The problem is that it’ll be an artificial market, where businesses will feel they have to buy their names to protect themselves. Meanwhile, consumers will just rely on Google even more than they do now, and the domain names will, ironically, matter less than ever.

The examples below clearly indicate a desire for DOT-City TLDs by residents and businesses. Many have indicated that ICANN should not expand the number of gTLDs since this action would confuse consumers. Apparently, the churches, schools, businesses, and other entities shown below don’t share that opinion.

Just imagine how many other churches, schools, businesses, clubs, universities, etc. would set up their own website on a DOT-City TLD if given the opportunity. Hopefully, consumers in other cities will get the opportunity to purchase a DOT-City TLD in the near term so they too may have access to the same benefits that are currently being enjoyed by those shown below.

SONRISE.LA (Church)
PARADOX.LA (Church)
HYPNOTHERAPY.LA (Business)
BELVEDEREGROUP.LA (Business)
ERC.LA (Church)
WESTNET.LA (Business)
TEAMONE.LA (Business)
TRUSTLITIGATION.LA (Business)
POOLS.LA (Business)
PMM.LA (Business)
NETWORKEXPERTS.LA (Business)
THEGARDEN.LA (School)
ERHS.LA (School)
MEDIASTORM.LA (Business)
HORSEBACKRIDING.LA (Business)
CONNECTED.LA (Business)
BAMBOOHOUSE.LA (Business)
TORNADODESIGN.LA (Business)
DISTRIBUTION.LA (Business)
BLU.LA (Business)
SAHAJAYOGA.LA (Business)
POETRY.LA (Community)
EMBEDDEDIN.LA (Business)
DIGITALHEADSHOTS.LA (Business)
GOLDENGOPHER.LA (Business)
SEVENGRAND.LA (Business)
BROADWAYBAR.LA (Business)
IAU.LA (University)
DIGITALART.LA (Business)
ALLACCESS.LA (Business)
BARCELONA.LA (Business)
PLASTICSURGERY.LA (Business)
JUBILEE.LA (Business)
SEGWAY.LA (Business)
FIRSTCOMMERCEBANK.LA (Business)
SQL.LA (Professional Group)
PROPERTIES.LA (Business)
ESTATES.LA (Business)
SPAZIO.LA (Business)
MILLERTOYOTA.LA (Business)
LATC.LA (Club)
MILLERHONDA.LA (Business)
ELECTRICPICTURES.LA (Business)
ACS.LA (Business)
SUNGLASSES.LA (Business)

For consumers there was clearly concern about the ‘polluted’ name space with spammers, squatters, ad sites and phishers.

Indeed, and it isn’t just consumers: many of us techies are worried about that as well. We’re looking at turning the Internet into one of those towns that has Maple Street, Maple Avenue, Maple Drive, Maple Lane, Maple Road, Maple Court, and Maple Way, and visitors can’t find the Maple they’re looking for. And those who’ll benefit are those who’ll make money by selling TLDs (and second-level domain names under TLDs they buy).

I’ve been on about this for some time; see these two blog posts, for example, from two years ago and one year ago, respectively:
http://staringatemptypages.blogspot.com/2007/08/good-and-bad-of-top-level-domains.html
http://staringatemptypages.blogspot.com/2008/06/nyc-tld.html

And I had a conversation with Peter Dengate-Thrush about it at the last IETF meeting in San Francisco. He wants the market to decide.

The problem is that it’ll be an artificial market, where businesses will feel they have to buy their names to protect themselves. Meanwhile, consumers will just rely on Google even more than they do now, and the domain names will, ironically, matter less than ever.

Great to have you guys involved. I agree some of the headlines have focused on the ’shock’ parts of the survey, and you are correct that businesses that do know about it do see the opportunities. We had some global brands we talked to say “we are excited about this, but don’t tell anyone yet”. So there are some positives. The full report can be downloaded here;

http://www.gandibar.net/pages/Gandi-report-on-ICANN-domain-name-liberalisation

And we’re happy to share the raw data with you if you’d like.

For consumers there was clearly concern about the ‘polluted’ name space with spammers, squatters, ad sites and phishers. This is not a problem of liberalisation, but rather high lights a growing problem in the name space, where many of the commercial parties (registries, registrars) have some responsibility in cleaning it up.

The fact that there is a viable business model to hold domains and advertise on them which can be more profitable than selling them to end users is quite extraordinary. This is profit for profits sake. What should the name space be used for? The fact that this is done by registrars themselves and presented by some registries as a supplemental business model is also quite extraordinary.

My personal hope is that the new name space will lead to a higher code of conduct for use and management of names. As new registries seek to secure credibility they may prevent some of these practices, which in turn may force some of the existing registries to clean up their spaces.

So let us all work together to increase the awareness of these issues. We support ICANN and the process of liberalisation as an exciting opportunity for businesses and consumers. But we want a higher level of engagement from the end users of domains to fight for what they want in the name space. According to our survey, they don’t feel they are getting it.

Let’s meet in Sydney. Take care,

Joe