rush to adoption for whenever the next application round may be) or these remain the realm of fringe speculators and they die on the vine.
yeah there are 6 Billion people, but you have to dig deeper. Of these 6 billion people how many actually have running water, electricity, besides a computer or mobile device? Many of these registrars will be non-existent in 10 years…survival of the fittiest will take place and only the strong (registrars with the best generic strings) will survive.
history doesn’t repeat but it rhymes…
@ Dean – you wrote:
“. Even the lowliest of gTLD’s is going to get sizable registrations, of keywords like Sex, Poker, Cloud, etc, etc, etc,. Most new extensions will have a “Sunrise” period where a lot of those sought after keywords will sell for a premium. Again, let’s keep it real!”
But domain investors don’t have enough money to register tens of thousands of domains at each of these gTLDs.
Old TLDs may lose some crappy names too replaced by shorter and more catchy ones. That may be other few millions. We shall see.
Agree with Domo Sapiens, Most will likely come from the .com Transliterations Verisign applied for. Same Huge brand only now available for the first time ever in their native languages.
I’m surprised at some of the extensions that sell from time to time. I couldn’t imagine being a business and investing capital to promote any brand that wasn’t firmly planted on either a .com or for online video, .tv. Everthing else seems absolutely worthless to me.
“Everthing else seems absolutely worthless to me.”
Yes – from a secondary market – I agree with you
– but would you rather have some long 3-4 word .com or some BS Facebook account or a 1-2 word .whatever – and that is the market – at a certain point folks are going to get tired of licking Facebook (and liking them as well).
the world does not revolve around domainers as you can see by the few sales over the last several years.These new tlds are aimed at the masses..as corp america and it seems everybody else is not highly motivated to pay large sumes of money for a .com,net or .org.
thats why googles play at a free tld domain is big news as frank tried to articulate.A large supply does not mean adoption…it means a market shake out.
What I really see a need for is a signficant move for domainers to take every .com that has meaning and put up the best website they can..not ppc…but a real website that offers value to the end user.
This way domainers have taken a proactive step to guard their assets.
before the shakeout begins….its called collusion in legal terms.
In the real world a parallel move would be fox,cbs.local affliates actively suing dish network for introducing the “hopper” and skipping their ads.as this case moves towards federal court.
better to take action on your behalf than sit there and watch the market erode your assets…I.ve seen it happen before.of course this will not happen as DOMAINERS ARE AN INDEPENDENT GROUP!
“This begs the question of where are all the registrations for the new gTLD’s going to come from?”
Not from me!
There are no shortage of great .com domains right now, there’s only a shortage of great buyers who will pay more than a couple of thousand bucks for them which is why there is a few million domains sitting with for sale signs on them and hundreds of thousands of more domains in all extentions including .com dropping every single year 😉
When all the best new .whatevers go straight in to the hands of domainers (who will be running many of the registrars) just like they did with .co it will be the same story, they won’t be many decent ones available for reg fee but there will be a few really good sales and thousands of names being reg’d for a few years then dropped…round and round it goes.
“For example I would buy thedomains.blog when available, how could I afford not to?”
Easy, just say no! – People want to listen to you and what you have to say on your blog so in the extremely rare chance a couple of lost strays end up on thedomains.blog when they are looking for you then they should have enough brains to know exactly what to do, type in the right address.
When it comes to growth in the economy and the state of the banks there is next to no chance the world economy is going to grow much if any in the next five or ten years, unless you are profitting from selling bombs, bullets or battleships times are going to get tougher. /> doom 🙂
Why are there still millions of unused premium .com, .net, .info, .co, .org domains names?? is it because they are to expensive or is it because people are not able to come up with successful business ideas/concepts for these unused domains?? in other words, is it that people have too many business ideas/concepts and the only thing that is preventing them from materializing those business ideas is because they don’t have the domain names for those ideas/concepts?? Please Note: domain names outnumber business ideas/concepts by far. These new GTLDS came to save domain speculators’ money. Had ICANN come up with just one new GTLD domainers would have been interested in investing in it even though it would later prove to be a bad/futile investment. We saw it with .jobs, .travel, .museum, .aero, .coop and .co. But because ICANN came up with almost 2000 new gtlds at once, domain speculators do not have money to invest in all of these new gtlds even if they were interested. They are just too many new gtlds for domain speculators to control/monopolize and force consumers to buy the new gtlds domains from them like they did with .com, .net, .org and some cctlds domains. So ICANN saved domainer’s money. In this case, if they are interested, end users, who are not many, will register the new gtlds domain at a regular fees even though they will do nothing with them. Thus, the registries will be the only ones making some money, like .CO did. You have to know that everything about domain name will come down to a good website, a successful business idea/concept and a good level of competitiveness, and this is 1 million times difficult to have than creating/buying a domain name, and that explains the reason why there still are millions of unused premium .com, .net, .info, .org, .co domain names. Because there is no shortage of domain names and domain extensions, these new GTLDS are inclined to fail because there is no problem that they need to solve. The people and companies getting into the new gtlds business are clueless.
Good, make that very good question Mike. Do you suppose there was a bit of over exuberance which may have led to a Ready-Fire-Aim business decision on the part of some GTLD applicants?
Nobody can predict the future in this ever increasingly wacky world but GTLD liquidation or domain reseller may be a growth industry if the number of domains registered continue on their same path and those numbers collide with an influx of new extensions.
