Comments on: A blast from the past on new gTLDs http://blog.icann.org/2007/08/a-blast-from-the-past-on-new-gtlds/ Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Wed, 08 Feb 2012 01:42:27 -0800 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: ICANN: New generic TLDs at Dominik Mueller - Domain Name Brokerage and Consulting http://blog.icann.org/2007/08/a-blast-from-the-past-on-new-gtlds/comment-page-1/#comment-4211 ICANN: New generic TLDs at Dominik Mueller - Domain Name Brokerage and Consulting Tue, 25 Sep 2007 10:54:39 +0000 http://blog.icann.org/?p=183#comment-4211 [...] public participation at ICANN, Kieren McCarthy, made a post about new generic top-level domains on ICANN’s blog. He asks a good question, namely, what new generic TLDs would be useful and successful as the [...] [...] public participation at ICANN, Kieren McCarthy, made a post about new generic top-level domains on ICANN’s blog. He asks a good question, namely, what new generic TLDs would be useful and successful as the [...]

]]> By: Bryan http://blog.icann.org/2007/08/a-blast-from-the-past-on-new-gtlds/comment-page-1/#comment-3899 Bryan Wed, 19 Sep 2007 14:00:53 +0000 http://blog.icann.org/?p=183#comment-3899 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. 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.

]]> By: CarlB http://blog.icann.org/2007/08/a-blast-from-the-past-on-new-gtlds/comment-page-1/#comment-3662 CarlB Fri, 14 Sep 2007 20:13:21 +0000 http://blog.icann.org/?p=183#comment-3662 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 :) 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 :)

]]> By: CarlB http://blog.icann.org/2007/08/a-blast-from-the-past-on-new-gtlds/comment-page-1/#comment-3661 CarlB Fri, 14 Sep 2007 19:57:52 +0000 http://blog.icann.org/?p=183#comment-3661 (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. (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.

]]> By: Frank http://blog.icann.org/2007/08/a-blast-from-the-past-on-new-gtlds/comment-page-1/#comment-3440 Frank Tue, 11 Sep 2007 06:24:57 +0000 http://blog.icann.org/?p=183#comment-3440 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. 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.

]]> By: Kieren McCarthy http://blog.icann.org/2007/08/a-blast-from-the-past-on-new-gtlds/comment-page-1/#comment-2533 Kieren McCarthy Sat, 25 Aug 2007 09:18:23 +0000 http://blog.icann.org/?p=183#comment-2533 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 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

]]> By: Domisfera http://blog.icann.org/2007/08/a-blast-from-the-past-on-new-gtlds/comment-page-1/#comment-2532 Domisfera Fri, 24 Aug 2007 23:26:53 +0000 http://blog.icann.org/?p=183#comment-2532 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! 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!

]]> By: Enough Already http://blog.icann.org/2007/08/a-blast-from-the-past-on-new-gtlds/comment-page-1/#comment-2522 Enough Already Thu, 23 Aug 2007 16:51:01 +0000 http://blog.icann.org/?p=183#comment-2522 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. 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.

]]> By: NI-LIMITS http://blog.icann.org/2007/08/a-blast-from-the-past-on-new-gtlds/comment-page-1/#comment-2514 NI-LIMITS Thu, 23 Aug 2007 03:51:18 +0000 http://blog.icann.org/?p=183#comment-2514 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...? 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…?

]]> By: Dominik Mueller http://blog.icann.org/2007/08/a-blast-from-the-past-on-new-gtlds/comment-page-1/#comment-2511 Dominik Mueller Wed, 22 Aug 2007 18:23:28 +0000 http://blog.icann.org/?p=183#comment-2511 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.? 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.?

]]>