Hello, This email is in response to the invitation for comments on new gTLDs at:
http://gnso.icann.org/comments-request/ I think we should be guided by the toll-free numbers allocation system. Initially, there were 1-800 numbers. Then, as 1-800 filled up, 1-888 was created. Subsequently, 1-877 opened as 1-888 filled up. And so on with 1-866. Similar city area codes were opened up as NYC or LA ran out of phone numbers. While it's not a perfect analogy (since there are a relatively small finite number of toll-free numbers, as opposed to an almost infinite number of 63-character domain names), if one considers the space of "good" domain names (e.g. 5 characters or less, or single words, or meaningful two-word combinations), the analogy becomes better. Thus, the question becomes whether the .info and .biz gTLDs, the ones added since the initial com/net/org TLDs, are "full". I would argue that they are not. According to www.dailychanges.com, there are approximately 2.6 million .info domains (many of which were given away for free) and 1.3 million .biz domains. This compares to 46 million .com domains, 6.7 million .net and 4.1 million .org domains. It would seem to me that .biz and .info need more time to fill up, before considering adding more gTLDs. They should at least start to reach the levels of .net, before adding new ones. The numbers above refer only to total registrations. Another "metric" would be in how actively the domains that are registered are being utilized, i.e. how much traffic they receive. A lot of the domains are parked, and thus have greater potential to be actively developed in the future. Such development should occur, before opening up new TLDs. Ownership changes amongst existing domains over time would lead to the best utilization of a domain name in a given TLD (thus the importance of transparency and frictionless trading between existing domain holders, to ensure that there are no institutional barriers to the best use of a registered domain, that it find the owner who will use it best). Otherwise, if one simply opened up new gTLDs using a haphazard approach, without concern for the utilization of existing gTLDs, what would happen is that the most "elite" character strings (i.e. the best 100,000 words, like "sex.tld", "music.tld", etc.) would be snapped up immediately on a speculative basis, or an abusive basis (TM infringement), and the development of those existing domains in gTLDs like .biz and .info would be hindered. Essentially, one might end up with ghost towns in .biz and .info, leading to a possible failure of those gTLDs due to lack of development. It would be like what would happen to real estate development in a suburb, if a government was contemplating the idea of opening up competing areas for development. Development interest in the suburb would be diverted to other lands, due to the oversupply of land. As I see it, we have 2 choices. One is to have a relatively small number of very popular gTLDs, e.g. 5 million+ domains actively registered and developed in each successful gTLD. The alternative is a large number of niche gTLDs, e.g. 100 gTLDs with those 100,000 best words registered in each one. I tend towards the first choice, a small number of very popular gTLDs, because: 1) there would be less consumer confusion (e.g. if I see a TV ad for product.info, and later have to recall the website, there's a lot better chance of me remembering it if there are a small number of possible gTLDs; if one is bombarded with .info, .shop, .store, .travel, .music, .sex, .flowers, etc., one would be confused and probably remember ".com" instead of the actual gTLD). 2) I don't think we want to end up with "hobbyist" toy gTLDs that pollute the purity of the namespace. For the most part, hobbyists who are proposing their TLDs (to protect the guilty, I won't name them, but I think we all know who they are!) can accomplish most, if not all, of what they want with a sub-domain (3rd level domain) of an existing gTLD, and don't need a gTLD. 3) Many of those "toy" gTLDs are abusive, in the sense that they seek to profiteer from defensive registrations by trademark holders during "sunrise" periods. e.g. if Coke, Pepsi, and other Global 2000 corporations have to fork over $300 for each trademark, plus their time, the operators of those hobbyist gTLDs reap windfall profits, at no risk (i.e. those sunrise profits tend to be more than the startup costs of their registries). I'd also like to remind folks of Tim Berners-Lee's (and the W3C Technical Architecture Group's) opposition to new gTLDs: http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/TLD In conclusion, I think unless there are truly COMPELLING and INNOVATIVE reasons to introduce new gTLDs, there should be a long delay in introducing new ones (perhaps 5 or 10 years, to let the existing ones "fill up"). Metrics can be established in the meantime to measure how "full" the existing ones are (e.g. using stats from Alexa, Google, or other surveys on website utilization), both for websites and other uses (e.g. domains can be used to point to other resources, beyond websites, like ftp, email, phone numbers [enum], etc). This ensures the continuing stability of the internet. After all, the Internet is no longer an "experiment", but is an established part of everyday life. If, despite the above, ICANN still feels new gTLDs should be considered, I would like at this time to propose a gTLD allocation method scheme, which I'll call the "ASCENSION ALLOCATION METHOD", that I've not seen suggested before. In particular, it would be a combination of market-based methods (due to the Coase Theorem, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coase_theorem ), and a "beauty contest". In particular, a new gTLD applicant would have to meet the following requirements: 1) Demonstrate existing ownership of the proposed gTLD string in *ALL* 2nd level domains in com/net/org (and perhaps biz/info too). To illustrate, if one wanted to start .EXAMPLE, one would already have to be the owner of example.com, example.net, example.org (and possibly example.info and example.biz too). While this may be a windfall for .com owners, by the Coase Theorem it is a market-based approach, as any prospective applicant would need to acquire the relevant domains (perhaps at great cost) in order to be able to "promote them" from a 2nd level string into a top-level domain. Even a .com owner would have to buy out the owners of .net/org/biz/info, potentially at great cost. The market would decide whether its best usage is as a single gTLD, or as a set of 2nd level domains. This promotion or conversion, from a set of 2nd level domains into a gTLD explains the naming of the method as "Ascension". 