Can anybody here give me an explanation of why .flower, .mobi, .travel , .museum, .aero, .coop failed when we know that job is the number one priority in life and almost all people travel and need flowers and visit museums????? And what is it that we don’t know that will make the new gtlds make it this time?? please explain to me.
“Can anybody here give me an explanation of why .flower, .mobi, .travel , .museum, .aero, .coop failed”
If those extentions have made more money than it cost to run them then technically speaking they have not failed.
But that doesn’t mean its a good thing to buy them for reselling 😉
Who’s to say any of the previous gTLDs “Listen Listen…” highlighted have “failed”? What is the definition of “failure”? Many of the new gTLDs will operate quite successfully on a small registration base. Do the math. I suspect if you were to ask DotCO, for example, if their actual numbers were within their original business plan, they will likely answer the actuals are well ahead of what they based their models on.
I think Michael hit the nail on the head when he said “For example I would buy thedomains.blog when available, how could I afford not to?” Except that I would say it’s not a question of whether he could afford to not to but rather whether he would see the additional value in having thedomains.blog, and that’s the real question. And I think Michael would say there will be value in having that name. And, so will a great percentage of other people who currently run blog sites. It is likely this exact assumption that the applicants for .blog have based their business plan.
And so have all the others in my estimation. Most of the applicants probably went through the same exercise, they looked at all the names registered across many TLDs (including com/net of course) and tabulated which words were most used in domain names and then selected their applications based on the highest occurring strings. So, “blog” probably appears in enough existing registrations to establish a reasonable target market, not to mention blogs that don’t use the word in their address.
I agree with Michael that many people who have a multi-word name in com/net will opt for a simpler name in a more focused gTLD because it’s a no-brainer to do so. This is not about domainers and the secondary market. This is about businesses trying to reach consumers and the expectation that a more focused domain name will get better traffic through search results. It remains to be seen of course how Google, Bing and others will treat the text to the right of the dot but we know for a fact they already have weighting factors for search results that consider the TLD. Yes of course, content will always play a key role and I am no SEO expert so I won’t comment. But to suggest that the TLD will have NO play in search results I think is naïve.
Gazzip-
“If those extentions (as offered by LISTEN = .flower, .mobi, .travel , .museum, .aero, .coop) have made more money than it cost to run them then technically speaking they have not failed.”
You are dead on – the only people that “failed” are those that bought a domain with one of those extensions – not the registries themselves.
Personally – I feel none of these new 1,000+ non.com registries offering domains to the public will “fail” – only the folks buying the domains in those new registries will fail – very very big difference.
If someeone is desparate to buy a new set of differnet tires every month – a new non.com registry (tire dealership) is a fool not to sell them those “new” tires.
I am no SEO expert so I won’t comment. But to suggest that the TLD will have NO play in search results I think is naïve.
—-
It will probably-definitely be installed as a minor topical relevancy signal, which “domainers who aren’t SEO experts” will surely speculate on to death, never approaching meaningful insight.
As we can see already, “info” as an ordinary search noun (for example, string = “info on ducks”) resolves as topically relevant to the .info TLD. They even highlight it for you as an “Idiots Guide To Keyword Triggers”.
Google has sucked a gigantic cock with metering domain relevancy.
They keep threatening to tune it down, but that keyword is oh-so quantifiable in a C++ compiler, they haven’t done it to any meaningful degree (yet).
Still, safe to say, .blog is going to signal relevancy for query = “(keyword)+blog” and on cue, as we’ve seen in the past, Corky C. Domainer will buy Forex.blog for $25,000, set up a wordpress site, hire low level writers from Bangalore to spin pigeon-English content then curse the unfair practices of Google for not immediately putting him on p1 for “forex blog”.
Oops.
Compiler = script.
Got compilers on the brain today.
Sorry guys traveling all day making the hop over the pond.
Thank for all the comments
I will circle back around tomorrow
Tonight exhausted
Brian
I think some of the new gTLD registries will fail.
They are not going to all make enough to support their startup, acquisition, marketing and ongoing costs.
OK Michael –
You know I am to ask which ones you feel might be suspect
Those who have applied for multiple gTLDs will most likely treat them the same way that domainers treat their portfolio of domains, which is they’ll try to hang on to them as long as they can and they use the few successful strings that they might have to carry their whole portfolio. So once a gTLD is awarded it will take a long long time before it is given up on and considered a failure by its registry. Those who are awarded multiple gTLDs might not be as concerned about the number of registrations for each gTLD that they have, but rather the total registrations produced by their whole portfolio of gTLDs.
Off course after all the objections and the legal battles that are ahead we might see a lot less strings being approved than people are anticipating. I wouldn’t be surprised if we only saw three to four hundred gTLDs coming out of the first round.
(just my opinion)
–
Emma is absolutely right. The poor experience of existing TLDs have apparently provided no lessons to the legion of applicants.
But not matter. What we have is an explosion in the number of phone books and just a slow increase in the number of phones. New registries won’t be able to survive without depending on duplicate or defensive registrations, and there just won’t be enough of them so aggressive marketing will intensify.
Eventually registrants will tire of the “buy this domain OR ELSE…” protection racket and I see Google around the corner waiting to make its move. Michael’s analysis doesn’t factor in how many registrants will simply go for the domains that Google (and maybe others) will inevitably be giving away, simply ditching all of the rest. How do all these new registries (and the registrars who resell their stuff) compete with free, against a TLD that will treat domainers as irritant rather than revenue source? End users will trust Google and Amazon more than other generic TLDs, and subsequently so will registrants — especially the ones Brian above deems as the failures of the gTLD expansion.
