As anyone reading this will hopefully be aware, starting next year there will be a more consistent and relaxed mechanism for adding new gTLDs to the Internet. Which leads to an inevitable and interesting question: what new generic top-level domains would be useful and/or successful as the Internet continues to evolve?
I have been pondering this on and off for a few months and keep coming up with fairly obvious ones: .blog, .news, .coffee, .google and so on. The trick for a new gTLD would have to be that it offers something that people instinctively feel is worth more than a dotcom. In that sense, the ongoing efforts to get “.berlin” introduced should prove interesting.
Anyway, on a rambling online trawl through the history of the Net and of ICANN’s formation, I came across something interesting.
Ad Hoc
Old hands will recall the IAHC, the Internet Ad Hoc Committee, formed in 1996. The IAHC basically tried to start creating order pre-ICANN on the introduction and control of new top-level domains on the Internet. All the big names were involved: ISOC, IANA, ITU, WIPO.
The end result was a final report, still available online here, which I believe I am right in saying ended up forming the foundation for the creation of new gTLDs under ICANN. I believe I am also right in saying – although I’m certain it will swiftly be pointed out that this assertion is incorrect or, at least, over-simplified – that the plan was ditched because the system was seen as putting the ITU in charge and that was too rich for some because of the history of the ITU and the technical community.
But what is intriguing – and a bit of a blast from the past – were the seven new gTLDs that the report decided should be added to the Net first. One of the seven now exists, but what were the others?
The Magnificent Seven
They were:
- .firm: for businesses, or firms
- .store: for businesses offering goods to purchase
- .web: for entities emphasizing activities related to the WWW
- .arts: for entities emphasizing cultural and entertainment activities
- .rec: for entities emphasizing recreation/entertainment activities
- .info: for entities providing information services
- .nom: for those wishing individual or personal nomenclature
This list is interesting for a number of reasons. For one, it is striking that the new gTLDs first approved follow the same pattern as outlined in the report, but without the actual same strings being approved. For example, in the first round, announced November 2000, there were also seven new TLDs.
The .firm and possibly .store TLDs were dealt with through the .biz TLD. The .web TLD has had a long and chequered history and just didn’t happen. The .arts became .museum; .rec was presumably left to dotcom because of the dotcom boom; .info was approved; and .nom (the only TLD that was not patently English) became .name (which patently is). Which left the TLDs that still seem unusual today: .aero, .coop and .pro. It is intriguing that expansion of the Internet was viewed then as an attempt to reflect society in a very sociological, almost paternal, manner: we have business, we have culture, recreation and then personal space.
The next round of approvals in the gTLD space (March 2004) were sponsored, implying an effort to get away from the massive boon in the commercial nature of the Internet, but even so they reflected a commercial edge: .jobs, .mobi, .tel, .travel. There came appreciation of the global nature of the Internet with the approval of .asia and .cat. And the thorny issue of one of the Net’s biggest benefactors – pornography – came in the form of the (rejected) .xxx top-level domain.
What next?
Which leads back to the question: what is the Internet of 2008 going to throw up?
Are we truly in the era of MySpace, Facebook and social networking? Will the enormous commercial growth of the Internet burst through with new gTLDs? Will the increasingly difficult problems of fraud and cybersquatting find new outlets?
There is the enormous issue of Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs) that will soon provide the means by which people can produce domains in characters other than English letters, but in the meantime, has the nature of the Net changed so much that there is now space for, say, French or Spanish-style TLDs? .fam, .gastro, .politic?
Or will we manage to find our way back to the concept of the Internet as an informational and cultural resource of great human value? What did happen to .arts?
What do you think?
{ 1 trackback }
{ 15 comments }
Larry Seltzer 08.21.07 at 4:27 am
Perhaps it would be a good idea, before approving any more loser .TLDs, to finalize the plans for managing the failure of a registry.
Patrick Jones 08.21.07 at 4:37 am
Larry,
On 1 June we published the Registry Failure Report (see http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-4-01jun07.htm). During the San Juan meeting, ICANN’s registry failure plans were discussed as part of the Protections for Registrants Workshop. We will be posting the comprehensive plan in advance of the Los Angeles meeting.
