I've been an advocate of new gTLDs for over ten years now, and time and again I have seen the process delayed by studies and the need for further preparation. The truth is that we cannot foresee with 100% certainty all of the consequences of this, or any, change in the fabric of the Internet. We will always have something to study and something new on which to ponder and prepare. The last five years have seen a concerted effort on behalf of the GNSO, ICANN Staff, and the ICANN community at large to move this process forward, finally, and we now have a very thoughtful, if not always perfect, set of guidelines prepared by ICANN Staff. As a much smarter man once observed, "the perfect is the enemy of the good." We cannot wait for perfection or we will never go anywhere at all. These guidelines are going through yet another revision now, and we almost certainly still have the opportunity to provide meaningful input into the process and impact the final version. While I can understand the desire to make the RFP and implementation guidelines the best they can be, I don't support the call for further delay. Let me comment briefly on the reasons advanced as supporting a delay of the process (copied from Beau's recent email):
* The economic impact study promised in 2006 [needs to be] released and evaluated.
This was the principle reason advanced by the NTIA, but it rests on a faulty premise. The NTIA assumes that the primary purpose of introducing new gTLDs is to compete with .COM and the other incumbents. They believe -- as do I -- that new gTLDs will not alter the market power exercised by the incumbents in the TLDs they operate. Based on this assumption, they then make the leap that ICANN may not need to introduce new gTLDs at all. While increased registry-to- registry competition might be a happy consequence of new GTLDs, that is far down on the list of reasons for adding new gTLDs. As I have always seen it, new gTLDs will serve new communities, and in some cases serve those communities with their own languages, not served by the current suite of gTLDs and ccTLDs. From a user perspective, the 2006 economic study will not change the fact that currently under- served groups will gain new identifiers, in their own languages or in words meaningful in their own communities.
* ICANN [needs to] develop and implement compliance processes to manage all requirements in existing registry and registrar contracts. * ICANN [needs to] develop compliance processes for any new or different requirements in new contracts. * That IDN gTLDs and IDN ccTLDs [should be] delayed as well until similar issues regarding contract compliance are clearly addressed and disseminated to the user community.
We can make contractual and compliance issues a focus of our work without delaying the introduction of new gTLDs. Keep in mind that from the time ICANN releases the final new gTLD RFP to the time a TLD is selected and the registry operator signed up to a contract is close to a year. (The time between those two points is spent preparing the TLD application and then, after it is filed, evaluating it.) Let's get the RFP finalized and then turn all resources we wish to allocate to it to the issue of contractual compliance -- keeping mind that contractual compliance is another tail we can chase forever if we choose to spend our time doing it.
* That ICANN evaluates user community concerns with specific details contained in the new gTLD applicant guidebook, to be conveyed in a separate communication to the ICANN board, and provides a timely response to them.
This is the only battle I would join now, but even here, I think we can advance the user community's interests without delaying anything. If we think user interests are being trampled, then, yes, we should advocate delaying the process. I think, however, that we can advance user interests, both with the Staff and the Board, within the current time frames and make meaningful improvements in the current draft. We are going to see many calls for additional study and additional delay come from those who wish to shut this process down entirely. Some groups will never be satisfied with the results of any study, any process, or any decision that allows even one new TLD. Let us not join those who want to (ab)use the policy process, and the elusive search for perfection, as a tool for advancing the agenda of the status quo. -- Bret
If I can only add one sentence to the complete exposition of Bret, I would ask the following question. Am I the only one who sees the similarity between the new gTLD introduction and the WhoIs process, in the sense that some groups that are happy with the status quo will find always one more reason to propose new studies and analyses, with the result that nothing gets ever done? Happy new year. Roberto
-----Original Message----- From: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Bret Fausett Sent: Friday, 09 January 2009 21:28 To: At-Large Worldwide Subject: [At-Large] Thoughts on Delaying New gTLDs
I've been an advocate of new gTLDs for over ten years now, and time and again I have seen the process delayed by studies and the need for further preparation. The truth is that we cannot foresee with 100% certainty all of the consequences of this, or any, change in the fabric of the Internet. We will always have something to study and something new on which to ponder and prepare. The last five years have seen a concerted effort on behalf of the GNSO, ICANN Staff, and the ICANN community at large to move this process forward, finally, and we now have a very thoughtful, if not always perfect, set of guidelines prepared by ICANN Staff. As a much smarter man once observed, "the perfect is the enemy of the good." We cannot wait for perfection or we will never go anywhere at all. These guidelines are going through yet another revision now, and we almost certainly still have the opportunity to provide meaningful input into the process and impact the final version.
While I can understand the desire to make the RFP and implementation guidelines the best they can be, I don't support the call for further delay. Let me comment briefly on the reasons advanced as supporting a delay of the process (copied from Beau's recent email):
* The economic impact study promised in 2006 [needs to be] released and evaluated.