(Google already provides for free DNS services that Verisign and others charge for. It’s just a matter of time until it does the same for domains.)
For anyone without skin in the game, this will be very fun to watch. It’s extremely optimistic to even think of any new gTLD to be considered a good investment, even a long term one.
Amazon’s closed registry applications for generic words won’t make it past the independent objector or the GAC.
likewise for Google’s closed generic apps.
imho
@Tom: wishful thinking
The criteria at http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/objection-dispute-resolution are limited and fairly explicit:
– legal rights to the string
– confusing similarity to an existing string (that isn’t weeded out previously)
– limited public interest (ie, the string itself is offensive)
– it’s not serving its claimed community
That’s it. Those are the only grounds on which an objection can be raised, let alone succeed. Business models and the intended use of the TLD are not grounds for objection (except in the case of community applications).
there was a .flower ?
“Amazon’s closed registry applications for generic words won’t make it past the independent objector or the GAC.
likewise for Google’s closed generic apps.”
@ Tom G
You are right, the Independent Objector can bring objection against a gTLD string based on whether it is going to be in the best interest of the public, but according to the applicant guidebook (June 4, 2012 version) the IO shall not object to an application unless at least one comment in opposition to the application is made in the public sphere.
Here are the details from the guidebook:
3.2.5 Independent Objector
A formal objection to a gTLD application may also be filed
by the Independent Objector (IO). The IO does not act on
behalf of any particular persons or entities, but acts solely in
the best interests of the public who use the global Internet.
In light of this public interest goal, the Independent
Objector is limited to filing objections on the grounds of
Limited Public Interest and Community.
Neither ICANN staff nor the ICANN Board of Directors has
authority to direct or require the IO to file or not file any
particular objection. If the IO determines that an objection
should be filed, he or she will initiate and prosecute the
objection in the public interest.
Mandate and Scope – The IO may file objections against
“highly objectionable” gTLD applications to which no
objection has been filed. The IO is limited to filing two types
of objections: (1) Limited Public Interest objections and (2)
Community objections. The IO is granted standing to file
objections on these enumerated grounds, notwithstanding
the regular standing requirements for such objections (see
subsection 3.1.2).
The IO may file a Limited Public Interest objection against
an application even if a Community objection has been
filed, and vice versa.
The IO may file an objection against an application,
notwithstanding the fact that a String Confusion objection
or a Legal Rights objection was filed.
Absent extraordinary circumstances, the IO is not permitted
to file an objection to an application where an objection
has already been filed on the same ground.
The IO may consider public comment when making an
independent assessment whether an objection is
warranted. The IO will have access to application
comments received during the comment period.
In light of the public interest goal noted above, the IO shall
not object to an application unless at least one comment
in opposition to the application is made in the public
sphere.
Selection – The IO will be selected by ICANN, through an
open and transparent process, and retained as an
independent consultant. The Independent Objector will be
an individual with considerable experience and respect in
the Internet community, unaffiliated with any gTLD
applicant.
Although recommendations for IO candidates from the
community are welcomed, the IO must be and remain
independent and unaffiliated with any of the gTLD
applicants. The various rules of ethics for judges and
international arbitrators provide models for the IO to
declare and maintain his/her independence.
The IO’s (renewable) tenure is limited to the time necessary
to carry out his/her duties in connection with a single round
of gTLD applications.
Budget and Funding – The IO’s budget would comprise two
principal elements: (a) salaries and operating expenses,
and (b) dispute resolution procedure costs – both of which
should be funded from the proceeds of new gTLD
applications.
As an objector in dispute resolution proceedings, the IO is
required to pay filing and administrative fees, as well as
advance payment of costs, just as all other objectors are
required to do. Those payments will be refunded by the
DRSP in cases where the IO is the prevailing party.
In addition, the IO will incur various expenses in presenting
objections before DRSP panels that will not be refunded,
regardless of the outcome. These expenses include the
fees and expenses of outside counsel (if retained) and the
costs of legal research or factual investigations.
–
@ojohn
Wow, I had not read that section and was not aware of the language there. That is a big deal.
Well, if no one else files an objection by August, I’ll put together a standard objection for this type of app and file them myself.
Hope Google doesn’t de-index all my sites.
Very good spot on that, Sir!
@ Tom G
As long as you are acting in the public interest the IO should consider your concerns, but just make sure that it does not look as if you are abusing the system or harassing the applicants.
I think everyone should read the applicant guidebook for themselves so that they know what’s going on before its too late.
–
“Hope Google doesn’t de-index all my sites.”
Google, Facebook and the rest of the monopolies will do anything they want and they will also buy as much justice as they need.
I see a scenereo where google works out a deal with – say someone we know or know of – they get the gTLD start selling domains and “amazingly” they sell the registry to Google/facebook or whoever
The only community I see that is really objecting to these new extensions is the community of domainers. Any new registration backed by Google’s infinite bank account, user access, promotional reach, potential search boost and likely free cost structure is going to be gold if it has reasonable merit. Of all the extensions applied for, the best two or three that are given on a large scale will become instant major brands.
Any company can register a high quality search string and will likely be on close to even footing with any of the masses of undeveloped .coms right out the gate. A developed .com will have the advantage of an established internet footprint and some name recognition, for a while.
The shortest, best and broadest while catering to a specific class will succeed or at least will if promoted properly. The rest will have their work cut out for them.
