For example, he writes:
"Not so sure about Amazon buying .amazon, because it also is the name of a rainforest in South America, and .apple could be a problem for growers and lovers of the fruit."
But the same reasoning applies for domain names:
"Not so sure about Amazon buying amazon.com, because it also is the name of a rainforest in South America, and apple.com could be a problem for growers and lovers of the fruit."
In other words, in a large sense you are right -- all these issues exist for the TLDs we have today, and they've already been hashed out. Why create another round of 90's style litigation around who bought .coke first or bless a new set of owners with "high quality" tld's like .food? This isn't going to realistically expand the "number" of domains available, its only going to force companies to defensively buy even more permutations of theirname.___, and for all the domains that are already taken in ___.com form, it will only add confusion by having a parallel .___ version.
There is. It's the process that's happening right now. Applying for a tld doesn't guarantee getting the tld. Now is the time to object. Paying $185,000+ doesn't guarantee getting the tld. Lastly the intellectual property constituency had a big role in all the rules and discussions of this which has been going on for many years now.
The next step is most likely that Google returns the favor to ICANN and puts a stronger weight on the domain extension for search result relevance - just another step towards making a more corporate internet.
I think Dave's mistake is that he believes that TLDs represent anything canonical. Originally they were meant to, but only a few do anymore[1]. In almost every case, they're just a few extra characters at the end.
[1]gov and mil
edit: formatting
Bzzzt, wrong. Trademarks are industry-specific: that's why Apple Records can exist alongside Apple Computer. If there's no likelihood of confusion, there's no conflict.
And of course, trademarks are not fully international.
Winer is right about ICANN being wrong. There's just so much else that ICANN is wrong about.
Hilariously, both Monster Worldwide and Monster Inc claimed in their applications that granting them the TLD would reduce user confusion:
Monster Worldwide (application #477):
> The proposed .monster gTLD has the following user experience goals: [...] Reduce the risk of Internet users being misled, believing and⁄or acting on erroneous, information about Monster Worldwide, its business partners and⁄or its products and services presented online by unauthorized 3rd parties
Monster Inc (application #271):
> Therefore, .monster gTLD will: [...] represent authenticity and assurance that the domain names are directly associated with Monster thus promoting user confidence...
If on the other hand a user looking to find the jobs variant stumbling upon .monster domains controlled by the energy variant, there is no risk of user confusion in this regard.
In summary, the confusion they allude to is third parties using the mark or a variant thereof in a deliberate attempt to mislead, as opposed to confusion between established brands.
Many do not understand this point. Unlike domain names, which are ambiguous, trademarks have a couple of dimensions that allow ambiguity to be greatly reduced: class and geographical scope.
I have actually developed a solution for the domain name ambiguity problem. It respects all trademark owners, not just the ones who pay ICANN the most. (Aside from squatters, registrars and registries, ICANN takes a small percentage of every defensive registration for every trademark in existence. Now ICANN has upped the ante to well over $200K.)
Of course, it is a simple solution and I doubt anyone is interested. The way things are structured, with ICANN encouraging (by ignoring) conflict and promoting a "winner take all" approach to naming, is beneficial to those who are gaming the system. And it is quite easy to exploit ambiguity, "winner take all", and to game this system.
The root really isn't as important as people are led to believe. It's the large registries that are more important, such as .com. If a user wants to access names in a fringe tld registry, whatever it may be, he can tune his DNS to allow that. If the content on sites in that tld is that good, he'll make the effort to adjust his DNS settings. It is not prohibitively difficuly by any means.
ICANN wants to play the registry game, after years of watching domaining and repurposed cctld's making millions for others. The root is all they have. So, like a registry, they want to open the root zone to domainers, which will also force the hand of trademark holders who need to register defensively. ICANN knows exactly how this all works, and this is a calculated move to enrich insiders.
The person at ICANN who was supposedly running the program just resigned. A replacement was just announced.
I'm always surprised when people defend ICANN and their root. The root is not so important. If you have your system tuned to access the .com/.net servers, you can access the majority of the internet. Add .org and the cctld's and you have almost 99%. The root zone is not very dynamic. You can run your own copy. It rarely changes. But the root is all ICANN has with respect to naming (IANA is the real jewel of their crown, though the US Dept of Commerce may take that away if ICANN is not careful). ICANN wants to play the domain name game. If this whole new gtld proposal does not make you see the level of double dealing going on at ICANN, I'm not sure what will.