This was the principle reason advanced by the NTIA, but it rests on a faulty premise. The NTIA assumes that the primary purpose of introducing new gTLDs is to compete with .COM and the other incumbents. They believe -- as do I -- that new gTLDs will not alter the market power exercised by the incumbents in the TLDs they operate. Based on this assumption, they then make the leap that ICANN may not need to introduce new gTLDs at all. While increased registry-to- registry competition might be a happy consequence of new GTLDs, that is far down on the list of reasons for adding new gTLDs. As I have always seen it, new gTLDs will serve new communities, and in some cases serve those communities with their own languages, not served by the current suite of gTLDs and ccTLDs. From a user perspective, the 2006 economic study will not change the fact that currently under- served groups will gain new identifiers, in their own languages or in words meaningful in their own communities.
* ICANN [needs to] develop and implement compliance processes to manage all requirements > in existing registry and registrar contracts. * ICANN [needs to] develop compliance processes for any new or different requirements in new contracts. * That IDN gTLDs and IDN ccTLDs [should be] delayed as well until similar issues regarding > contract compliance are clearly addressed and disseminated to the user community.
We can make contractual and compliance issues a focus of our work without delaying the introduction of new gTLDs. Keep in mind that from the time ICANN releases the final new gTLD RFP to the time a TLD is selected and the registry operator signed up to a contract is close to a year. (The time between those two points is spent preparing the TLD application and then, after it is filed, evaluating it.) Let's get the RFP finalized and then turn all resources we wish to allocate to it to the issue of contractual compliance -- keeping mind that contractual compliance is another tail we can chase forever if we choose to spend our time doing it.
* That ICANN evaluates user community concerns with specific details contained > in the new gTLD applicant guidebook, to be conveyed in a separate communication > to the ICANN board, and provides a timely response to them.
This is the only battle I would join now, but even here, I think we can advance the user community's interests without delaying anything. If we think user interests are being trampled, then, yes, we should advocate delaying the process. I think, however, that we can advance user interests, both with the Staff and the Board, within the current time frames and make meaningful improvements in the current draft.
We are going to see many calls for additional study and additional delay come from those who wish to shut this process down entirely. Some groups will never be satisfied with the results of any study, any process, or any decision that allows even one new TLD. Let us not join those who want to (ab)use the policy process, and the elusive search for perfection, as a tool for advancing the agenda of the status quo.
-- Bret
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlar ge-lists.icann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
At 21:49 09/01/2009, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
If I can only add one sentence to the complete exposition of Bret, I would ask the following question. Am I the only one who sees the similarity between the new gTLD introduction and the WhoIs process, in the sense that some groups that are happy with the status quo will find always one more reason to propose new studies and analyses, with the result that nothing gets ever done? Happy new year. Roberto
Dear Roberto, you are right there certainly are similarities in the roots and in the process. The question is to know for sure, before engaging ICANN in the TLD saga, if these WhoIs (and IDN, and IPv6, and @large, etc.) related delaying attitudes, - due to the importance of the matter, the Internet for the Rich signal, the circumstances of JPA - and to the technology real state (IDNA, absurd DNSSEC, IPv6 non-deployment, IGF attitude, etc. etc.) and probable evolution, will not be, this time, a error too much. If you feel confident about it, please go ahead. You will (irt. ICANN by-laws) foster competition in managing the single virtual root. Due to the risk at stake for the Internet, I leave you (ICANN BoD) to decide. I am interested from now on in the rescue prepration. Take care and happy new year (it might be exciting!) jfc
Dear Brett, I read your documented points. They all are correct, provided you accept the so called Internet for the Rich strategy. That strategy is questionable because no serious risk study about a resulting e-9/11 has been made. The namespace we created under FCC license was open to all. By then, limitations came from PTT monopoloies. Direct US interconnects for US, large, and then smaller private or local networks permitted to bypass them. Today ICANN's more or less accepted monopoly becomes technically stupid, politically biaised, and money led. - Everyone knows managing a zone. Everyone knows when registering with a ccTLD they depend on the ccTLD rules and QoS and not on ICANN rules (and this is why some ccTLDs manage to survive and other develop well). - IDNA and the IANA 3166 political attempts in favor of the US industry would be laughable if they did not lead to an Internet balkanization. - the most dangerous issue is the money based racist discrimination against sociocultural TLDs. They permit private e-colonization and defeat e-empowerment. This is a warmonger attitude we will all regret when we start learning what Unrestricted Warfare really is. I have no objection to the ANZA dynamism (spacially Joop Teernstra) but I am afraid Joe Sims was wrong not to impose an ICANN general equilibrium. Moreover the South-Pacific ICANN dominance is not supported by a comparable IETF presence able to explain it the risks. I suspect ICANN's policy and attitude and international adhesion might differ should it have a more diversified regional basis. For example, an Italian Chair, a Chinese ccTLD Chair, an US CEO, one African Member at the Compensation Committee, a VietNamese Risk Committee Chair, a Governmental Relations Russian Manager, a Root Zone Services Spanish Manager, an Indian EXO and VP Corporate Affairs, an Iranian ALAC Chair, etc. might have helped a more diversified culture and a less unilateral proposition. jfc At 21:28 09/01/2009, Bret Fausett wrote:
I've been an advocate of new gTLDs for over ten years now, and time and again I have seen the process delayed by studies and the need for further preparation. The truth is that we cannot foresee with 100% certainty all of the consequences of this, or any, change in the fabric of the Internet. We will always have something to study and something new on which to ponder and prepare. The last five years have seen a concerted effort on behalf of the GNSO, ICANN Staff, and the ICANN community at large to move this process forward, finally, and we now have a very thoughtful, if not always perfect, set of guidelines prepared by ICANN Staff. As a much smarter man once observed, "the perfect is the enemy of the good." We cannot wait for perfection or we will never go anywhere at all. These guidelines are going through yet another revision now, and we almost certainly still have the opportunity to provide meaningful input into the process and impact the final version.