If you want to protect your interests then you should get on the development bandwagon. Dot com is like the 300 spartans, they will be few in number but elite. They will have to face an onslaught of vast legions of those who would unseat them. As in all forms of warfare, weak points will be overridden, now is the time to secure an advantageous position if you can find one.
Dilution is a serious issue, and this is about to be a huge brand war. The prestige of dot com will face rising stars and whether or not domainers participate heavily in the new extensions, there are some that will explode simply on the basis of integration and price point.
This will be interesting to watch. Its a far different matter to maintain a leading brand position against a small number of global brands (gtlds) and a fair number of regional competitors (cctlds) in the global market than it is to defend against a serious push by literally thousands of new brands in the global space.
Most of the new tlds will fail on the basis of limited scope, limited access, limited audience or simply bad branding. There will be major contenders coming up though and .com is going to have to actively defend its prestige branding position.
Most of the commentaries here talking about the objection procedure are either not reading the document’s language or are in denial. I was in the (virtual) room as 3.2.2 was being crafted, and the objection process exists *only* to oppose applications based on the *strings themselves*. Not business models. Not whether they’re closed or open or slightly ajar. Just the content of the strings.
From ICANN website, 3.2.2.4 of the guidebook, a “community” objection ONLY applies if “there is substantial opposition to the gTLD application from a significant portion of the community that the gTLD string is targeting”.
That’s the ICANN summary. Specifically, the wording of 3.2.2.4 (page 3-4 of the applicant guidebook) states that a Community Objection **only** refers to instances where “There is substantial opposition to the gTLD application from a significant portion of the community to which the gTLD string may be explicitly or implicitly targeted”. That is, if someone applied for .domainer as a community TLD, a group of domainers could launch an objection that the intended application would not sufficiently or appropriately represent them. The specific type of scenario anticipated was an anti-gay group applying for “.gay”.
That’s the only kind of Community objection allows in the Applicant Guidebook. But, just for giggles, anyone here is welcome to go ahead anyway and send in their $5K deposit to the ICC to file an objection. It will be rejected (without refund of the deposit) almost immediately.
You can go to the Independent Objector, but will find out that the IO is still limited by 3.2.2.4, and is mainly there to serve communities who can’t afford the cost of objecting.
Or you can go to the GAC and ALAC — who have their own budgets and paths to object — but will likely find out that they are not only sympathetic to the new entries, but some within will be actively welcoming change.
In other words — like it or not, Google is in the game. Get ready to compete with “free” and the public trust in *its* brand, which could surpass even dot-com in time. Despite the numbers of TLDs Google’s applied for, it only needs a few to totally upset the status quo. Amazon’s intentions are less clear; many of its domains might indeed be for internal use only and not for public sale. Or maybe its model is to hang onto ownership and “lease” domains for cheap or free.
And don’t forget Microsoft, which wants “.live”. You can do a lot of disruption with just a single TLD.
@ Evan
Respectfully disagree, there are mechanisms and standing for objection for both the IO and the GAC in play beyond those you cite.
Community objections don’t apply, but Limited Public Interest Objection very well could.
“Limited Public Interest Objection – The applied-for gTLD
string is contrary to generally accepted legal norms of
morality and public order that are recognized under
principles of international law.”
‘public order’ can be interpreted broadly.
I was in the room (physically) when the GAC was talking about problematic business models, specifically closed registries for generic terms, in Prague. They will have something to say, especially representatives from countries outside Luxembourg or the U.S.
The GAC also indicated in Dakar they would be looking at business models in addition to strings as a source for objection and advice.
And, they are not limited to what they can offer advice about.
This from 3.2
“As described in section 3.1 above, ICANN’s Governmental
Advisory Committee has a designated process for
providing advice to the ICANN Board of Directors on
matters affecting public policy issues, and these objection
procedures would not be applicable in such a case. The
GAC may provide advice on any topic and is not limited to
the grounds for objection enumerated in the public
objection and dispute resolution process.”
As for the IO, the section I just read states:
“The IO does not act on
behalf of any particular persons or entities, but acts solely in
the best interests of the public who use the global Internet.
In light of this public interest goal, the Independent
Objector is limited to filing objections on the grounds of
Limited Public Interest and Community.”
Is it in the ‘best interests of the public who use the global Internet’ that no individual or group be able to register and use a .APP domain, or .BOOK, or .MUSIC outside of Amazon?
Certainly seems to be some leeway in the language to consider variables beyond the mere string itself.
Several people I talked to in Prague agree. One suggested that heads will roll at Amazon over their misguided applications.
‘Public Order’, and ‘Public Policy’ can certainly include competition issues that may result from corporate monopolization of generic words ROTD.
Not to mention that closed generic registries do nothing to serve the purpose of the gtld program as a whole – do not increase competition in the DNS, do not facilitate broad innovation etc.
Someone just has to submit an objection comment in the public sphere to empower the Independent Objector to object.
The GAC is already thinking about it.
Read the docs.
Public order — for the purposes of objections is deliberately defined NARROWLY as an instance in which the string itself is offensive. Ie, “.nazi”, which was used as the main example of when this would be invoked.
It does not, anywhere, allow for objection based on business models. If you find any of the actual **strings** for which Google or Amazon applied to be obscene, well good luck with that objection.
The GAC is allowed to comment on applications in any manner — the ICANN bylaws allow it to comment to the Board on anything — however the only formal objections it can lodge in the gTLD process are limited to the criteria listed in the Guidebook.
