ICANN’t Believe It’s .butter

I am rolling my eyes

As you stated – it is already tough enough guessing .com .org, (or regional like .ca or .co.uk)

Adding that extra stuff will make it bloody well impossible.

And you know what happens when you look for the White House official web site with the wrong TLD extension.

How much more of that will ocurr?

Not mention the names that ‘come close’ but are registered with one small common typo difference. uggh

Elliot Ross’s last blog post..Should Social Media Amicably Divorce?

Jordan –

First, that is the best post title I have seen in a long time!

As for the idea of more industry created CYA for ORM? At some point you have to just say no. The Internet industry is getting ready to jump the shark with its self-important prattling on and on about do this and do that.

While we sit and contemplate whether we should have a .maybemycompanywillbesearchedthisway, 40% of the small businesses still DON’T even have a website?

Uncle!

Frank Reed’s last blog post..Happy 4th of July and THANK YOU!

http://best.headline.ever

I want to register that domain just for this post.

I agree completely.

Linda Bustos’s last blog post..Merchandising Usability: Better Ways to Display Product Recommendations

Jiminy Cricket, but we sound like Old Timers here. Yes, it will be messy. Yes, it will cause confusion. And we’ll figure it out. [insert Rocky music here] C’mon, fellas, we can do it!

Lisa Creech Bledsoe’s last blog post..3 Illegal Boxing Tactics and How to Defeat (and Employ) Them

Have you noticed that if you want a decent .com name you have to go to the aftermarket and pay several thousand dollars? Have you noticed the incredibly stupid names that people give their Web 2.0 companies? Ever wonder why?

As someone who supposedly knows something about marketing, I’m sure you appreciate how important a name is. But maybe you haven’t tied recently to find a name that works for your business. I challenge you — find a decent name for a marketing company for under $1000. Write a post about it, and let your readers tell you if it’s a good name or not.

I urge you also to examine why this new round from ICANN is happening. One of the big reasons they are doing this round this way is precisely because how .xxx was rejected. It was a beauty contest, and the Board just said no — for no good reason, they just didn’t like the name. This round is objective and it’s supposed to avoid that kind of high-handed arbitrariness. Furthermore, the idea wasn’t suggested by the ICANN board or the ICANN staff, it came from the thousands of volunteers that actually formulate policy. Roll your eyes all you want, but there’s a good reason this is happening this way. ICANN was founded to introduce competition into the domain namespace, and it’s finally doing it.

Personally, I’m sick of typing a meaningless “.com” on the end of everything. Why not have an extension that actually signals what content the web site contains? If .food contains sites that have to do with food, then when someone’s search query is about food, Google will pay attention, the same way that it pays attention to .edu when someone types in “Cal Berkeley.” And guess what? People searching for food-related web sites are more likely to click a .food link as well. That’s a very nice feedback cycle and there’s the SEO you’re talking about.

“In fact, I think that allowing these TLDs will make it harder for us to remember any websites’ URLs. It’s going to increase our dependence on search engines to find the right website for General Motors”

Who in this day and age randomly types in guesses as to the domain name for General Motors as opposed to simply typing “general motors” into the search bar in their browser?

Maybe the good thing that will come out of this is that domain names will become irrelevant, as they really have needed to become for some time now. So much effort in the past has been put into “picking the perfect domain” that we end up with so many sites that truly are nothing more than a stuffed domain name. The obsolescence of domain parking/squatting pages alone would be worth us moving in that direction. I vote for the registration of trademark names replacing domain names. There is more case law history to use as a basis to police, and it puts that authority in the hands of, well, an authority, as opposed to some wonky organization like ICANN.

Terry Howard’s last blog post..Formula For Success

Folks rolling their eyes have obviously never tried to register a domain name themselves.

IMHO, its a very cool idea to let ppl have the TLD they want – but it still doesnt make sense to me why they are charging “thousands of dollars” for registering TLD.

Bottom line: There should be no concept of “TLD” – Ppl should be allowed to keep whatever name they like for their websites as long as it contains a dot.

I have to say on a personal level that I don’t think you *get it*. (I am ICANN’s general manager of public participation btw.)

