Alagna.com

I ran across a report today put out by ICANN’s Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC). The report is SSAC’s Report on Dotless Domains. In this report, the SSAC stated that dotless domains would not be universally reachable and the SSAC recommended strongly against their use. I couldn’t agree more but my reason for agreeing is not even mentioned in the report.

The SSAC looked at this idea from a technical standpoint. The idea was brought up because of the new gTLD process. A lot of new players in the domain name space began asking why we couldn’t just build domain names without a dot. The report answers many technical reasons why this isn’t feasible today but I’d like to bring up what I think is a more important reason.

The Difference Between The Virtual and Real World

Let’s pretend that technicians figure out a way to make a dotless URL work. I’m sure there is some way to make this possible. Maybe one day they actually will! But the more important question is “Why Should they?” I can think of no practical reason. Dots “.” are a handy way to express the difference between “The Real” and “The Virtual”

Just think about a world where there are no dots. If you said to your friend, “I’m going to Chicago,” he’d have to ask you the clarifying question, “Do you mean Chicago online or the real Chicago?” This simple point is why the question of eliminating dots “.” is silly. The dot doesn’t just play a role in the technology, it plays an important role in everyday communications. I can’t think of a better way to express a virtual location without having to clarify it every time one expresses their intent.

It’s the equivalent of buying a lousy domain name like “NuKarz4U.com.” Think about it. If you sold new cars and had this domain and wanted to run a radio ad, you’d have to spell out and explain that domain name over and over every time you ran an ad. It would go like this:

“Just come and visit New Cars For You.com! That’s spelled N-U-K-A-R-Z-The-Number-four-and-the-letter-U.com. It’s not N-E-W but N-U and not a C but a K and not an S but a Z…”

You get the point.

Eliminating the dot would add further necessary explanation to millions of discussions, around the world, both written and spoken. I suppose that we could go back to always using “www” or “http://” but neither of those do what a single dot “.” (or two) does so eloquently. Let’s not try to fix something that’s not broken. Thankfully SSAC’s recommendation is right on. The idea of dotless domain names is a bad one.

Read the report and comments… | Source: ICANN | Date posted: 8/25/2012

Also, how many unique strings could enter the new TLD space by the end of 2013

I’ve been wanting to write this article for a month (since the reveal of new TLDs) but have not had time. Before I begin, my disclaimers:

These are opinions and impressions. I will not be responsible for the accuracy, inclusion, or non-inclusion of any facts. I haven’t had time to read through ALL of the applications. If I am wrong about any applications, and if you care, please send me a note and I’ll take another look. I don’t have a large research staff. Some of the parameters I’m interested in are subjective and many applications fall into more than one category. Also, because I am in the industry and have new TLD applicants, I disclose that it is possible that I have some bias. Regardless, given all of the faults that I can think of herein disclosed, I’m trying to be objective and to contribute some thinking that is for the good of the new TLD space. There you have it.

I’ve looked at many applications and here are some things that I’ve observed with differentiators that ICANN really hasn’t published numbers on and that I think are helpful considerations. Out of all the new TLD applications, I counted:

895 or so, Standard type applications where the intent seems to be to allow registrants at large, some with restrictions, to register domain names.

114 or so, IDN type applications (Since I don’t speak any of the IDN languages, I won’t comment much on them).

60 or so, Geographic type applications

64 or so, Community applications, with the idea that registrations will be restricted to certain “community” members.

709 or so, Brand type applications, where the applicant has a famous brand they are claiming to the right of the dot.

88 or so, are seemingly, “Trying to Corner a TLD Market space” applications, where an applicant’s brand or trademark rights are not so obvious (I’ll discuss more about this below).

What Do I Mean By Trying To Corner The Market In A New TLD Space?

Although I don’t want to judge any company for wanting to maximize profits, I do think that there is a form of abuse going on where some larger corporations are trying to corner the market in TLD spaces that are broader than their trademarks. I believe this is worth examining very critically and it is being discussed elsewhere. The biggest examples are in the Amazon applications where they apply for strings like .BOOK and .AUTHOR with the stated intent of using it only for their company or for their own clients. L’Oreal is applying for .BEAUTY with the expressed intent of:

“operating the .BEAUTY gTLD with a narrow focus and charter which L’Oreal will take the lead in establishing…leveraging its corporate experience in networking with existing businesses, affiliates, partners, and customers, and marketing its products and brands through these third party partnerships…a business model in which generic (“personal,” “sustainable,” “products,” “model,” “cosmetics,” “perfumes,” etc.) and geographic (city/state) domain names would initially be reserved/allocated to L’Oréal.”

The application goes on to suggest that they may consider expanding the use to other registrants but makes no commitment towards that direction. Amazon’s .BOOK application is even more blatantly inward focused, stating the following:

“The mission of the .BOOK registry is:
To provide a unique and dedicated platform for Amazon while simultaneously protecting the integrity of its brand and reputation.”

I like Amazon and I buy stuff from them. I’m pretty sure that my wife uses a few L’Oreal products. But if I were an author, bookseller, or in the beauty industry, I’d be very concerned right now. In fact, all registries, registrars and registrants are stakeholders and should be concerned when one company makes a blatant attempt at cornering a generic market such as the book or beauty industry especially on as broad a scale as Amazon seems to be attempting. These types of applications should be highly suspect; giving very generic rights to single stakeholders in important global marketplaces.

If ICANN is to maintain any credibility, they need to look seriously at these types of applications. This does not foster competition which is at the very core of ICANN’s charter and which should be at the core of the new TLD process.

References:
Amazon’s .book application: http://gtldresult.icann.org/application-result/applicationstatus/applicationdetails:downloadapplication/1027?t:ac=1027
L’Oreal’s .beauty application: http://gtldresult.icann.org/application-result/applicationstatus/applicationdetails:downloadapplication/992?t:ac=992

Now For The Fun Stuff

663 or so, are unique new strings. This includes Standard, Cornering the Market types, Geos, and Communities (not including IDNs & Brand types). The number of unique new TLD strings can give us a feel for how many possible new TLDs we will eventually end up with (regardless of who actually runs them). Surely, some of these will not make it through evaluation or will be struck down by objections of various sorts. There are many that could face legal battles that go on for years. But it is theoretically possible that as many as 600+ new TLDs will enter the market within the next few years. Just put a dot (.) in front of each text string below. Here is that list (de duplicated):

Big Investors Bullish on Domain Names

A Dotless Domain Name? Why?

New TLD Infographic

Are Some New gTLD Applicants Trying to Corner Markets in New TLD Spaces?

Site Search

Random Quote

Ting!

Categories

Contact

Recent Posts

Archives

Meta