While I can understand the desire to make the RFP and implementation guidelines the best they can be, I don't support the call or further delay. Let me comment briefly on the reasons advanced as supporting a delay of the process (copied from Beau's recent email):
* The economic impact study promised in 2006 [needs to be] released and evaluated.
This was the principle reason advanced by the NTIA, but it rests on a faulty premise. The NTIA assumes that the primary purpose of introducing new gTLDs is to compete with .COM and the other incumbents. They believe -- as do I -- that new gTLDs will not alter the market power exercised by the incumbents in the TLDs they operate. Based on this assumption, they then make the leap that ICANN may not need to introduce new gTLDs at all. While increased registry-to- registry competition might be a happy consequence of new GTLDs, that is far down on the list of reasons for adding new gTLDs. As I have always seen it, new gTLDs will serve new communities, and in some cases serve those communities with their own languages, not served by the current suite of gTLDs and ccTLDs. From a user perspective, the 2006 economic study will not change the fact that currently under- served groups will gain new identifiers, in their own languages or in words meaningful in their own communities.
* ICANN [needs to] develop and implement compliance processes to manage all requirements in existing registry and registrar contracts. * ICANN [needs to] develop compliance processes for any new or different requirements in new contracts. * That IDN gTLDs and IDN ccTLDs [should be] delayed as well until similar issues regarding contract compliance are clearly addressed and disseminated to the user community.
We can make contractual and compliance issues a focus of our work without delaying the introduction of new gTLDs. Keep in mind that from the time ICANN releases the final new gTLD RFP to the time a TLD is selected and the registry operator signed up to a contract is close to a year. (The time between those two points is spent preparing the TLD application and then, after it is filed, evaluating it.) Let's get the RFP finalized and then turn all resources we wish to allocate to it to the issue of contractual compliance -- keeping mind that contractual compliance is another tail we can chase forever if we choose to spend our time doing it.
* That ICANN evaluates user community concerns with specific details contained in the new gTLD applicant guidebook, to be conveyed in a separate communication to the ICANN board, and provides a timely response to them.
This is the only battle I would join now, but even here, I think we can advance the user community's interests without delaying anything. If we think user interests are being trampled, then, yes, we should advocate delaying the process. I think, however, that we can advance user interests, both with the Staff and the Board, within the current time frames and make meaningful improvements in the current draft.
We are going to see many calls for additional study and additional delay come from those who wish to shut this process down entirely. Some groups will never be satisfied with the results of any study, any process, or any decision that allows even one new TLD. Let us not join those who want to (ab)use the policy process, and the elusive search for perfection, as a tool for advancing the agenda of the status quo.
-- Bret
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
* The economic impact study promised in 2006 [needs to be] released and evaluated.
This was the principal reason advanced by the NTIA, but it rests on a faulty premise. The NTIA assumes that the primary purpose of introducing new gTLDs is to compete with .COM and the other incumbents. They believe -- as do I -- that new gTLDs will not alter the market power exercised by the incumbents in the TLDs they operate. Based on this assumption, they then make the leap that ICANN may not need to introduce new gTLDs at all.
I read it as a little more sophisticated than that; they have the not unreasonable concern that new TLDs may exist mostly to shake down existing registrants who'd want defensive registrations in new domains.
As I have always seen it, new gTLDs will serve new communities, and in some cases serve those communities with their own languages, not served by the current suite of gTLDs and ccTLDs.