An interesting example of how the GAC is dealing to domain names, beyond the guidebook, is in its recent attempts to pre-reserve names for the Red Cross and International Olympic Committee. If you were following this issue, you’d know that the ICANN Board rejected the GAC advice on this and has referred the issue back to the community for a (likely lengthy) consultation.
So even if you get some GAC members to back your issue AND it becomes a GAC-wide priority (beyond its current focus on intellectual property rights) AND it’s written into GAC formal advice to the Board, there’s no assurance that advice will be heeded.
(In any case, you might have a point on Amazon’s closed name, but it’s nowhere the disruption threat of Google or Microsoft. I personally don’t care about Amazon’s applications, those aren’t the ones that should concern domainers.)
And, back to the Indepedent Objector. Yes, the IO is supposed to serve in the public interest. But the regs are crystal clear that the IO can only make an objection based on the offensiveness of the string and community applicability.
Ok I read it, and I now see that formal objection of business model on limited public interest grounds is probably not within the scope of the definitions. I’m not above admitting when I’ve missed something.
I guess it comes down to GAC advice and how the Board treats it.
Should be interesting.
Since the whole idea of New gTLDs is based on giving people more choices, I wonder if it can be argued that a closed gTLD that is based on a generic keyword string is a form of discrimination towards all those who are denied the opportunity to register a domain name with in a gTLD that represents them the best. Companies should have the right to keep their own .brand just for their own use, but something is wrong somewhere if they are allowed to keep generic keyword gTLDs like .shop closed to everyone else.
In section 3.5.3 Limited Public Interest Objection, it says:
“The panel will conduct its analysis on the basis of the
applied-for gTLD string itself. The panel may, if needed, use
as additional context the intended purpose of the TLD as
stated in the application.”
In section 5.1 Registry Agreement, it says:
ICANN’s Board of Directors has ultimate responsibility for the New gTLD Program. The Board reserves the right to individually consider an application for a new gTLD to determine whether approval would be in the best interest of the Internet community. Under exceptional circumstances, the Board may individually consider a gTLD application. For example, the Board might individually consider an application as a result of GAC Advice on New gTLDs or of the use of an ICANN accountability mechanism.
–
And this from the ICANN new gtlds about page:
“The New Generic Top Level Domain Program was developed to increase competition and choice by introducing New gTLDs into the internet’s addressing system.”
The first paragraph on the Program page states:
“The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, founded in 1998, has as its mission to ensure a stable and unified global Internet. One of its key responsibilities is introducing and promoting competition in the registration of domain names, while ensuring the security and stability of the domain name system (DNS).”
This from the Affirmation of Committments with the US DOC:
“3. This document affirms key commitments by DOC and ICANN, including commitments to: (a) ensure that decisions made related to the global technical coordination of the DNS are made in the public interest and are accountable and transparent; (b) preserve the security, stability and resiliency of the DNS; (c) promote competition, consumer trust, and consumer choice in the DNS marketplace; and (d) facilitate international participation in DNS technical coordination.”
Closed generic registries do nothing to increase choice and competition in the DNS marketplace. They serve no constructive use toward the primary purpose of the program. And, they are contrary to the Affirmation of Commitments.
Would be tough for the Board to approve applications that contradict its purpose, mission and commitments.
GAC advice would make a disqualification easier, too. Judging from the rhetoric being tossed around there, I think we can expect to see that advice on these closed generics.
This is good stuff, needs to be explored.
“The panel will conduct its analysis on the basis of the applied-for gTLD string itself. The panel may, if needed, use as additional context the intended purpose of the TLD as stated in the application.”
I was there when that line was written too. I may have even had a hand in writing it.
The “as needed” clause was put in there because the intended purpose of a TLD *might* counterbalance the perceived offensiveness of the string. For instance, while a “.nazi” string would be considered obscene by many, a “.nazi” TLD operated by the Wiesenthal Center for education purposes might be less objectionable. Or it might not. Again, nothing to do with business models — the objection is still primarily concentrated on offensiveness of the string.
Arguably it is the likes of Amazon and Google that are bringing true innovation to the namespace, viable alternatives to the model of ‘domain as commodity’. There’s no natural law that demands all domains be treated as commodities, just because that’s the way most have worked so far. (And it’s never been true for all gTLDs anyway — ever tried to get something in .gov or .int? Why isn’t anyone complaining about *their* discrimination?)
But if you still think there are straws to grasp at in objecting to the newcomers — that don’t come across publicly as blatant turf protection — knock yourself out.
Even without any formal objections, the closed gTLDs that are based on generic keywords such as .shop are still contradictory to ICANN’s purpose, mission and commitments (as indicated above by Tom G).
It will be very difficult for ICANN to ignore this issue.
–
I stand by my initial assertion. Closed generic apps will be disqualified.
GAC will issue strong advice on whatever grounds they like – because they can. They are not bound by the definitions and limitations as outlined in the objection and dispute resolution portion of the guidebook. Those are irrelevant to GAC advice.
Board will not choose to disregard that advice. To do so would contradict the purpose of the new gtld program, ICANN’s mission, and would be inconsistent the Affirmation of Commitments.
Viability of models other than domain as commodity are not part of ICANN’s mission and purpose. Quite the contrary, it is definitely in ICANN’s interest to preserve the domain as commodity model.
These applications don’t even meet the first minimum requirement – introduce competition and choice. They don’t get past the first paragraph.
I think they are dead where they sit. No need to do anything but wait.
