Is the .FOOD poisoned?
Hi all, One of the most recent gTLDs to be released has already been declared "evil" before it even launches. The .FOOD gTLD is what's called a "closed generic"; that is, its subdomains are not for sale through the usual registrar channel to the public. Its use is controlled by the company that owns the "Food Network" on television in the US and elsewhere, and already has "food.com". This article in DomainIncite <http://domainincite.com/21271-food-goes-live-and-its-a-closed-generic> calls the designation of .food as a closed generic to be " one of the new gTLD program’s biggest failures ". I'm not sure I agree. Outside of domain sellers and would-be speculators who will be denied their transactions, will anyone in the outside world -- who will never know of the missed "opportunity" -- even care? After all, hundreds of alternative TLDs already exist, and my instincts suggest that gastronomic-minded registrants would still prefer a dot-com name first if they could get it.... Personally, I would go so far as to suggest that such closed TLDs could even be a good thing. Among a sea of conventional TLDs used for essentially identical functions, a closed generic -- unbound from the shackles of having to sell through registrars -- could actually bring some real innovation to the DNS. Using subdomains as a catalog or archiving index, with a consistent interface throughout the TLD, could be an interesting experiment. And you won't likely find scammers and spammers under a closed gTLD so it might actually gain more public trust than conventional "open" ones.... I'm curious to know the opinion of others. Personally, in this case I am happy to support the status quo and wish Scripps Networks luck in doing something out of the ordinary. And I would oppose any efforts to get At-Large to take a stand against this opportunity. Thank you. -- Evan Leibovitch Geneva, CH Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56
The .FOOD gTLD is what's called a "closed generic"; ...Its use is controlled by the company that owns the "Food Network" ... <snip> And you won't likely find scammers and spammers under a closed gTLD so it might actually gain more public trust than conventional "open" ones....
If I understand the situation, and the point made above, that seems both true and (mildly) worrisome. Any entity that could 'grab' such a gTLD could become the funnel for trusted content in that category. I don't feel irked to the point of wanting to contest it, though.
On 15 November 2016 at 20:54, Eve Edelson <eveedelson@gmail.com> wrote:
If I understand the situation, and the point made above, that seems both true and (mildly) worrisome. Any entity that could 'grab' such a gTLD could become the funnel for trusted content in that category.
Thanks for the comments, Eve. Interesting your use of the word "trusted" . I can't think of how an open gTLD (in which anyone could buy a subdomain) would be more trustworthy than a brand with a reputation to protect and the ability to play gatekeeper. But I could see the reverse. Just something to think about. - Evan
If I understand the situation, and the point made above, that seems both true and (mildly) worrisome. Any entity that could 'grab' such a gTLD could become the funnel for trusted content in that category.
Thanks for the comments, Eve.
Interesting your use of the word "trusted" .
I took my cue from the phrase 'public trust' : "And you won't likely find scammers and spammers under a closed gTLD so it might actually gain more public trust than conventional "open" ones...." And I take your remark below as a good one:
I can't think of how an open gTLD (in which anyone could buy a subdomain) would be more trustworthy than a brand with a reputation to protect and the ability to play gatekeeper. But I could see the reverse.
I guess in the end I am responsible for due diligence when gleaning content from someguyontheinternet.com (which I checked just now and is taken, oh well).
Just a general observation: I don't think policy should be driven on a guess at the likelihood that a gTLD might be desirable to end-users or not. Granted one has to gauge the importance of an issue to those potentially affected to decide how much wood to put behind that arrow, but nonetheless. Also, I don't know of any of these .BRAND gTLDs which are doing anything out in the wild other than creating SLDs for their products or marketing campaigns such as next100.bmw. Which is fine but that's not what's being discussed here vis a vis .FOOD. Has any closed TLD actually offered registration to end users? There're a lot of RSN speculation or puff pieces on why this is going to be so great. (RSN = Real Soon Now) -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo*
On 15 November 2016 at 23:28, <bzs@theworld.com> wrote:
I don't think policy should be driven on a guess at the likelihood that a gTLD might be desirable to end-users or not.
Why not? So far gTLDs have been given out based in guesses that they'd be financially stable. There was no market analysis before the expansion round to deminstrate either demand or viability, so it's all been driven on guesswork so far. There is an interest that the world of non-domain-buyers and non-domain-sellers has in the landscape of the DNS. Arguably that is EXACTLY what the bylaws mandate At-Large to advance and advise.
