I am wondering why didn't ICANN open up domain registrations for those generic TLDs so anybody can register their .app/.music/.whatever domain? I think a lot of issues would have been avoided and from a revenue perspective it would have been more profitable on the long term. Yet, this is only my personal opinion about this matter... *Andrei Barburas* Community Relations Services Officer International Institute for Communication and Development (IICD) P.O. Box 11586, 2502 AN The Hague, The Netherlands NPOC, ICANN member Mobile: +31 62 928 2879 Phone: +31 70 311 7311 Fax: +31 70 311 7322 Website: www.iicd.org *People ** **ICT Development* On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 7:56 AM, Ron Wickersham <[log in to unmask]>wrote: > A possible confusion exists for individual/consumer users of the Internet > with regard to second-level host names in closed new gtld's. See below: > > > On Wed, 6 Feb 2013, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > >> I stand ready to be educated by those with different views. >> >> OK. Here is a different view. >> >> It is not a free speech issue at all. It is a vertical integration or >> business model issue, exclusively. Some registries want to create a >> specific image or environment inside a particular TLD. Those registries are >> not trying to sell domain name registrations per se, they are selling or >> doing other things with the domain, perhaps even giving domains away to >> promote a service. They might also use their authority to control >> registrations to prevent speculators from grabbing all the "good" names, or >> to impose a taxonomy on the second level, or to prevent undesirable types >> from squatting or tarnishing the overall image of the domain. >> >> Other registries want to maximize the number of registrations under a >> TLD. In that case, it makes sense to be "open". In other words, if you are >> a registrar and want to sell hundreds of thousands or millions of domains >> to whoever will buy them for whatever reason, then you want "open" or FCFS >> TLDs. >> >> Not surprisingly, the real push for "open" and against "closed" TLDs is >> coming from traditional registrars who want all the potentially popular >> domains to be available for them to exploit as registrars. The free speech >> and competition policy claims are pure diversions. >> >> Take .BOOK for example. If someone wants to open that up for anyone on a >> first-come, first-served basis, there are advantages and disadvantages. >> Sure, I could register networksandstates.book in an open domain, if I >> wanted to. But someone else might register it before me, or someone might >> register nonfiction.books (so there's that "terrible" appropriation of a >> generic term again). Wrose, 600 different link farms might appropriate >> other generic terms (sex.books, good.books) and just pile pay per click ads >> onto them, so that anyone using the domain would never know whether a >> specific domain was useful or just a commercial diversion. >> >> I don't think it's ICANN's job to say that either one of these business >> models is the right one. I think there is an important place for both >> models, and the proper decision maker to decide which one to use is the >> person who risked about $1 million to get the domain and operate it. >> >> The competition policy claims are especially laughable, because unless >> you confuse the market for books with the market for names under .book, it >> is obvious that possession of the latter does not do anything to give you >> monopoly control of the former. >> >> Likewise, I don't see the freedom issue here. In fact, freedom of >> expression and property rights are mutually reinforcing in this case. If I >> register a domain like .IGP and want to use it to push a particular topic >> or point of view, it's my right NOT to allow, say, advocates of Scientology >> to register domains under IGP. If I have to lend my domain to promotion of >> causes and ideas I don't support, my freedom of association and expression >> rights are being restricted. >> >> Edward, you have a domain under USC.EDU. USC is not obliged, on free >> speech grounds, to allow me to register a name under their domain. This is >> not a restriction of my right of free speech so much as it is an extension >> of USC's right of free association and free speech. There are plenty of >> domains to accommodate diverse views. >> >> Generic words in the SLD space have been registered - and restricted to >> what their owners want them to do - for more than a decade. I don't see how >> TLD vs SLD changes the issue in any relevant way. Would you contend that >> your right to freedom of expression is restricted because you can't >> register <foo>.book.com? If not, why is it a restriction to not be >> allowed to register <foo>.book? I think we would both probably agree that >> if someone else registers book.com before me, then I don't have any >> right to use the domain book.com. Why is it any different for .book? >> >> Remember, new domains are NOT .com; i.e., they have no monopoly power or >> lock in power on existing registrants. No one has to use them or register >> in them. >> > > But in .com, there is a protection for trademarks at the second level, > and a mechanism to contest the _use_ of names at the second level based > on confusing a consumer. > > For instance, if I see the name of a bank, followed by .com, I don't > expect that wellsfargo.com will belong to a competitive bank. And if > .bank were to be an open tld, then Wells Fargo Bank would be able to > register wellsfargo.bank, and if someone else registered wellsfargo.bank > the real wellsfargo.bank would be able to contest the registration. > > Yet if, for instance, citi bank were to apply for and be granted .bank, > then a totally hands-off approach would permit them to provide a web page > at wellsfargo.bank. They are extremely unlikely to use that page to > ask for Wells Fargo Bank customers to log in with their password, but > they could create a page that offers Wells Fargo Bank customers a special > offer to switch banks, and Wells Fargo would not have any mechanism to > contest the 2nd level use of wellsfargo.bank in this manner thru ICANN. > > Of course, web traffic is only a part of Internet capability. And I grant > that a solution to the above dilemma may not exist. I am interested in > hearing more discussion on second level in closed generic tld's. > > -ron wickersham >