Still just mho, time will tell.
“it is definitely in ICANN’s interest to preserve the domain as commodity model.”
Funny, I missed that line in the bylaws, mission statement and strategic plan. Pointers?
In any case, I find it amusing to see the new models being derided as anti-competition, while saying it’s not in ICANN’s mandate to offer a choice between commodity and non-commodity models.
Adding the Amazon/Google/Microsoft/etc models as options — without eliminating any of the status quo options and even expanding them — is the very definition of enhancing competition and choice — for actual consumers and providers of Internet services. The end-user and non-domainer registrant communities are already welcoming the new blood.
Current events suggest movement directly towards greater openness towards choice in business — and specifically distribution — models. It wasn’t very long ago that registrars were a mandatory part of any domain transaction. And yet it was the ICANN Board that recently overturned tradition and will allow TLDs to choose whether to sell through registrars, to sell direct, or use any distribution method of their choice. More diversity in models is the direction, and this precedent opens the door to acceptance of closed models.
As for closed generics — they’re no different from dot-brands in which the brand is a generic word (ie, .apple). And thus the GAC will not block all dot-brands or private TLDs, though there may be a few specific generic strings it may want to keep open — and that’s fine.
Who knows? Maybe Donuts or someone will outbid Amazon at auction for some of its applied private generics. Or maybe Amazon just wants to extract favors from whoever eventually gets some of these strings, as a condition of avoiding auction. There are many possibilities.
But no matter. As you say, time will tell. But I’m quite comfortable in knowing that at least some of the alternate-model TLDs will get delegated, and it only takes one or two to have the necessary effect. I really don’t care if the disruption happens in .book, .app or somewhere else. But it will happen.
“I stand by my initial assertion. Closed generic apps will be disqualified.”
——-
Lets not forget that the New gTLD policies and guidebook are a work in progress and can be modified and amended as it has been several times already. The issue concerning having a closed registry for generic strings such as .shop is too important for ICANN to ignore and I predict that soon we shall see a new clause that would disallow such closed gTLDs.
To have generic strings such as .homes or .church to be given to only one company without having any control as to how they were going to be used is a flawed policy to begin with since it might lead to monopolistic or discriminatory results if the second level domains in those gTLDs are not distributed to the public in a fair manner. But to allow such generic strings to be closed to the public is even worse.
The business model and the intended use for a gTLD has to be evaluated more thoroughly especially when it comes to the generic strings that are more like a public asset and should be used in a way that is beneficial to the whole Internet community rather than just serving the interest of one entity. (Just my opinion)
–
I don’t believe the Guidebook can be amended as this point to not allow these type of applications now that money has changed hands.
@ MHB
1.2.11 Updates to the Applicant Guidebook
“As approved by the ICANN Board of Directors, this Guidebook forms the basis of the New gTLD Program. ICANN reserves the right to make reasonable updates and changes to the Applicant Guidebook at any time, including as the possible result of new technical standards, reference documents, or policies that might be adopted during the course of the application process. Any such updates or revisions will be posted on ICANN’s website.”
–
Applicants might be allowed to revise their application (as far as their intended use) if the guidebook is modified.
–
ojohn
I know the language is there, but IMHO I don’t see it applied retroactively to broad excluded any generic closed application especially now that application have been submitted and approved.
C’mon guys, face it. The GTLDs are headed down a bad path. Those of us that have been around a while know where the dark path leads. Remember .coop? Not only did someone somewhere once think that this was a good idea, but, what is most scary to me is that studies, surveys and volumes of research showed a demand. Really? Same thing happening now with the GTLDs. Not sure what these applicants are thinking or if they are good at math. I suspect not.
@ MHB
What do you think is the best way for ICANN to deal with the issue of closed registry in the case of generic strings.
A: approve the applications regardless of their intended use
B: reject the applications without any recourse for applicants
C: modify the guidebook and allow applicants to revise their intended use
In a way this is ICANN’s fault since they did not put any additional requirements for the intended use of generic strings and the fair distribution of their second level domains and thus leading some applicants to think that it was okay to have closed registry for generic strings. It is now ICANN’s responsibility and obligation to fix this mistake without punishing the applicants.
–
Unquestionably, (A)
It’s not ICANN’s duty to judge how domains are used, beyond issues of obscenity and fair use of trademarks. Security and stability of the name system is its only real mandate — content and purpose are out of scope.
The last time ICANN tried to meddle in a TLD because of its content (.XXX), the result was a legal, financial and publicity bloodbath. It will try desperately to avoid a repeat of that with the expansion.
If the only applicant for a TLD string — or the winner of its mediation/auction — wants to close it, that should be allowed. There are many other TLD options — hundreds and hundreds, based on the application pool — for those who want an open alternative.
Ultimately, it’s utterly hypocritical to assert that private ownership/use of common words is wrong at the top level but OK at the second level. If you’re OK with “shop.*” being privately controlled, you have no entitlement to complain about “*.shop” being private.
That’s why domainer complaints about private TLDs come across as self-serving, demonstrating no real regard for the public good. And this is also why I reject the notion that the GAC is generally against the concept (though it might want to protect some specific strings it sees as culturally or emotionally significant).
“The end-user and non-domainer registrant communities are already welcoming the new blood.’
I can verify this, We get registration requests from end users every day, including .APP, .MUSIC, .SHOP – Which, according to Amazon will be a big NO to registrants. “All domain names will remain the property of Amazon”, according to their plans. No outside registrations.