Also, I don't know of any of these .BRAND gTLDs which are doing anything out in the wild other than creating SLDs for their products or marketing campaigns such as next100.bmw. Which is fine but that's not what's being discussed here vis a vis .FOOD.
We don't know. What we do know is that the open ones, with VERY few exceptions (ie, dot-bank and maybe dot-ngo) have a singular business model, mostly based on tonnage of domains sold.
Has any closed TLD actually offered registration to end users?
They have to be careful how they do it, let they run afoul of the registrar lobby, er, constituency. Personally, I'm hoping that Google walks this path because it's consistent with how it's disrupted other fields such as email and productivity apps.
There're a lot of RSN speculation or puff pieces on why this is going to be so great.
Don't know about great; right now the bar is low enough that I'll settle for interesting or unusual. I do hope that a few of them break out with innovative ideas of how to use (and monetize) bits of the DNS. Dot-food, as being one potential branch of a large media company that already works in print, broadcast and streaming, has a legitimate potential for innovation. Whether and how Scripps takes advantage of that is anyone's guess. But whatever they pick, and whether it succeeds or not, it will be more innovative than yet one more goldrush and sunrise and pool of speculators. - Evan
On November 16, 2016 at 01:32 evan@telly.org (Evan Leibovitch) wrote:
On 15 November 2016 at 23:28, <bzs@theworld.com> wrote:
I don't think policy should be driven on a guess at the likelihood that a gTLD might be desirable to end-users or not. Why not? So far gTLDs have been given out based in guesses that they'd be financially stable. There was no market analysis before the expansion round to deminstrate either demand or viability, so it's all been driven on guesswork so far.
That's a whole different kettle of fish.
From what I can tell there just wasn't all that much concern whether a gTLD registry was long term financially stable, only short term. They had to show sufficient financials to get started.
There is the "Continued Operations Instrument": https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/coi-2015-09-28-en which aims to, as the name implies, continue registry operations in the event of failure. And EBERO, the Emergency Back-End Registry Operator. https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/ebero-2013-04-02-en But ok those are responses not predictors. We shall know more about all this in the fullness of time. And probably not a lot of time, another couple of years.
There is an interest that the world of non-domain-buyers and non-domain-sellers has in the landscape of the DNS. Arguably that is EXACTLY what the bylaws mandate At-Large to advance and advise.
What? That they need to have an interest in gtlds they have no interest in? I guess that's roughly what COI and EBERO are.
Also, I don't know of any of these .BRAND gTLDs which are doing anything out in the wild other than creating SLDs for their products or marketing campaigns such as next100.bmw. Which is fine but that's not what's being discussed here vis a vis .FOOD.
We don't know. What we do know is that the open ones, with VERY few exceptions (ie, dot-bank and maybe dot-ngo) have a singular business model, mostly based on tonnage of domains sold.
Yes, but we're talking about the closed ones and looking for any examples from them giving a hint how they might operate. Q. What's the difference between elephants and giraffes? A. They all have long necks, except for the elephants.
Has any closed TLD actually offered registration to end users?
They have to be careful how they do it, let they run afoul of the registrar lobby, er, constituency. Personally, I'm hoping that Google walks this path because it's consistent with how it's disrupted other fields such as email and productivity apps.
Personally I expected Sony to do something with their very successful Playstation brand.For example offer all their online players a domain for their game console for example probably for a price, or a coupon in the box, perhaps as part of product registration.
There're a lot of RSN speculation or puff pieces on why this is going to be so great.
Don't know about great; right now the bar is low enough that I'll settle for interesting or unusual. I do hope that a few of them break out with innovative ideas of how to use (and monetize) bits of the DNS. Dot-food, as being one potential branch of a large media company that already works in print, broadcast and streaming, has a legitimate potential for innovation. Whether and how Scripps takes advantage of that is anyone's guess.
But whatever they pick, and whether it succeeds or not, it will be more innovative than yet one more goldrush and sunrise and pool of speculators.
Or more of what we've seen which is mostly nothing, other than perhaps one website per Food Network Show or personality which will probably just be a link to their existing website. If even that. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo*
participants (3)
-
bzs＠theworld.com -
Evan Leibovitch -
Eve Edelson