NI-LIMITS 08.21.07 at 3:37 pm
Sorry for sounding stupid, but…
How exactly would a company or organization go-about trying to set-up a new TLD…?
Could you cover a few basic steps for us here as an example, or at least send us in the right direction…?
Am assuming that the first step would be to become iCANN accredited?
Kieren McCarthy 08.22.07 at 12:09 am
Not stupid at all. In fact, this is the biggest looming question there is wrt new gTLDs. The policy issues are being worked through and slowly agreement and consensus is arriving. But the big question is: so how do I apply and get one if I have a great idea?
The simple answer at the moment is that there only a very few people in the world that have been through it and I’m fairly sure they’d be willing to talk about (but prepare yourself for a long conversation). And they are the CEOs and CTOs of the various companies whose gTLDs that have been approved.
But along with a more consistent and coherent approval process, I hope to be part of a team within ICANN that will also explain the process by which you apply for a gTLD, and the likely issues and steps you are going to face.
There are going to be a few changes and the system is not simple (as you would expect) so we really need to start work on this soon. But there is still some time and I remain optimistic. Why don’t you come to ICANN’s meeting in Los Angeles at the end of October and start asking questions?
No need to become ICANN accredited – that’s to become a registrar, to sell domains. But you do have to sign a contract with ICANN to run a registry. However it *is* possible that new registry owners may wish to be their own registrars (i.e. if a company registers its own company name as a gTLD). The ICANN structure still has to review whether to allow that and how it would work if it was allowed.
Kieren McCarthy
General manager of public participation
Enough Already 08.22.07 at 8:46 am
I have an idea for introducing new TLDs: Don’t do it.
Isn’t navigating the internet confusing enough? What exactly is the difference between .com and .biz? Why would one go to art.museum instead of art-museum.com? NewYork.coffee? Are you kidding? How about just NewYorkCoffee.com?
In other words, is there any point in adding descriptive “stuff” to the right of the dot when registrants can already do so on the left (with unlimited flexibility)? And — dare I say it — why have the dot at all? What purpose does it serve that can’t be served without it?
Do you think the average grandma actually appreciates the technical difference between a dot and a dash? We can already register anything we want after “the dash”. Why create an arbitrary pool of stuff after the dot?
You’re just creating work and expense for all the web sites in the world that must now register TheirWebsite.com plus a myriad of “other” TLDs in order to minimize confusion. People want just ONE way to get where they need to go — not dozens, not hundreds.
I can hear the crys already… “Wo to the registrant whose FirstChoice.com is already taken!” Let them register SecondChoice.com, or even FirstChoiceNew.com That is a much better way to distinguish themselves than FirstChoice.new.
The average internet user doesn’t see why there should be any difference between all these TLDs and neither do I.
Kieren McCarthy 08.22.07 at 9:03 am
I think your point is slightly damaged by the fact that NewYorkCoffee.com has already gone.
So in fact has TheirWebsite.com. And so has SecondChoice.com. Incredibly though, FirstChoiceNew.com is available.
Now you just have to think of a single possible use for it.
Kieren
Dominik Mueller 08.22.07 at 10:23 am
I would appreciate the introduction of shadow TLDs (or typo TLDs) like .XOM and .CPM. Such domain extensions would be crucial to own for any company that wants to protect its trademarks on the Internet. As of now, domain extension typos are being wrongfully monetized by search engine giants Microsoft and Google. MSFT and GOOG are making millions from these domain name typos! Wouldn’t it be better to let companies register typo TLDs, or even better yet, wouldn’t it be possible to introduce a global wild card that will automatically forward .XOM/.CPM typos to .COM, .NT to .NET, .ORF to .ORG etc.?
NI-LIMITS 08.22.07 at 7:51 pm
Thanks for the detailed reply Kieren!
Being based in Malaysia does not make it easy for us to mingle with the right people, which is one thing that really annoys us about being out here, which is ironic, as we can make a real difference over here, but only if we were in constant contact with people such as yourselves over there…
Having just come out of the RegFly horror barely surviving the fiasco and in the process managing to maintain control of about a thousand of our domains, we have a five year business model plan that involves the need for our own TLD and are willing to go to any measure and process in order to reach that goal, so long as it only involves at least one flight over there to sit down and sign things up with our CEO and CTO, but in this modern world, getting it done from here would of course be a preference…
Is it at all possible for us to communicate a little more privately from here on out…?