I know that those are the standard examples, but the more I think about it, the less sense it makes. The idea that there are tiny language groups hanging around saying "oh, if only we had a TLD then we would do all sorts of Internet stuff" is rather implausible. They need software that works in their language, perhaps they need people to put their literature online, or to make libraries of existing material, or to host community mail systems and web sites, but what they do not need is a $100,000 vanity TLD to suck up their time and attention. If we look at the new TLDs to date, they fall into three general categories: generic clones like BIZ and INFO, communities of interest like MUSEUM, TRAVEL, and COOP, and technical hacks like TEL, the rejected MAIL, and maybe NAME and POST. If we look at the communities of interest, they've consistently failed to attract membership from their communities. The linguistic CAT is sort of successful but not much of a model since Catalonia is unusually rich, wired, on good terms with their national government, and had an enthusiastic advocate on the ICANN board. The community MOBI is somewhat successful, due to a combination of heavy financial backing and a useful one-off technical hack (web sites that work on your phone.) Other than that, they're all failures. Even if we add in the ccTLDs that have tried to turn themselves into community domains, they've all failed, too. How many people from Los Angeles have a .LA domain? How many doctors have .MD? Given the price and the hassle involved, I'd expect mostly to see corporate vanity domains like .IBM and various attempts to make money from communities. All of the latter will fail, and in desperation they'll do all sorts of sleazy things, the way that .TRAVEL is going all squat all the time. This tells me that the economic analysis and compliance are both important to minimize the damage.
We can make contractual and compliance issues a focus of our work without delaying the introduction of new gTLDs.
Experience shows that ICANN is phenomenally distractable. If they set up new gTLDs without compliance in place, it'll never happen. It's taken the better part of a decade to sort of do compliance for the rules they have now. Why would they be any faster in the future? R's, John
hi all, On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 4:08 AM, John L <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
* The economic impact study promised in 2006 [needs to be] released and evaluated.
This was the principal reason advanced by the NTIA, but it rests on a faulty premise. The NTIA assumes that the primary purpose of introducing new gTLDs is to compete with .COM and the other incumbents. They believe -- as do I -- that new gTLDs will not alter the market power exercised by the incumbents in the TLDs they operate. Based on this assumption, they then make the leap that ICANN may not need to introduce new gTLDs at all.
I read it as a little more sophisticated than that; they have the not unreasonable concern that new TLDs may exist mostly to shake down existing registrants who'd want defensive registrations in new domains.
quite reasonable concern IMHO.
As I have always seen it, new gTLDs will serve new communities, and in some cases serve those communities with their own languages, not served by the current suite of gTLDs and ccTLDs.
I know that those are the standard examples, but the more I think about it, the less sense it makes. The idea that there are tiny language groups hanging around saying "oh, if only we had a TLD then we would do all sorts of Internet stuff" is rather implausible. They need software that works in their language, perhaps they need people to put their literature online, or to make libraries of existing material, or to host community mail systems and web sites, but what they do not need is a $100,000 vanity TLD to suck up their time and attention.
This is my sense as well. <snip> -- Cheers, McTim http://stateoftheinternetin.ug
The idea that there are tiny language groups hanging around saying "oh, if only we had a TLD then we would do all sorts of Internet stuff" is rather implausible.
I'm not sure what you mean by "tiny language groups," but I had in mind languages like Chinese. And I don't think anyone claims that TLDs enable Internet access or the creation of Internet content, but they may enable identity and branding and ease of communication, for IDNs.
new TLDs may exist mostly to shake down existing registrants who'd want defensive registrations in new domains.
Every executive at a registry or prospective registry I know thinks defensive registrations are one of the worst things for their business, because they tie up quality names in the hands of people who don't use them or simply redirect them to the .COM. It is awful advertising for your namespace if most instances of it redirect to a .COM. Believe it or not, the goal is *not* to sell to the existing .COM registrants. If I am .WEB or .INFO or something, I'd much rather have the Idaho Butter Manufacturers actually use IBM.WEB than let International Business Machines register it defensively.
Experience shows that ICANN is phenomenally distractable.
No doubt. Which is why new gTLDs was a goal set out in the White Paper, tested in 2000, with an evaluation to follow, and only now getting near the finish line now. -- Bret
Bret Fausett wrote:
The idea that there are tiny language groups hanging around saying "oh, if only we had a TLD then we would do all sorts of Internet stuff" is rather implausible.
I'm not sure what you mean by "tiny language groups," but I had in mind languages like Chinese. I think John was referring to most of the entries at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.cym#Language_and_community
In Paris I attended a reception staged by proponents of .bzh , and at the gala of the Cairo meeting I shared a table with the delegation pushing for .cym -- the points of view of both groups of TLD advocates were astoundingly similar. Most non-Europeans would have to look them up to even know that .cym is for Welsh language culture and .bzh is for the Brittany area of France. The efforts are very real, and issues of pride and cultural survival appear to be overriding mundane concerns such as business models and long-term stability. There seems to be a sincere -- but ill-advised, IMO belief that a cultural TLD will offer a technology haven in which native-language and cultural websites will be able to flourish, or at least slow down assimilation.