The reason the Internet is the incredible engine that it is – for innovation, communication and expression – is because it is open and doesn’t try to define what people do on it. But there are constraints. And a very big one of them is the need to select one of the registries (dot-com, dot-org etc). And to follow the approach decided by that registry.

The reality is that you can’t do anything online without a domain name. And that means that the domain name system introduces intrinsic rules and constraints.

What this expansion of Internet extensions means is that those constraints are lifted. It allows people to apply their innovative thinking in a whole new way – at the top level of the Internet. Because we have grown so used to the system as is, it can be hard to think outside of that box. You think you will just see lots more endings and then long for the comfort of what already exists.

But when the new Google or Facebook or eBay is a company that uses the domain name system in a unique and innovative way, you will wonder what on earth took so long.

Examples off the top of my head: a dot-bank that has super-security built in so you can bank online in complete comfort; a dot-coffee with an iPod app that use the Internet itself to locate coffee shops; a dot-news that uses Web3.0 technology to filter and aggregate news in a way you’ve never seen before; a dot-[city] that acts as a focal point for everything about a particular city.

It is the possibilities that all this opens up that is exciting. In five years’ time, we will be looking the Internet in a whole new way. It’s exciting and so at the same time slightly worrying.

What ICANN is doing is working through the legitimate fears: abuse of trademarks (which ebay site is real and which isn’t?); malicious conduct (possible new avenues for spammers, phishers etc); and so on. But once the community itself has made sure that this isn’t going to have a big negative effect, the Internet will be opened up to a new wave of innovation that all of us will benefit from.

Incidentally, ICANN is a very open organization. If you feel strongly about this issue or if you want to get involved in the whole process, just check out our website at http://icann.org. The site needs work as it has too much stuff and too little organization but I’d be happy to talk anyone through it and help them get involved. Just email me at participate@icann.org.

Cheers

Kieren McCarthy
General manager of public participation, ICANN

Hi Karen

It’s you who “doesn’t get get”. Jordan has some good points. Allow me to make some others.

What exactly are these “constraints” you are referring to regarding registars??? After purchasing your domain name, they are out of the game. Over the last 10 years of owning names, I have never had contact with the registar other than renewal. I control all secondary domain names. It also allows me to brand this name. My mail, blog etc are all under my control to do with as I please.

Your statement that “The reality is that you can’t do anything online without a domain name” is false. The net runs on IP addresses. You can have a site that only resolves to an IP. The DNS system was designed to have humans remember the sites they would like to remember. It’s easier to remember Google than 74.125.67.100. Try it out if you don’t believe me. Opening up the DNS to these additional domain names leads to confussion, as Jordan points out.

What exactly is a new way to resolve an IP number going to do for innovation?
You state “the new Google or Facebook or eBay is a company that uses the domain name system in a unique and innovative way, you will wonder what on earth took so long”. I am sorry to say that each one of these companies has complete control over second and third tier domains tied to their domain name. Maybe you can shed some light on the difference between maps.google vs. maps.google.com ???

Your examples of innovation are lame. “a dot-bank that has super-security built in so you can bank online in complete comfort” is insane. How is a new name going to add security?? Remember, it just converts the name to an IP address. What it looks like you are proposing is a “controlled” name space in which someone, likely ICANN, implements security. I can do the same thing today with a .com or whatever domain name. Something like bank.com comes to mind. “a dot-coffee with an iPod app that use the Internet itself to locate coffee shops” Again, pretty sure they have that already. At least I have seen taxi applications. That app would be built on data and partnerships. Under whos control would dot-coffee be under?? How much am I paying to be part of it?? How do I get the top listing?? These are problems we currently have and will not be solved by openning up the DNS system. As for “a dot-[city] that acts as a focal point for everything about a particular city”. Same arguement. Lastly, “dot-news that uses Web3.0 technology to filter and aggregate news in a way you’ve never seen before” I believe you must be referring to real time search. Again, new names are not going to bring this innovation to market.

You point to some concerns that ICANN is debating. I would like to add the enormous IT problem this causes. Verifing email or URL’s will now become a nightmare. For every new dot-whatever you release, the IT world will have to make adjustments. Are you going to make sure they are only 8 alpha characters long?? Are we rebuilding the DNS system from scratch??