No competition, No choice. Just NO
“though there may be a few specific generic strings it may want to keep open — and that’s fine.”
Great, all I care about is a handful of TLDs with broad market appeal anyway. And they are all in contention sets so anything can happen there still.
Great discussion, thanks.
“It’s not ICANN’s duty to judge how domains are used”
Via UDRP it certainly is
“If the only applicant for a TLD string — or the winner of its mediation/auction — wants to close it, that should be allowed. There are many other TLD options — hundreds and hundreds, based on the application pool — for those who want an open alternative.”
——
You are entitled to have your opinion, but I do differ with you since I believe that the public interest is in no way served by having generic strings that define a whole Industry or category being closed to the people who operate within those Industries and categories.
–
Anybody remember new.net?
If alternative tld’s are so desirable and in such need, why did they go down in flames? Yeah, yeah, they required a plugin. If the demand was legit thought, people would have demanded the plugin and the browser companies would have complied like they eventually did for flash.
The sad truth is that the demand just wasn’t there. No one wanted wanted to be guy who need to dethrone .com with his .silliness …and now, 20 years later the applicant turkeys again think it’s realistic? Yeah, good luck with that.
oJohn
The best way ICANN had to avoid the problem was not to allow it in the Guidebook.
I’ts not like those that were involved in the process were unaware that this was possible.
Now that they didn’t prohibit it and company’s applied as I said above Its out of ICANN hands.
ICANN can only reject an application if it defective, if they don’t meet the financial and other requirements etc etc. They can’t turn down Amazon because they want to run a closed extension.
See Evan comment above
A few items we need to mention
Why do you consider it a foregone conclusion that Amazon and Google will win every contested string?
Is Amazon going to spend $10 million $25 Million maybe more to get .shop?
You know there are other applicants with means that have applied for the extension including a public public company in Japan which spent I would estimate over $1M in the last few years just marketing .shop at ICANN conference.
Why do you assume that Amazon is willing to spend $25 million to get a right of the dot extension? have they bought a ton of category killer domain names for $5M or more each?
Eric
New.net was a alternative root DNS system, so to use them the user would have to change their DNS settings
Not comparable to what is taking place now
Brian
ICANN just set up the rules if crappy decisions come out of WIPO or the NAF its the panelists fault.
>> “It’s not ICANN’s duty to judge how domains are used”
> Via UDRP it certainly is
Actually, the existence of the UDRP helps prove my point.
1) ICANN does not prohibit the creation of domain names that might infringe on the rights of others. That is, it make no judgement on whether any domain name is infringing or legitimate
2) The UDRP is an after-the-fact procedure; a “contested” domain has to be already in play before the UDRP can be invoked
3) ICANN is not a party to UDRP decisions; it neither launches nor defends complaints
4) The UDRP isn’t even done by ICANN, and is performed by arms’ length Dispute Resolution Service Providers
So yes, the UDRP is a great example of how ICANN takes great pains to distance itself from making judgments on the suitability of strings, let alone intent.
Thank you.
This:
“Now that they didn’t prohibit it and company’s applied as I said above Its out of ICANN hands.
ICANN can only reject an application if it defective, if they don’t meet the financial and other requirements etc etc. They can’t turn down Amazon because they want to run a closed extension.”
Is not consistent with this from the Guidebook:
“ICANN’s Board of Directors has ultimate responsibility for
the New gTLD Program. The Board reserves the right to
individually consider an application for a new gTLD to
determine whether approval would be in the best interest
of the Internet community. Under exceptional
circumstances, the Board may individually consider a gTLD
application. For example, the Board might individually
consider an application as a result of GAC Advice on New
gTLDs or of the use of an ICANN accountability
mechanism.”
I don’t think Amazon’s applications have a chance, especially those in contention sets.
There’s only a couple I care about, and plenty of others to convert visitors to anyway, so, whatever.
Same goes for vertically integrated registries that have monopolistic ideas.
If I can’t sell my .pudding search visitors chocolate.pudding, then maybe they want chocolate.custard, chocolatepudding.web, chocolatepudding.shop, chocolatepudding.miami . . .etc etc.
Tom
The only way Amazon’s applications don’t go through if they are the highest bidder is on GAC action or if the DOJ or Eu wants to pick up on the issue
The GAC is mostly what I’ve been saying.
But again, whatever.
I’ll be ready either way ;).
> “the public interest is in no way served by having generic strings that define a whole Industry or category being closed to the people who operate within those Industries and categories.”
I am also amused by the assumptions behind what Amazon will or won’t do with a “private TLD”. I note that cars can be owned, leased, rented, or obtained for a single use. Similarly. there’s no reason that some creative entrepreneur couldn’t invent a domain “leasing” system — it would still keep ownership in the hands of the single leasing company, but allow unlimited use over a term by the end-user. This is but one possible idea.
That’s the point of innovation …. coming up with ideas and models that others haven’t thought of. I can think of numerous business models that would maintain ownership of domains centrally but allow for widspread use. And the applicants are not required to show their hands beyond a correctly-done application.
It is *restricting* choice and competition to demand that ownership and commoditization of domains is the only way by which they may be effectively distributed and used by producers and consumers of Internet services. Other models should be given the freedom to try — including the freedom to fail if the model doesn’t work.
In any case, the body that ICANN created and trusts to give the PoV of the “public interest”, its At-Large Advisory Committee, is explicitly neutral on the issue of private domains, neither advocating nor opposing them.