And I don't think anyone claims that TLDs enable Internet access or the creation of Internet content, but they may enable identity and branding and ease of communication, for IDNs. Such claims exist. Usually, as I've heard them, they take the form that a native TLD would facilitate the assertion of identity, at very least by making it easier to get relevant native-language domain names through explicit anti-squatter policies. As an example, consider that the Welsh word for "Wales" is "Cymru (see http://www.bbc.co.uk/cymru/), yet "cymru.com" (despite its Welsh dragon logo) points to an American IT security form and "cymru.org" is unused but owned (according to WHOIS data) by someone in Switzerland. There may be a feeling that cultural identity is being hijacked, without the trademark protections offered to commercial interests or the reserved phrases requested by governments.
The feeling is real and in some cases justified. But this of course begs the question of whether the answer is creation of a TLD for every national cultural/linguistic minority. Most current efforts share the wishful thinking that their TLD will also be valued (and domain registrations purchased) by their respective diasporas (ie, North Americans of Welsh background). I can't see any of these TLDs attracting more than a few thousand registrations and in some cases even that is optimistic. I almost wish that there was a single TLD, let's say ".nation" for instance, under which all of these could be placed.... maybe then there would be enough volume to sustain a stable TLD and reasonably priced domains. The new gTLD plans make specific mention of these "cultural" TLDs; by encouraging and not dissuading their creation, arguably ICANN could be seen to be exploiting cultural pride in order to gain the revenue from the new registrations.
new TLDs may exist mostly to shake down existing registrants who'd want defensive registrations in new domains.
Every executive at a registry or prospective registry I know thinks defensive registrations are one of the worst things for their business, because they tie up quality names in the hands of people who don't use them or simply redirect them to the .COM. It is awful advertising for your namespace if most instances of it redirect to a .COM. Believe it or not, the goal is *not* to sell to the existing .COM registrants. If I am .WEB or .INFO or something, I'd much rather have the Idaho Butter Manufacturers actually use IBM.WEB than let International Business Machines register it defensively. The goal for some TLDs is to maximize revenue as a business model. They don't care who owns IBM.<tld> so long as it's taken. Of course, defensive registrations don't have to happen. Does IBM really need ibm.<everything>? In the case of ccTLDs they may be seen like virtual branch offices, and there may be special purpose ones (like.mobi) make sense. But the trademark owners can do at least as much as registries to curb defensive registrations.
- Evan
Bret Fausett wrote:
The idea that there are tiny language groups hanging around saying "oh, if only we had a TLD then we would do all sorts of Internet stuff" is rather implausible.
I'm not sure what you mean by "tiny language groups," but I had in mind languages like Chinese. I think John was referring to most of the entries at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.cym#Language_and_community
And in dismissing them he's serious, or attempting to write a gag for Saturday Night Live as the Ugly American? If serious then how sad, small minded and dumb.
In Paris I attended a reception staged by proponents of .bzh , and at the gala of the Cairo meeting I shared a table with the delegation pushing for .cym -- the points of view of both groups of TLD advocates were astoundingly similar.
Most non-Europeans would have to look them up to even know that .cym is for Welsh language culture and .bzh is for the Brittany area of France. The efforts are very real, and issues of pride and cultural survival appear to be overriding mundane concerns such as business models and long-term stability. There seems to be a sincere -- but ill-advised, IMO belief that a cultural TLD will offer a technology haven in which native-language and cultural websites will be able to flourish, or at least slow down assimilation.
In Paris you might also have heard Amadeu talking about the impact of .cat, massive increase in Catalan content. Copied his comments below. Dot cat at least seems to suggest less ill advised than you thought.
And I don't think anyone claims that TLDs enable Internet access or the creation of Internet content, but they may enable identity and branding and ease of communication, for IDNs. Such claims exist. Usually, as I've heard them, they take the form that a native TLD would facilitate the assertion of identity, at very least by making it easier to get relevant native-language domain names through explicit anti-squatter policies. As an example, consider that the Welsh word for "Wales" is "Cymru (see http://www.bbc.co.uk/cymru/), yet "cymru.com" (despite its Welsh dragon logo) points to an American IT security form and "cymru.org" is unused but owned (according to WHOIS data) by someone in Switzerland. There may be a feeling that cultural identity is being hijacked, without the trademark protections offered to commercial interests or the reserved phrases requested by governments.
Good you mention the BBC, creation of Welsh language television and radio channels led to a resurgence in the use of the Welsh. What had been a near dead language no longer is. No reason to think that . cym, .bzh might not have the same success online.
The feeling is real and in some cases justified. But this of course begs the question of whether the answer is creation of a TLD for every national cultural/linguistic minority. Most current efforts share the wishful thinking that their TLD will also be valued (and domain registrations purchased) by their respective diasporas (ie, North Americans of Welsh background).