2) One would have to give up all trademark rights to the gTLD string (e.g. if Pepsi or Yahoo wanted to start .PEPSI or .YAHOO, the terms "Pepsi" and "Yahoo" would have to be relinquished as worldwide trademarks). This would ensure that the gTLDs are basically generic (like .STORE, or .SHOP, etc.) or are newly created strings not conflicting with existing TMs. 3) The owners of the gTLD could not, directly or indirectly via related entities, own subdomains of the new gTLD. For example, if one owns Hotels.com/net/org/etc., and wanted to form .HOTELS instead, to have Virginia.Hotels, California.Hotels, etc., one can't continue to operate Hotels.com (which would no longer exist, i.e. it would be surrendered to IANA as a reserved name) or any of the .HOTELS subdomains. Those would have to be owned by the public, via registrations. i.e. the owners of the proposed gTLD have to decide, like VeriSign had to years ago, whether they are in the registration business, or whether they are in the content business, but not both. Given the above 3 were market based methods, there'd need to be a further "beauty contest" component, to prevent namespace pollution, to show there'd be a substantial public benefit, and to limit the overall growth of new gTLDs (i.e. to ensure there aren't 5000 junk/toy/hobbyist gTLDs). 4) For "ascension" to occur, the owners of the proposed gTLD must launch and operate it as a quasi-TLD for a period of at least 5 years, using subdomains. For example, if the proposed gTLD is .SKYPE, to give a realistic example (assuming they've met #1 through #3 already), domains would be allocated as example.skype.com, example2.skype.com, etc, could have emails as [EMAIL PROTECTED], etc.) As mentioned earlier, for most toy gTLDs, they can accomplish most of what they want via subdomains, and don't need a gTLD. Operating as a quasi-TLD, until it "proves itself worthy" of ascension to a gTLD, allows ICANN and the public to separate the wheat from the chaff, the serious proposals from the hobbyists, and thus avoids the pollution of the global namespace with junk. Quasi-TLDs would be subject to all the same ICANN standards (e.g. UDRP, ICANN fees, equal access for registrars, WHOIS, etc.) as grown up gTLDs. During this quasi-TLD period, the 2nd level domains would revert to IANA as reserved domains, with the registry operating as a registrar (e.g. if Sex.com was the candidate (and sex.net/org/biz/info were acquired), since Sex.com could no longer be operated, via Requirement #3 above, it would now be owned by ICANN/IANA). 5) After 5 years, a "beauty contest" would occur to ensure that the proposed gTLD is "successful" and thus worthy to ascend to gTLD status. Metrics to determine whether a quasi-TLD was successful would include such things as the number of registrations (5 million+ would seem to be reasonable), the percentage of internet traffic routed to that quasi TLD (e.g. if *.skype.com was successful, with hundreds of millions of registrations, and 2 or 5% of internet traffic, it could convert/ascend into .skype and have emails like [EMAIL PROTECTED] instead of [EMAIL PROTECTED]). Compliance with UDRP and other ICANN policies could be part of the beauty contest. As percentage of internet traffic could be a requirement, this would naturally put a hard limit on the number of new gTLDs that could be added (e.g. if one required 2%, that puts an upper bound of 50 new ones). Alternatively, if there's no traffic limit, one could do an auction, or some other scheme (e.g. allocate to the quasi gTLD with the highest number of registrations or greatest public benefit). 6) Public comment would be solicited, including those of existing registries, including ccTLDs (this would help ensure .coom or .cmo doesn't become a registry, as one could imagine *.coom and *.cmo would get a lot of traffic, due to typos, but could meet some of the above requirements). 7) Other requirements based on input from the GNSO constituencies (consider the above proposal a work in progress). As one can see, the above requirements would set the bar very high for a set of 2nd level domains to convert or ascend into the top level. Money alone (via an auction) wouldn't suffice, as a gTLD would have to PROVE itself as a successful quasi-TLD first. But, I think it would satisfy many concerns. In particular, existing registrants of other TLDs don't need to worry about dilution, as the proposed new TLD registry operator has to first gain control of the relevant existing gTLD names. e.g. an operator of .xxx would first need to own xxx.com, xxx.net, xxx.org, etc., and operate it successful for games.xxx.com, music.xxx.com, etc. for millions of registrants as a quasi gTLD, before it became promoted/ascended into a .xxx. IP holders should be happy, as the gTLD disclaims any TM rights, and was subject to UDRP, etc. for 5 years as a quasi gTLD, before it ascended to a real one. There'd be no need for multiple defensive registrations on hundreds of toy TLDs, just actual UDRPs on ones that ascended to true gTLD status. Existing domain holders can already create apple.store.com or ibm.store.com, but are not subject to UDRP for those subdomains....during a 5-year period, TM holders could police the quasi TLDs to the extent they desire, either through UDRP or through statutory/common law methods. There are some parallels to .kids.us. If that subdomain was actually successful (as measured by registrations and traffic), and they owned the kids.com/net/org, one could see it promoted into .kids. Of course as we all know, .kids.us has been a debacle. It is better that we know it is a debacle now while it operates as a subdomain, BEFORE it ever becomes a true gTLD, an unsuccessful one that pollutes the namespace. I'd appreciate any feedback or input on improving the above proposal. I think folks are polarized between either the small number of TLDs vs large number of TLDs models, and I hope this represents a method of allocating small numbers of PROVEN TLDs (proven through the "quasi TLD" operational period) that respects existing domain holders and IP interests. Sincerely, George Kirikos http://www.kirikos.com/ _______________________________________________ domains-gen mailing list [email protected] http://discuss.tucows.com/mailman/listinfo/domains-gen
