ICANN Proposes Sweeping Changes to TLDs
The Wall Street Journal reports that the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is considering sweeping changes to the way top-level domains (TLDs) are assigned. Under this newly proposed plan, any organization could apply for any top-level domain (ICANN calls these new domain names generic TLDs). Google, for example, could get a .google domain, or Coke products might be found under .coke. If accepted, this would be the most significant modification of the TLD naming system yet.
Update: ICANN just approved these changes.
One interesting aspect of the new rule, according to the WSJ, is that general terms such as .news or .sports would also become available for registration.
The new rule proposes a $50.000 to $100.000 fee for the registration of one of these new domain names, effectively restricting their availability to larger organizations.
This new plan would have a number of ramifications, but maybe most importantly, the domain name speculation business is going to be changed forever. Most interesting and generic .com names have long been taken. The new system, however, will bring an abundance of new domains, which might drive down prices for .com domains. This is surely going to upset a lot of speculators, as Chris Morrison also points out on VentureBeat. Right now, speculators can hoard interesting domain names and auction them off for millions of dollars (business.com sold for around $350 million).
Will Consumers Care?
In the past, ICANN slowly added a number of new top-level domains such as .info, .mobi, .travel, .coop, or .asia. None of these gained a lot of mind-share among consumers and can often be bought at a discount because demand for them is so low. For the average Internet user, .com is the only domain on the Internet, with only .edu, .gov, .org, and .net having some traction as well. Not coincidentally, these (together with .mil) were also the first TLDs available on the net.
The question is if these generic TLDs will be more successful. If consumers didn't adapt to .info, will they adapt to .coke? The .com domain has become so ingrained in our Internet culture that it has practically become synonymous with domain names and the Internet as a whole.
While some web services like del.icio.us were able to attract a considerable amount of users with their idiosyncratic domains, even del.icio.us finally bought delicious.com when it started attracting more mainstream users.
It looks like these questions might get answered pretty soon. Judging from ICANN's timeline for the introduction of generic TLDs, we could start seeing them as early as Q2 of 2009.
Share
Comments
Subscribe to comments for this post OR Subscribe to comments for all ReadWriteWeb posts
So now www.clownpenis.fart will become a reality! I look forward to that site.
They should just call it what it is: buying keyword(s).
1. http://business123.com
2. http://www.business123
3. http://business123
As in #3, if providing no 'sub-domain' (i.e. domain) is allowed and if it will resolve to the TLD/keyword owner's site, then the implications are extremely sweeping in rendering .com less important. It would completely tip the balance in favor of the largest corporations controlling all of the top names. It would allow a single rich owner of generic keyword TLDs to triumph over all of the same names that use normal TLDs. With .com, at least, there was a semblance of structure and the ability for regular people to deal in good names (especially back when names were $75+/year).
If they wanted "fairness," they would allow anyone to buy a domain name using any new custom TLD without exclusivity, for a low enough price -- really no different than it was with any name under .com years ago. Of course, such a huge array of possibilities would also decrease a buyer purchasing the same names under multiple TLDs (and that would be ICANN shooting themselves in the pocket).
Anyway, as far as generic terms and local vs. global trademarks are concerned, purchasing keywords on the international level sounds like a can of worms.
Can't wait for the www.paypal/com phishing scams.
On the positive side maybe I can stop hearing about how all the good names are taken, blah blah blah. Best way to lower the value of a limited bunch of names is to increase the number of names available. This should do that.
I agree with you Morgan, this could help people in getting to name their website the way they want.
> For the average Internet user, .com is the only domain on
> the Internet, with only .edu, .gov, .org, and .net having
> some traction as well.
For the average *American* internet user you meant to say. To quote the most recent VeriSign Domain Name brief[1]: ".com has the highest base followed by .de (Germany), .cn
(China), .net, .uk (United Kingdom) and .org."
[1]: http://www.verisign.com/Resources/Naming_Services_Resources/Domain_Name_Industry_Brief/
Good point Valentin - I should have mentioned the international market as well. But even for the international domains, wouldn't it seem that the same situation applies? I think most people are aware of their national TLD and then .com, never considering most of the 'minor' TLDs.
Domains such as .asia and .whatnot will simply not work. It's better to expand and improve on the original system (.com, .net, .org, .gov, .edu) and the country-level domains. We should be asking ourselves, are domain names still the way to go as we advance the Internet? A better and more efficient nomenclature system may be needed instead.
Thank goodness they're opening the TLD process.
TLDs are meaningless to 99.9999% (if not more) of the general Internet using population. Explaining what com/net/org/edu means to someone is inevitably followed by that person pointing out inconsistencies in the sites they visit. People who are putting together a website for the first time often worry about getting in trouble for using the "wrong" TLD. On the other end of the spectrum, among the technically elite, existing TLDs are being creatively hacked into business names because the .com nomenclature is so crowded. Both are very strong social indications that the TLD system is fundamentally broken, now that the Internet has become a corner stone of modern life.
Plus, it's not like the com/etc TLDs are going away. They're a de facto standard. It might take decades until people stop using .com reflexively. This decision doesn't change how anyone currently uses the Internet.
My only beef is that it is so expensive to register. I would like to see the cost down to a point which is high enough to keep squatters from buying up massive swaths of TLD namespace, but low enough to be accessible by small businesses and enthusiasts. I know I'd pay a fair amount for http://peat/
Thank goodness they're opening the TLD process.
TLDs are meaningless to 99.9999% (if not more) of the general Internet using population. Explaining what com/net/org/edu means to someone is inevitably followed by that person pointing out inconsistencies in the sites they visit. People who are putting together a website for the first time often worry about getting in trouble for using the "wrong" TLD. On the other end of the spectrum, among the technically elite, existing TLDs are being creatively hacked into business names because the .com nomenclature is so crowded. Both are very strong social indications that the TLD system is fundamentally broken, now that the Internet has become a corner stone of modern life.
Plus, it's not like the com/etc TLDs are going away. They're a de facto standard. It might take decades until people stop using .com reflexively. This decision doesn't change how anyone currently uses the Internet.
My only beef is that it is so expensive to register. I would like to see the cost down to a point which is high enough to keep squatters from buying up massive swaths of TLD namespace, but low enough to be accessible by small businesses and enthusiasts. I know I'd pay a fair amount for http://peat/
So when and where can we buy these?
I like the idea of selling TLD's for a significant amount. That will start a business similar to the hosting business. Money keepers will buy .sports and will then sell i.e. cnn.sports and muscle.sports.
So, I think 50-100 kUSD isn't too much.
On the other hand, I agree that .com (in Germany it's .de) is actually the "synonym" for "on the Internet". Customers need to remember only one word "business" to find "business.com". And I bet, CocaCola will not move their entire business to .coke (but I also bet that they will buy .coke).
As a proposal: ICANN should first serve property holders!
I think this a bad strategic move by ICANN which will bring alot of confusion for the average internet user. As you rightly pointed, consumers will not allow ICANN to drag them to this mess since there have already been widespread neglect of previous domains besides dot.com As someone rightly pointed, i don't see this idea going along way: Now ICANN Must Live With Its Mess ( http://www.internetevolution.com/author.asp?section_id=466&doc_id=157713&F_src=flftwo)
@ Peat Bakke
I don't think you'll get http://peat its going to need a dot in there someplace.
maybe http://peat.bakke would work, can then you give away domains to all your family too...
saying that email address wouldn't be so hot - I wont namespin them there for the spam-bots would start spamming these addresses even before you bought the domain!