I can't see any of these TLDs attracting more than a few thousand registrations and in some cases even that is optimistic.
So what? Go to the transcripts and listen to Amadeu's explanation of .cat - small number of names, a lot of new content. It's not our job to pre-judge business plans.
I almost wish that there was a single TLD, let's say ".nation" for instance, under which all of these could be placed.... maybe then there would be enough volume to sustain a stable TLD and reasonably priced domains.
So people who want to develop Welsh language content will find a home at the second level under the English word "nation". I'm sure you can see the attraction in that... But perhaps your right, find the cash and put in an application, but don't write a business plan that limit the rights of others to innovate.
The new gTLD plans make specific mention of these "cultural" TLDs; by encouraging and not dissuading their creation, arguably ICANN could be seen to be exploiting cultural pride in order to gain the revenue from the new registrations.
new TLDs may exist mostly to shake down existing registrants who'd want defensive registrations in new domains.
Every executive at a registry or prospective registry I know thinks defensive registrations are one of the worst things for their business, because they tie up quality names in the hands of people who don't use them or simply redirect them to the .COM. It is awful advertising for your namespace if most instances of it redirect to a .COM. Believe it or not, the goal is *not* to sell to the existing .COM registrants. If I am .WEB or .INFO or something, I'd much rather have the Idaho Butter Manufacturers actually use IBM.WEB than let International Business Machines register it defensively. The goal for some TLDs is to maximize revenue as a business model. They don't care who owns IBM.<tld> so long as it's taken. Of course, defensive registrations don't have to happen. Does IBM really need ibm.<everything>?
No. But even if it decides it does, what's the cost -- small % of any typical marketing campaign? The Internet provides opportunities and costs, IBM and other companies gain enormous benefits from the domain name system. Costs here seem minimal, they are businesses, let them seek opportunities. Adam (Amadeu's comment from Paris below.)
In the case of ccTLDs they may be seen like virtual branch offices, and there may be special purpose ones (like.mobi) make sense. But the trademark owners can do at least as much as registries to curb defensive registrations.
- Evan
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
https://par.icann.org/files/paris/ParisWSNewgTLDS_23June08.txt
AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: Okay, I'm Amadeu Abril i Abril.
A disclaimer. I have not been working for dot cat for the last year and a half, so I am not just claiming my success at all. Now, I just wanted to show you some data. But as it's impossible to have a browser on the Web, we would need probably something like a technician or somebody who knows the Internet. Let me just explain that to you. You can do that at home. It's funny. Go to Google, and in the case, you put site, colon, dot cat, for instance. See how many results, how many pages are indexed by Google as belonging to dot cat domains. 9,400,000, something like that. It changes each hour, but over 9 million. Now do the same with all the other sTLDs or gTLDs, dot biz, whatever. You will be surprised. Now, do the next thing. Go to preferences, say, search in language Catalan. Do that for dot com, dot info, dot net, dot org -- sorry, dot org, not dot info -- and dot ES. The only ones over one million, dot EDU and dot info are the only ones close to half a million. All the rest are below one hundred thousand. The result is, since the appearance of dot cat two years ago, there are nearly double content in Catalan on the Internet. You know why? Because this filled up, people realized they have a place in the first division, not just in the second division. That special language. We're all bilingual in different languages. We all speak Catalan and Spanish or Catalan and French or Catalan and Italian, and sometimes some other languages. So, for these kind of communities, it's just an example, if you provide the right resource, managed the right way, this boosts contents, which is what the user wants. They don't want to buy domains. There's only 30,000 domains. But there's huge content, new content, in that language for people that like using their language. That's important. Then you can export that to real communities that exist offline. And they have a common life online. People tend to go to places that are -- you know, that use the languages they understand. I don't go very often to the, let's say, Korean district of the Internet, because I can't read a single word of Korean. It's my fault, I know. And I know that's much better than the things -- the places I go normally. But I cannot, because I don't speak this language. So there is an online community that uses that language and goes normally there. This one we should ask about trait branches or families or whatever. I'm not saying it's not. But is there a common life online that, you know, there's a purpose online that we serve not offline. Yes. Why not, then, go for it? It will work. Last thing. Dot cat only had 85 defensive registrations. Why? Tight control on pirates. There are some of them, but they're very marginal. Two UDRP cases, only one of them being a real cybersquatting, the other one being a contractual dispute with a terminated dealer that was also a licensee for the trademark. So it was not a clear case. So the question here is, this is just for minority languages, so on, but you can export that to many other communities, with (inaudible) or wherever, where there's a real interest in real common activities online, you will boost the content for these people. Okay? END
And in dismissing them he's serious, or attempting to write a gag for Saturday Night Live as the Ugly American? If serious then how sad, small minded and dumb.
