Re: ICANN: Pay Now, Maybe Get a New Top-Level Domain Later

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: "David P. Reed" <dpreed () reed com>
Date: November 3, 2009 9:04:45 AM EST
To: dave () farber net
Cc: ip <ip () v2 listbox com>
Subject: Re: [IP] Re: ICANN: Pay Now, Maybe Get a New Top-Level Domain  
Later

Wait a minute.   I *want* ".reed".  Just like I wanted "reed.com".   
Not to get rich by trading it or treating it as a moneymaking  
"beachfront property".   I just want it, if I can have it.  Admittedly  
there are people who think I've been nuts to turn down offers to  
purchase it that have been pretty substantial (and also offers to  
purchase it by people who appear to want it because they have the same  
last name I do).

I say this because the idea that domain naming should be viewed as a  
mere "marketplace" is interesting.   Dave Farber probably knows about  
10 companies who have expressed interest in a DNS name that means  
"marker" or "pen" or "pencil" auf Deutsch.  I bet Dave would like a  
TLD called ".farber".

So this is not a tempest in a teapot.   It's real... it just is one of  
those things that people who have "POWER" (all caps) want to be able  
to force on everybody.  In this case, the Intellectual Property Bar.    
And they'll litigate to get their way, and buy politicians and so  
forth to get their way.  Because apparently "trademarks" are more  
important than my wish for a little expressivity.

Ultimately, it's the same reason I can't have waiters sing "Happy  
Birthday" to my children in restaurants.   I have no power, and the  
big "machers" do.


On 11/03/2009 08:06 AM, David Farber wrote:
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: John Levine <johnl () iecc com>
> Date: November 2, 2009 2:01:43 PM EST
> To: synthesis.law.and.technology () gmail com
> Cc: dave () farber net, lauren () vortex com
> Subject: Re: [IP] ICANN: Pay Now, Maybe Get a New Top-Level Domain  
> Later
>
> > I find it hard to disagree with much of Lauren's analysis. But if
> > there is a problem, and if the problem that exists is the reason that
> > Lauren thinks gTLD expansion is not wise, then why not fix the
> > problem?
>
> Ah, you have it backwards.  There's no problem to fix.
>
> There are two mostly separate issues with new TLDs.  One is TLDs for
> countries in non-ASCII character sets, known as IDNs.  They're much
> less controversial, and ICANN will soon issue at least a few
> politically expedient ones like .<china> with the name in Chinese
> which would be equivalent to .CN.  This is the only real TLD problem,
> it was waiting for technical specs and implementation (not from
> ICANN), but that is now largely done.
>
> The controversial issue is domains with random new names, gTLDs.  I
> agree with my old friend Lauren that this is a tempest in a very
> expensive teapot, because all of the purported reasons that people
> want new TLDs have been proven false.
>
> Back in the 1990s when this all started, search engines were still
> obscure experiments, and there was a broad feeling that industry
> specific TLDs would be used as directories.  The failure of .MUSEUM
> and .AERO shows that DNS directories don't work.  There are plenty of
> directories, but they work by web queries, not DNS queries.
>
> Another theory was that restricted TLDs could certify registrants as
> being genuine members of whatever the restricted field was.  The
> failure of .PRO and .TRAVEL shows this doesn't work either.  Domain
> names aren't a credible way to certify anyone.
>
> The last is that the DNS needs "competition", which was and is defined
> as "people switching from .COM to domains that I sell."  There is
> plenty to dislike about the way that ICANN has managed .COM, but the
> reality there is that Verisign's technical DNS management has always
> been fine, and the registration fee, while higher than it should be,
> is still trivial unless you're a domain speculator.
>
> Equally important, the rise of search engines makes specific domain
> names increasingly unimportant.  Google's Chrome, for example, has
> only one box where you type either a URL or search terms, and I would
> be surprised if half of its users know the difference.  (It is my
> impression that typosquatting remains profitable only because people
> type search terms by mistake into a browser's address box.)
>
> The only "competition" problem to be solved by new gTLDs is that
> people want to replace Verisign as the toll collector.  If they want
> to waste $185,000 apiece to find out that it's not going to happen, I
> have no particular opposition to what is in practice a tax on the
> foolish and greedy, but disregard any claims that it has anything to
> do with other than money.
>
> R's,
> John
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------
> Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
> RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
> Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com




-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com