A better use of ICANN’s time would be rooting out those cyber squatters who hold these premium .com names for ransom. Why not take these names back until the owners design real sites to support the names?? If not, ICANN can auction these names off to individuals that would like them for their own. This would remove a ton of junk search engine results. The auction could compensate these domain owners with a percentage of the sale.

Another thing ICANN could be doing is monitoring registars closer. In the past I have checked the whois on a registar site for a specific, non competitive domain name. I found an unregistered name that was non-competitive, mytinyoffice.com. I came back the next day to register it and it was already registered. Some one at the registar or a packet sniffer had already registered it. I suspect to hold my company for ransom. If I had already spent $1000′s on signs etc. I would have no choice but to negotate with these criminals.

I suggest ICANN look for problems in the current system without adding more layers to an already flawed system.

Talk about Red Herrings. You have not explained in one solid way how opening up the DNS to other extentions equals innovation. Nor do you indicate how many of these new names you plan on selling. If I were Google, why would I spend $185,000 on the application fee alone to get my “department store”. Something they already have in google.com for $10 a year. Nor do you state how much these new second tier names are going to be sold for. Is it controlled by ICANN or the applicant? The way I see it, we will have many applicants filing chapter 11 after trying to sell these new names. The only ones guaranteed a paycheck in the scheme is ICANN.

I am not afraid of change. I am afraid of ICANN. Calls for an .xxx name fell on deaf ears. An extention that could have helped move adult content to a silo like you are proposing. I understand that some adult content providers would try to keep .com for the traffic. New rules around that extention could help in policing it. By revoking the .com name for repeat offenders is a good start.

I agree with Jordan about confusion. I for one am never confused by a new internet site with a .com Google was an innovation in search and therefore was accepted. Also, dot-com names are not going away with your proposal. I like it now that I can type the company name dot-com and get there in most cases. Yes, there are different types of services supplied by the same name but ICANN’s new system does not address that.

I wish that you could pick examples that make sense. ” operating systems. The jump to Windows 95 – where suddenly graphics appeared everywhere and it all worked differently”. That move was from windows 3.1 where there was already graphics. What you are talking about is a move from the DOS prompt to a GUI interface. There was no confusion about it. People welcomed it. It made using a computer easier and enabled the masses to use computers. I can’t say the same for new dot names. Again, no innovation.

What is this comment about browser manufactures controlling the internet?? They are forced to be open by DOJ. You are right that Google ranks sites better with keywords in their domain name. If a company advertises their name heavily, they would be looking for a direct navigation, not through Google. If they were wanting Google traffic, they would increase organic SEO spending. Jordan’s point is not about advertising, it’s about confusion over which name to use. So is it starbucks.com or starbucks.coffee or city.coffee.starbucks?? Can you see the confusion in that situation???

The crazy movie dot-com names is a good point. That would be one extention I could get behind. One I thought ICANN would have seen back in 2000 when it was originally proposed. That’s another reason I am afraid of ICANN. Your forward thinking is flawed. I was seeing “crazy” movie dot-coms way back then. The evidence was right before your eyes. Yet, no .movie

If there is no need for .com why not just remove the .com I agree that it’s quite pointless but necessary. Re multiple businesses with same name, different countries etc.

Could you expand on the laughing children?? The new proposals are not going to eliminate .com from my understanding. I think of the phone system. Are we laughing about having to enter area codes before dialing every number?? How about two or more area codes in a region that orginally had one. It’s not better but we have learned to adapt.

Your point of “nearly everything had just one ending” is interesting. Why does “nearly everything” have just one ending?? Because if you don’t have a .com domain, you aren’t a “real” company. That underlaying principle will not change. Again, chapter 11 for these extentions is a real possibility.

It’s time for ICANN to continue to solve the current DNS problems and stop trying to innovate the internet. There are more than enough dot-com names still able to be registered. Let allow .info, .biz etc This play is just a money grab. Now, to use the starbucks example, they will have to register all these names to manage their brand. starbucks.com starbucks.coffee starbucks.city (btw, how are cities going to find 185k for a domain extention) starbucks.cityb … starbucks.cityz, starbucks.restaurant, starbucks.org, starbucks.net, starbucks.biz…..

