Icann 3 year policy statement on domain names

[Pete Rose]

I heard an interview with the head of ICANN today (Paul Twoby I think his name was) on BBC radio that that next year could see the end of fixed domain name extentions as we know it. People can register their own dot whatever at the end of a domain name as long as it doesn't infringe on trademarks.

He said that the world is literally running out of domain names using the popular extensions.

Interesting? How will this affect current dot com and other TLD values? Will all usable names be deemed worthless or will they have much higher values?


Pete

[dotDan]

He said that the world is literally running out of domain names using the popular extensions.

Well, this is a given.

[Wilhelm]

"We're talking about introducing potentially thousands more names," said Paul Levins, executive officer of Icann, the California-based nonprofit company that is the host of the Paris conference (June 21-27), which has drawn more than 1,300 delegates from 130 countries"

Link: http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/...t23.php?page=1

[amagab]

Will there ever be a name that's more popular than the .com though?

[domaingenius]

Will there ever be a name that's more popular than the .com though?

Why is .com popular ?. Because of course it was the one that many domainers were brought up with. As the next generation comes through maybe they will have different ideas as to what is popular.

As for the "choose your own tld" it is a good idea but I see they are going to charge thousands of $ for each tld and I guess people like Jay Westerdal et al will try and monopolise it as they do with anything and everything domain related.

DG

[harleyx]

There are several living generations still less than 50% computer literate, much less saavy to the internet. Most of those people's brains never move past ".com", which is why it's so valuable. A large majority aren't even aware of the hundreds of other extensions.

What a silly statement, the world is "running out of domains on the popular extensions", considering the number of domains that sit idle at parking companies.

They've just gotten a more expensive in the popular extensions, that's all.

[lukeeales]

This marks the end of the domaining industry!

[David G]

"We're talking about introducing potentially thousands more names," said Paul Levins, executive officer of Icann, the California-based nonprofit company that is the host of the Paris conference (June 21-27), which has drawn more than 1,300 delegates from 130 countries"

Link: http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/...t23.php?page=1

This is BIG news and could change everything, with potential major domain value depreciation, even in dot-com

Does it mean we could get own our own extensions such as Smith Jones Schilling Ham Jablonski Green or whatever? What if there are thousands of duplicate applications?

[Focus]

If this happens it's going to mean nothing to generic .com owners, they are still more valuable than ever and will get traffic for the next 20 years.

[clasione]

If this happens it's going to mean nothing to generic .com owners, they are still more valuable than ever and will get traffic for the next 20 years.

I agree... .com will always be "the one"..... no matter how many .whatevers people want to make...

[Focus]

I agree with you back

I would like to add, ICAAN'T is still more greedy than ever...this is ALL about money from the licensing & reg fees, period. They could care less it seems if they bastard up the entire Internet...how confusing can it all possibly get? If anything more people might actually just start typing in .com as a reference point to cut through the BS! (like I do now)

[owntag]

I will apply for the following extensions for sure.

.con
.c0n
.co0m
.coom
.ccom
.comm
.cpom
.comn

[Stian]

If this "idea" even gets implemented, the .COM and the already known extensions as .net, .org etc. will still be just as valuable as they are today. Only a chosen few will choose to register their own .TLD and there will be so many, companies will still need to have the .COM in order to attract their customers. Nothing to worry about. These kind of disturbing news pops up on a weekly basis IMO.

[clasione]

I agree with you back

I would like to add, ICAAN'T is still more greedy than ever...this is ALL about money from the licensing & reg fees, period. They could care less it seems if they bastard up the entire Internet...how confusing can it all possibly get? If anything more people might actually just start typing in .com as a reference point to cut through the BS! (like I do now)

Well said, so true.... As do I..... .com is the easiest, most direct, and most likely candidate for the serious site you're looking for... 99% of the time..... ICAAN just has something new to sell, for a prettier penny, and many will be running with credit card in hand....

[Domagon]

Perhaps the reporter misunderstood / was misinformed? From my understanding, with a few exceptions, the new IDN TLDs will be simply aliases to current TLDs. ICANN and company has been working on that for awhile.