ICANN's role is overstated. The addresses of the tld servers we all use rarely change. Any user could manage their own copy of the root. The root really just serves to prime DNS caches. It is not something that should get queried very often.
Seems like I covered the Apple case.
"the problem. And it extends to words and concepts that weren't created by anyone living today. Sex, love, laughter, babies, books, songs, cars, poetry, etc. These things shouldn't be TLDs, they're too important, too basic to life. Not the kinds of things any company, for crying out loud, should be able to claim to own."
Why is it such a tragedy if poetry is a TLD but poetry.com is no problem? Why is unthinkable that a company could own .poetry but no problem if the same company owns poetry.com?
In fact, Apple Inc and Apple Records engaged in a long-standing legal spat over the usage of the Apple mark before finally reaching a settlement in 2007.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer
That line of argument is expressly what the author was trying to avoid. The author acknowledged there were issues with it but stepped beyond them because there's a larger point that he was trying to make. (One I think has its own issues, but that's for another post.)
Dave - you own scripting.com. What gives you the right to control that? How is that any different? I can't use me.scripting.com without your approval. You didn't agree to letting anyone do that when you bought the domain for $x per year in fees. You didn't invent the word "scripting" you were just the one to get the domain back in 1995, right?
What gives anyone the right to own any domain name "news.com" or "boat.com" etc?
That said I am not a fan of the new TLD's but that's a separate issue.
Who's "we" sucka?
(Sorry - see 2:17 in on the following had to crack a rare joke):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoXDzsuqXFg
"the rules everyone was playing by then"
The rules are clearly laid out now. The difference is that you need to be able to pay real money to play now. Some of that is greed and some is practical. You need to limit the applicants to organizations with the financial wherewithal to be able to provide the stability needed (that said they do have some kind of program for less financially worth non-profits).
"I don't think we should."
To late for this now. The time to do that was many years ago when comments were invited and there were meetings etc.
By the way there are many parts to the ICANN process that are exclusionary. To get to one of their meetings you have to be able to afford to get in an airplane and fly to an exotic (and sometimes) unsafe location. Nothing fair about that. But that is the way things are (in Washington as well).
This will give malware purveyors a whole new plethora of vectors to exploit insofar as social engineering goes.
Imagine regular user 'A' is surfing, looking for a cool new pair of shoes. They know that kewlShoes is their fav shoe company evar. Some entity has paid the huge fee to acquire the .shoes TLD in order to sub-let domains at whatever nominal fee they decide.
User 'A' browses to kewl.shoes instead of kewlshoes.kshoes and unwittingly becomes the latest drive-by-download victim happily handing over their credentials to who-knows-who.
I know this is broad and speculative, but think it is worth consideration.
Has there been other discussion about this out there that I haven't seen?
Would you say it really isn't an issue?
No one claims that Verisign owns commerce just because they manage the .com domain. Or that Google would own all blogs if they get to sell .blog domains.
Google said clearly in their application that they will not allow others to register .blog names.
I think it's a fair question. Maybe at one point there was a need to have different namespaces, but what need there is now for it, hard to say.
* Domains + sub-domains allows for wildcard SSL cert registrations (e.g. a cert that covers .example.com).
There's also cookie registration.* How do I differentiate between my_blog_host, my_blog_host_2 and really.my_blog_host? Are they all owned by the same person? Is really.my_blog_host associated with my_blog_host?
For anything really, but let's start with domain names, since we're on the topic.
Some enterprises will have the new fancy TLDs, good for them. The rest of us will have to keep going as we have been going (we might even get access some of the new TLDs.) I really doubt that, for example, having my.book will be a significant competitive advantage versus having mybook.com
What am I missing? (Yes, greedy ICANN is evil, but what else?)
I don't therefore see an issue with the registration of new descriptive gTLDs but only if access is provided in line with the above. The issue with Amazon/Google's land grab is that we cannot guarantee the basis on which access will be made available which could in turn lead to segregation, particularly if google were to control a gTLD and also provide greater prominence to it in search results.
At the present moment in time, it is the lack of certainty in the process which is troubling. Of course, if I read ICANN's handbook more fully things might become much clearer.
It just creates more and more opportunities for phishing attacks to have essentially unlimited TLDs created where it makes it harder for anybody to easily figure out what is the actual home of any company.