I wonder how hot ICANN would be about this idea if they were not getting $185k per applicant??

Hi Mikeok,

I’m not sure how to respond to your response because you seem to have just gone through each point and disagreed out of principle.

So I think the most important thing to get across is that it is not ICANN – and certainly not ICANN staff – that gets to decide what happens to the Internet. All that’s happening is that ICANN is following its remit – to introduce competition to the domain name system while making sure it doesn’t adversely impact the system’s stability or security.

Someone has to apply to get a new top-level domain. So it’s up to the market what does and doesn’t work. What ICANN is *not* doing is deciding that it knows better. And to determine that everything’s fine and we don’t need to expand the domain name space would be to do that – to say that this community of a few thousand is capable of deciding what the future of the Net will be.

Incidentally, there is nothing to prevent people applying for .xxx this time around under a very different set of rules.

And re: ICANN getting money. ICANN is a non-profit organization. The cost of a new extension is based on making the whole process revenue-neutral i.e. to actively not make money. An estimate of 500 applications was used to get at the $185,000 figure. If there are fewer applications, ICANN will have a negative balance of funds; if there is more, ICANN has committed to going to the community so it can decide what to do with any excess funds.

How does one know ICANN is not in it for the money? Because when the organization took more in revenue that it spent, it reduced the registration fee from 25 cents to 20 cents. ICANN is reducing that fee again to 18 cents to encourage registrars to sign up to a new accreditation contract that gives registrants more rights and protections over their domains.

So those are all facts that point at a philosophy and a direction. Change is one of the things that people have the biggest problem accepting. But it happens anyway. Change is also what makes the Internet so powerful. If ICANN is an engine for change then it is simply reflecting what has become the Internet’s most extraordinary cultural lesson – let people release their imaginations and ideas and a whole new world appears.

Kieren McCarthy
General manager of public participation, ICANN

Kieren McCarthy’s last blog post..The New York Times and new gTLD roadshow

Great discussion.

Regarding the money issue, the point raised by Kieren, for ICANN.

While it is true that ICANN is a nonprofit, it is a nonprofit of growing and substantial means. Its revenue is over $60 million.

There will always be a financial motive for ICANN. The more sources of revenue that ICANN can develop the larger the organization it becomes. That is true for almost any nonprofit.

ICANN has not taken a vow of poverty. Money is important. As ICANN adds staff and capability it also gains organizational power, and it is power, not profit, that is the most important thing to a non-profit. In some ways, this can be more dangerous than a pure profit motive because the organizational motives aren’t always clear.

To argue that ICANN “is not in it for the money” and is therefore free of the allegation that it may be expanding gTLDs to raise money, is a false argument. ICANN will add staff to manage the new gTLDs and its revenue stream will grow. It will become a more powerful organization.

One final point, ICANN is a very unique nonprofit. It has a government mandated monopoly on registration fees.

ICANN is not earning this money because, like the Sierra Club, people believe it is worthy of the donation.

My comments outlining all the different ways you can see and question the finances has not come through, so I’ll do it a different way.

There is a dashboard for financial stats, updated monthly: You can find it linked to on the front page of the ICANN site – a button on the left titled “Dashboard”.

If you click on Finance within the dashboard, you can see a full breakdown of revenue and expenses overall and broken down by function.

If you go to Documents on the top nav bar, and then scroll down to Financial Information, you can find all the financial information about the organization and its spending policies.

If you go to the public comment page (button above dashboard), you will find under recently closed public forums the public comment period we ran on the draft budget and operating plan – outlining what ICANN plans to do next year and how much money it will spend on it. Anyone was entitled to comment on any part of it.

A summary of those public comments is also clearly linked to there. That summary was used to make changes to the budget.

But what about next year – financial year 2011?

Well, we are just about to start on our strategic planning sessions – where the community itself gets to decide what the priorities are for the organization and so where it should spend it money.

This process will kick off soon – it will be announced on the front page when it is. In the meantime, you can view the 2008-2011 Strategic Plan. An explanation of how that process works is available on that Strategic Plan webpage – which can be found near the bottom of the Documents page.

I hope that more than answers your question.

Kieren

Kieren McCarthy’s last blog post..The New York Times and new gTLD roadshow