Adding many thousands, let alone millions, of real (as opposed to say IDN aliases) TLDs would stress the root servers, and create a huge single point of failure for custom-vanity TLDs.

Many ISPs / resolvers cache the root server addresses and the corresponding TLD zone data, so if the roots are unavailable / busy or whatever, it's generally a situation that can be worked around - that won't be true in a custom-vanity TLD situation. The upshot being that traditional, popular TLDs would end up being more reliable in such instances.

And from a business aspect, such a scheme would in essance be a monopoly far worse than Internic ever was - because the root would directly be serving resource records (ie. name server addresses) for end-user domains in the custom-vanity TLDs.

Bottom line, in my view, is custom-vanity TLDs (a glorified keyword system) is unlikely to happen anytime soon, if ever.

Ron

[domaingenius]

The net could see its biggest transformation in decades if plans to open up the address system are passed.

The net's regulators will vote on Thursday to decide if the strict rules on so-called top level domain names, such as .com or .uk, can be relaxed.

If approved, it could allow companies to turn their brands into domain names while individuals could also carve out their own corner of the net.

The move could also see the launch of .xxx, after years of wrangling.

Top level domains are currently limited to individual countries, such as .uk (UK) or .it (Italy), as well as to commerce, .com, and to institutional organisations, such as .net, or .org.

To get around the restrictions, some companies have used the current system to their own ends.

For example, the Polynesia island nation Tuvalu, has leased the use of the .tv address to many television firms.

The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (Icann), which acts as a sort of regulator for the net as well as overseeing the domain name system, has been working towards opening up net addresses for the last three years.


It's a massive increase in the geography of the real estate of the internet
Dr Paul Twomey, Icann

The plan would also allow for the new domain names to be internationalised, and so could be written in scripts for Asian and Arabic languages.

Dr Paul Twomey, chief executive of Icann, told BBC News that the proposals would result in the biggest change to the way the internet worked in decades.

"The impact of this will be different in different parts of the world. But it will allow groups, communities and business to express their identities online.

"Like the United States in the 19th Century, we are in the process of opening up new real estate, new land, and people will go out and claim parts of that land and use it for various reasons they have.

"It's a massive increase in the geography of the real estate of the internet."

Arbitration process

Hundreds of new domain names could be created by the end of the year, rising to thousands in the future.

HAVE YOUR SAY

I'm all for tighter regulation, not opening it up further which would only facilitate fraud

Karen, London
Send us your comments

Icann says any string of letters can be registered as a domain, but there will be an independent arbitration process for people with grounds for objection.

The openness of the new system could pave the way for a .xxx domain name, after more than half a decade of wrangling between its backers and Icann.

The latest attempt to launch .xxx was rejected by Icann last year on the grounds that approval would put the agency into the position of a content regulator.

When asked about the possibility of a .xxx domain name, Dr Twomey repeated only that the new system would be "open to anyone".

The move could yet be blocked as the independent arbitration panel can reject domains based on "morality or public order" grounds.

Dr Twomey said Icann was still working through how much the application fee to register a domain name will be, but it is expected to be at least several thousand dollars.

'Cost recovery'

"We are doing this on a cost recovery basis. We've already spent $10m on this," he said.

Individuals will be able to register a domain based on their own name, or any other string of letters, as long as they can show a "business plan and technical capacity".

While companies will be able to secure domain names based on their intellectual property easily, some domain names could become subject to contention and a bidding war.

Dr Twomey said: "If there is a dispute, we will try and get the parties together to work it out. But if that fails there will be an auction and the domain will go to the highest bidder."

[HuntingMoon]

a vanity extension would be a hot commodity. the suggestion makes me want one.

[Acro]

What a load of bollocks

[Credit]

Really no different than today. We have tons of extensions that are barely used - if you really can't find something you want in .com, go for .cc or .ws I don't see how introducing more extensions or making extensions limitless changes the market.

[Fatbat]

"the California-based nonprofit company that is the host of the Paris conference..."

Who are they kidding?