Sigh. If you're going to insult me, could you at least spend a few seconds reading what I wrote before doing so? It's truly sad if the best we can do here is closed-minded sniping. R's, John
Adam Peake wrote:
I think John was referring to most of the entries at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.cym#Language_and_community
And in dismissing them he's serious, or attempting to write a gag for Saturday Night Live as the Ugly American? If serious then how sad, small minded and dumb.
Personal insults have no place in this discussion and demean your own position.
In Paris you might also have heard Amadeu talking about the impact of .cat, massive increase in Catalan content.
I was there but was utterly unconvinced. Cause and effect were presented but the link between them extremely weak indeed, if it existed at all. There was absolutely no demonstration that the boom in Catalan content would not have happened without .cat.
Copied his comments below. Dot cat at least seems to suggest less ill advised than you thought.
Sorry, the comments indicate to me little except the expected chest thumping, even using sports metaphors such as "first division". (Hmm... If Catalan is now first division, what culture got relegated to make room for them?) There is very weak if any proven causal link between the explosion of Catalan content and the creation of .cat -- one might have noticed that the volume of Internet content in *all* languages has mushroomed in the same timeframe. I will grant that one important element was the reduction in "pirate" registrations which kept defensive registrations down. But one need not have a culturally based TLD in order to have sane regulations regarding squatting. And we certainly don't need hundreds of tiny TLDs, spending legitimate cultural enhancement funds of governments and NGOs just to repeatedly re-invent this wheel?
As an example, consider that the Welsh word for "Wales" is "Cymru (see http://www.bbc.co.uk/cymru/), yet "cymru.com" (despite its Welsh dragon logo) points to an American IT security form and "cymru.org" is unused but owned (according to WHOIS data) by someone in Switzerland. There may be a feeling that cultural identity is being hijacked, without the trademark protections offered to commercial interests or the reserved phrases requested by governments.
Good you mention the BBC, creation of Welsh language television and radio channels led to a resurgence in the use of the Welsh. What had been a near dead language no longer is.
Dispensing with side discussions on the status of Welsh, it is telling that both you and I are using the BBC as an example of the growth of Welsh language content on the web. Hmm... what TLD are they using? I personally believe that cultural groups are being sold a fraudulent bill of goods by ICANN and the TLD proponents. It is being alluded that a TLD is more than it is. A TLD, the registry that maintains it and the registrars who sell its domains are not content creators or publishers. They're not television stations or film producers or bloggers. They're simply parts of a tool that provides the real creators with online names. Would any real potential content provider really say that they won't publish unless they can get their first choice of name? Or maybe indeed, a TLD need be nothing more than a status symbol for sale, an expensive cultural icon offering negligible practical value but an Internet-based focus of emotion. If that is the case then I would argue that ICANN is exploiting cultural pride for financial and political gain.
No reason to think that . cym, .bzh might not have the same success online. I guess our standards of success are different.
Go to the transcripts and listen to Amadeu's explanation of .cat - small number of names, a lot of new content. Cause and effect have not been proven.
It's not our job to pre-judge business plans. Sure it is, at very least because we don't want TLDs to go under and immediately shut out access to all the domains that were supposedly 'empowered'. Financial stability is most certainly a component of TLD applications, is it not?
Then again, if ICANN is seen to be engaging in exploitation of cultural pride for its own financial enrichment, (by encouraging applications from groups that are known in advance to be of questionable long-term stability) I don't consider that to be a very ethical approach.
So people who want to develop Welsh language content will find a home at the second level under the English word "nation". How degrading! how horrible! How utterly humiliating!
Actually, the word "nation" uses the same spelling, and is used the same way, in English French and German. Of the three it was first used in French and I think it has its root in Latin. But I really don't care what the actual name is for this TLD -- I'm just as happy with any unused set of characters or even the single-letter TLD ".n". The point is to have *a* blanket cultural TLD, regardless of what it's called.
But perhaps your right, find the cash and put in an application, but don't write a business plan that limit the rights of others to innovate. The right of registries to innovate is important to the registries, and they're welcome as a group to advocate for that (and they certainly do). But last I checked we were here in At-Large to advance the interest of the public, the registrants and end-users that would have to bear the biggest brunt of registry failure. In any conflicting interests between end-user and registry, in At-Large we have an obligation to be clearly on the side of the end-users.
In terms of promoting cultural production, TLDs serve no better function than good search engines, portals and resource sites. It is telling that in the new Google Chrome browser the same entry field is used for both domain names and search terms. The distinction has already blurred. The end-user depends upon domain names less each day as the way to find what they want on the Internet. And anyone who thinks that a TLD is necessary to maintain life in their language/culture should be concerned with bigger problems. - Evan
At 17:44 12/01/2009, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
And anyone who thinks that a TLD is necessary to maintain life in their language/culture should be concerned with bigger problems.