I have a feeling that this issue is not going to go away so easily, as Micheal said there are other authorities that might get involved once people start complaining in mass if they are prevented from registering second level domains in generic strings that represent the Industry or category that those people operate in.
–
Even for gTLDs that are going to be open a fair distribution mechanism (such as auctions) should have been required for the second level domains in generic strings that represent a whole Industry or category.
–
Similarly. there’s no reason that some creative entrepreneur couldn’t invent a domain “leasing” system — it would still keep ownership in the hands of the single leasing company, but allow unlimited use over a term by the end-user. This is but one possible idea.
———————-
It’s by no means a novel idea.
There are active leases on several big time .com domains. Most are shorter term, but I know of one premier geo.com that’s on a long-long term lease.
For the reason so many great domains go uncapitalized (save for parking, which is about the lowest use imaginable), you have to look at the sorts of people who tied up most of the best .com’s early on. There are a lot of dysfunctional headcases who don’t run their operation from a reasoned, business perspective, but closer to that of a rotten used car salesman or a scumbag pawnbroker. They will turn down $50,000 20 times to arrive at $500,000 once, not because its financially sound, but because they’re driven by the emotional need to feel like they’ve ‘won something’.
I found this from the GAC Board meeting in Dakar, refers to the GAC thoughts on applicant business models as cause for early warning or advice:
” >>HEATHER DRYDEN: Thank you, Kurt. Switzerland.
>>SWITZERLAND: Thank you. Also referring to what Bertrand has said, I think in
principle, it would be useful to be able to express an early warning first on the
string and then on second level on the applicant and on his business model.
But something that I started to realize, which is in, at least in my head,
slightly reducing the value of this whole early warning system and put it to a
question to the board — is my perception right? — that we would realize there is
a string we do not think is problematic; we look at the applicant and then look at
his business models and registrar conditions, whatever; and then realize that
something is not applicable to our law in our country?
And then you issue an early warning saying that, basically, everything would be
fine, but we have a problem there. We cannot accept this.
What is the use of this, if I get this right, that, if the applicant cannot modify
this application, he can only withdraw it? Is that right? That’s the only answer
you can give — unless this exception with geographic names and seeking government
support. But, if, for instance, in an early warning you see a minor flaw which
could cause you to file an objection against it, the applicant can only decide I go
nevertheless or I withdraw? There’s nothing in between? Is that right? Yeah,
that’s it. Thank you.”
I’m just saying, I think the GAC takes their role in this process very seriously. I think they are going to take a deep look at these applications, well beyond the string itself, to determine if the string, the applicant, and their intended use are in the global public interest.
I don’t think they will like closed generic applications at all, and will issue strong advice to disqualify.
It would then be up to the Board to choose whether or not to ignore that advice, and what rationale they would provide for doing so.
Gonna be difficult to justify imho.
and the GAC has said they aren’t going to even being to look at this until April
It is almost amusing to witness the reading of GAC tea leaves in the frantic hopes that it will do domainers’ bidding in opposing different business models.
Transcripts of open GAC meetings are of limited value because they might indicate public posturing that hides a different intent. The real work, in creating GAC statements, is always done behind closed doors. Also, the reading of a single country’s comments as indicative of anything the GAC as a global group will say is … a stretch.
If you want to know the GAC’s priorities, the only useful source is to read its communiques which are produced at the end of each ICANN meeting, as well as its correspondence between meetings.
Based on the GAC’s Prague Communiqué, one can read (without the need to deduce) that its main concerns about the gTLD program regard the needs of the law enforcement community, the Trademark Clearinghouse, the lack of applications from developing countries, and protection of names of international organizations such as the Red Cross and IGOs.
NOWHERE in recent GAC documents is any mention regarding global concern for (let alone rejection of) unusual business models. If there was a concern it would be stated.
Interpreting GAC activity beyond what it actually says as a collective is coming across as wishful speculation and nothing more.
Heh, this horse has been killed, beaten, skinned, and beaten some more.
I’m not a domainer, and I’m not frantic. For me, it’s a matter of principle mostly. I actually just love the New gTLD concept and I think closed generic registries are harmful and inconsistent with the mission and purpose of the program, and of ICANN.
Yes, it could affect my business model, because I have people asking to register .app, .book, .music .movie, .blog .shop every day. But, I haven’t placed bets on any select few tlds – I’ve laid bets on most of them. Some of them will pay off, and that’s all I’ll need.
Maybe the GAC only talks about things they still need in the Communiques. They already have the mechanism to deal with objectionable applicants, so no need to ask for anything or express concern – just apply the power they already have when the time comes.
Yes, maybe it is wishful speculation, but mostly just because I think it is harmful and wrong for one corporation to monopolize an entire generic namespace. It amounts to corporate censorship of the internet imo , and I object to that. It’s not what it was meant to be about.
ICANN holds the last ace up their sleeve, which is the ” registry contract ” that all successful applicants must have before they can go live. ICANN might set certain requirements within that registry contract in order to make sure that the generic string gTLDs that represent a whole Industry or category are kept OPEN to the public and that the second level domains within those gTLDs are distributed in a FAIR manner. One way or another between all the CAG, ICANN, and the Governmental oversight committees that are going to be involved in this issue I doubt that the non brand gTLDs could be kept closed to the public (the same public that everyone claims to be protecting).
This is a case of public interest VS corporate interest,
There is an area that these interests overlap and that’s where everyone should focus their attention and effort so that both the public and the corporations can come out of this as winners.
–