Also, I'm not worried about Amazon or Google or Facebook or Microsoft, but for smaller businesses, they're going to be faced with costly and unnecessary legal battles and challenges over all kinds of trademarks. It's such a waste of effort. It's bad enough when there were just a handful of TLDs that were relevant, but now that we have essentially unlimited domain names all sorts of additional costly conflicts will emerge.
If these new TLDs have to exist, one potential way to minimize confusion and minimize disputes would be for all .com owners to automatically be assigned that respective TLD, so you always automatically know that "icloud.apple" is owned by Apple.com and that "books.amazon" is owned by Amazon.com and if you went and bought "xyz12345.com" you would also automatically own the xyz12345 TLD so these disputes would mostly be already settled. But that's not going to happen because there would be no extra money in that.
Who's with me?
The only solution to this mess I can see is a non-profit HTTPS server certificate verification authority in combination with a complete revamp of the user experience for browsing web ressources. I should be able to just search for the page I want to visit instead of having to remember its exact name.
It's a human-readable addressing scheme. At some point, words will be used. The more memorable, the more usable. All those words that were "too important" to be used as TLDs should be allowed as TLDs precisely because they are important.
TLDs should be open to any string of characters, unicode if possible, and registrars should have universal single price registration fees for any site on any domain.
If in that nightmare world .llama should be bought by a fad in comfortable footwear, depriving some Llama rancher's association of their god-given rights to address space, we will just have to hope Mother Earth will somehow learn to heal.
Instead of imagining future conflicts, we should look at TLD behavior right now. Look at the rise of super short TLDs flooding profits to random countries. It might make you realize that appending the meaningless ".com" at the end of everything is a giant waste of time, since people will pay so handsomely to avoid this, all proceeds to random lottery winners like Tuvalu. (Nothing against Tuvalu, who undoubtedly needs the money for boats to leave their poor drowning island.)
If you look into what consumers want, instead of the complaints of a few random interest groups, it'd be clear we should somehow be able to go to "google" instead of "google.com" or "wiki" instead of "wikipedia.org" or "bit" instead of "bit.ly." Chinese users should be able to spell Baidu in their natural language, without resorting to a half-assed toneless Westernization.
ICANN's biggest mistake is not going far enough. They should chuck the whole TLD system and start from scratch, driven by the revealed preferences of those who actually browse the internet.
Lets not act like the landing page URL is such a big deal. It is if you built up a trademark and if everyone is used to going to .blog for every single blog. But nobody is used to that. And nobody cares. And even if they are used to that habits can very quickly change. There were lots of so called "monopoly" destinations a decade ago and not even one of them is still standing today. Its a whole new ballgame on the Internet. And every ten years its going to be a whole new ballgame again.
Dude is seriously getting emo about a non issue.
But when the gTLDs are available for grabs, the big companies will definitely get their trademarks as TLDs, even when they have no intention to open that to the public. gTLD scheme is not new - .COM is managed by Verisign, the same way as the potential .google being managed by Google. What's new is the removal of the requirement of opening for public registration, and much less regulation and evaluation of eligibility.
When the big companies have their special branding schemes, small businesses lose out. Suppose that the new gTLD scheme is a huge success (which IMO not likely), .google, .apple and .amazon are official tags for big companies, and .COM will be the small business paradise. This divide is definitely harmful for internet development.
That will no longer be possible. Also, it will not possible to just assume that the TLD is the new domain name, with every middle-sized company snatching up their brand name as TLD.
So when that expectation is no longer there, there will be no problems at all. Some of these TLDs will work similar to the existing generic TLDs, with the possibility for third parties to buy regular domains. Others will operate more like private tropical islands, used as some kind of status symbol.
The whole thing has one likely positive consequence, though. It might weaken the idea that you could somehow own a name or word. Some arbitrary slightly deep-pocketed entity grabs a name that most legitimately interested people cannot afford. That happens often enough, and nobody gives much about that name plaque any longer. Plus, old-fashioned brand operators will have a tough time buying up all "their" domains under the newly formed TLDs until they eventually give up and realize they cannot control "their" name in every conceivable abstract namespace. Everyone wins.
One reason to be optimistic about the failure of gTLDs is recognition. I think people understand that something ending in .com or .net or a ccTDL is an 'internet address', but how do you indicate this with a gTLD like 'book' or 'blog' where there is no visual hint to indicate that it is a domain?