I am sorry, Evan, certainly the most pathetic conservative consideration I heard so far. Reminds me Rumsfeld's "shaping the world" and Clinton's "shaping the mind". Would you accept that this kind of technocultural position are true violations of Net Neutrality (limitation of access upon cultural and political grounds) and Human Rights (discrimination on language, culture, origin)? . All this to justify discrimination on money. BTW, where are you from? Again, the DNS is NOT a business. Creating and managing a TLD costs nothing. ICANN's Internet for the Rich wallabee strategy is bad. It represents a real danger for the world. In not helping stopping it, you most certainly lead to a conflict the USA do not want, and therefore to the end of ICANN. jfc
It is actually too sad that we cannot get out the ploutotechnocratical current ICANN spirit. The DNS is NOT a business. ALAC should be here to best advise ICANN, not to make it believe it is the only solution in town when it is the leading erroneous one. jfc At 04:09 12/01/2009, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
Bret Fausett wrote:
The idea that there are tiny language groups hanging around saying "oh, if only we had a TLD then we would do all sorts of Internet stuff" is rather implausible.
I'm not sure what you mean by "tiny language groups," but I had in mind languages like Chinese. I think John was referring to most of the entries at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.cym#Language_and_community
In Paris I attended a reception staged by proponents of .bzh , and at the gala of the Cairo meeting I shared a table with the delegation pushing for .cym -- the points of view of both groups of TLD advocates were astoundingly similar.
Most non-Europeans would have to look them up to even know that .cym is for Welsh language culture and .bzh is for the Brittany area of France.
At 10:37 12/01/2009, Adam Peake wrote:
It's not our job to pre-judge business plans.
I almost wish that there was a single TLD, let's say ".nation" for instance, under which all of these could be placed.... maybe then there would be enough volume to sustain a stable TLD and reasonably priced domains.
So people who want to develop Welsh language content will find a home at the second level under the English word "nation". I'm sure you can see the attraction in that... But perhaps your right, find the cash and put in an application, but don't write a business plan that limit the rights of others to innovate.
At 12:10 12/01/2009, John Levine wrote:
And in dismissing them he's serious, or attempting to write a gag for Saturday Night Live as the Ugly American? If serious then how sad, small minded and dumb.
Sigh. If you're going to insult me, could you at least spend a few seconds reading what I wrote before doing so? It's truly sad if the best we can do here is closed-minded sniping.
The goal for some TLDs is to maximize revenue as a business model. They don't care who owns IBM.<tld> so long as it's taken.
I think that's a popular misconception. All registrations aren't created equal. A registration in use serves as advertisement for the TLD, while a defensive registration that is pointed to a .COM or simply doesn't resolve reflects negatively on the TLD. I think any registry operator would tell you that REGISTRATION FEE + IN USE ADVERTISING > REGISTRATION FEE. -- Bret
Bret Fausett wrote:
The goal for some TLDs is to maximize revenue as a business model. They don't care who owns IBM.<tld> so long as it's taken.
I think that's a popular misconception. All registrations aren't created equal. A registration in use serves as advertisement for the TLD, while a defensive registration that is pointed to a .COM or simply doesn't resolve reflects negatively on the TLD. I think any registry operator would tell you that REGISTRATION FEE + IN USE ADVERTISING > REGISTRATION FEE.
I'm not sure whether the ad value of IBM.<yourTLD> going to Idaho Bakery Merchants outweighs the value of IBM believing your TLD is important enough to own a domain in it, even as a pointer. (ie, if it's good enough for them to want...) The situation may be better one way or the other, but it's not overwhelmingly so. - Evan
The goal for some TLDs is to maximize revenue as a business model. They don't care who owns IBM.<tld> so long as it's taken.
I think that's a popular misconception.
It is clearly the case for .TRAVEL, which tried to sell me a bunch of squats when I registered AIRINFO.TRAVEL, and .AERO is increasingly looking that way, as they release formerly reserved names of airports and airlines to whoever wants them. Certainly there are TLDs that have rules and stick to them, e.g. .COOP and .MUSEUM which had the advantage of not planning to make money in the first place, but it seems to me more likely that as domains' optimistic business plans fail and money gets tight, they'll go down the .PRO and .TRAVEL path of selling as many domains as possible to anyone who wants them. I'm realizing that a large part of the reason I'm not thrilled about the new TLD process is that nearly all of the scenarios for new TLDs are so unpersuasive, given the broad failure of both community TLDs and generic ones with a name that suggests something. (How informative are .INFO domains?) I can agree that there's a more plausible argument for IDNs, but given the lack of clarity on some fairly basic questions of who has rights to what, most of those just seem like lawsuits waiting to happen. R's, John
participants (8)
-
Adam Peake -
Bret Fausett -
Evan Leibovitch -
JFC Morfin -
John L -
John Levine
-
McTim -
Roberto Gaetano