Enough Already 08.23.07 at 8:51 am
If registrant’s FirstChoice.com is taken, ICANN is not doing them any favors by making FirstChoice.xyz available. The new website owner will forever be promoting traffic to their potential rivals at FirstChoice.com.
Do you really want to pour your soul into a website at NewYork.coffee only to see your visitors end up NewYorkCoffee.com? I think you’d be much better off with KierensCoffee.com.
There’s simply no getting around the fact that there’s a limited number of desirable word combinations. You’re not creating a “new supply” by adding extensions, just more opportunity for confusion.
Domisfera 08.24.07 at 3:26 pm
Hi from Domisfera, an spanish media focused on domains.
I have one question.
We have seen published that “ICANN is currently working with the ICM Registry to finalise details of the .xxx domain,… ”
(http://www.dmeurope.com/default.asp?ArticleID=8233)
Is this true?
Thanks!
Kieren McCarthy 08.25.07 at 1:18 am
It is ironic that this post is titled “blast from the past” because if you have a look at the date of that news report, it was written in 2005.
As far as I’m aware, ICANN hasn’t spoken to ICM Registry since the Lisbon meeting where .xxx was rejected.
Kieren
Frank 09.10.07 at 10:24 pm
In general I think the world has enough gTLDs.
I do think .xxx is one of the exceptions which should be made available as soon as possible, followed by international rules and laws to move all porn-related sites to that gTLD to make filtering more easily. I regret this process is stalled by amongst others the US government.
As DNS specialist I also see some issues in the admittance of new gTLDs; for some companies use unassigned gTLDs inside the company to make a clear distinction between internal DNS and external DNS as long as there is no dedicated gTLD for “Private-Use”, similar as 10.0.0.0/8 in the IPv4 address space [RFC1918]. It might be a good idea to start a new RFC for that, though I am not sure which gTLD should be used; ideas include .internal, .local, .private and .lan as both .net and .int are already in use.
CarlB 09.14.07 at 11:57 am
(servername).local may be a good choice for internal use, as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.local lists the domain as already used internally in Apple’s networking software.
Another possibility would be to use a name which your organisation owns as a USPTO trademark, as such a name might be strongly avoided in new-gTLD root creation proposals for legal reasons.
As for .xxx? Perhaps it should’ve been created as something else, like .nude – the problem with a .porn is that it’s not easy to definitively define what is or isn’t pr0n, but nudity is definable.
CarlB 09.14.07 at 12:13 pm
If .XOM and .CPM don’t exist, there’s no way for linkspam parking sites to monetise them as typos. As such, adding these as domains accomplishes nothing.
To fix the problems requires other measures, such as creating provisions in the standard contracts for domain registration that would prevent registrants from pointing multiple names to the same place unless justified by some meaningful difference in content. An end to the “wildcarding” of country-code domains (so that every invalid .ws or .cm can’t be directed to a page of useless spamvertising) would be a much-needed step forward, although politically awkward to achieve as these top-level domains belong to foreign, sovereign nations. Nuking Cameroon off the face of the Internet would also help, as .cm is being used to typosquat all of .com. Last I checked, though, ICANN doesn’t own any plutoni.um
Bryan 09.19.07 at 6:00 am
More GLTD’s would be a mistake. The justification for continuing to pay re-registration fees on multiple domain names (and ICANN fees) is for future speculative values. There will not be a benefit to the public by adding more GLTD’s to the already crowded namespace, as people will get confused in the clutter of domain name extensions. Not to mention website development and content. It is not reasonable to assume more domain name extensions are required when there is already very little development of the .biz, .info, .pro, etc domains. If the purpose of adding more extensions is for the purposes of income for ICANN: it will be better served leaving the namespace as it is for now an d collecting the fees for domain renewals that people pay, based on speculation. Domain name speculation will not be as it has been in the past, due to developmental limitations, so expanding the current space will add value (and speculation) to the existing domain name endings. To conclude, it may be several years until new GLTD’s are necessary: if at all, because the current names are not being developed and multiple domain name holders who pay registration fees expect appreciation for the domain names they hold. More names will add confusion and are really unnecessary.
Comments on this entry are closed.