Intergovernmental organisations (IGOs) like the United Nations and the International Monetary Fund have joined the ranks of the opposition to ICANN's proposed expansion of domain names. The web address overlord is planning to allow companies and organisations to establish generic top level domain names (gTLDs) from January next …
The bigger question I've posed with this gTLD idiocy is what exactly is ICANN going to do with the literally billions of dollars it's going to make from this move?
ICANN is meant to be non-profit, there's no way it needs billions of additional income to be able to run itself, so I think there's a valid question as to where that money is going to go. Is ICANN going to start paying it's execs billions? is this move selfishly financially motivated? Is the US government using this as a move to siphon off money into it's own coffers for it's own purposes?
The technical argument for gTLDs was lost from the outset, it makes no sense, the whole point of DNS is that it's meant to be hierarchial and removing this has implications for replication, and security amongst other things.
The business argument is a no go, companies don't want this for the afformentioned reason it'll cost them tens, possibly hundreds of millions to protect their brand.
I can't help but think the gTLD thing is really just being done either at the behest of the US government as a great big fund raiser, or by the ICANN folks so that they can become "non-profit" billionaires.
But whatever the reason, this is yet against evidence of why the US is not fit to manage and run internet oversight organisations and why, like ITU and countless other UN organisations that function well it should be lumped with them.
There's no chance of a .un, because ICANN will not allow two-character gTLDs.
There's also no chance of a cybersquatter getting their hands on .cocacola. None whatsoever.
Anybody who thinks there is isn't paying attention.
Add the cost of
.coke in several languages, and the scale of teh problem becomes clear.
Who gets .jeans then? bet an american company would win over texstar so that company will buy the domain in it's home country, then we get more money spent for .jenans.usa, .jeans.america
lets ask the simplest question for congress, which state will be first to buy .governor?
Maybe the Salmondistas won't get their .scot TLD after all...?
Pointless bit of geekery
What use is a gTLD - most of the world never looks at a url anymore. The only reason for doing gTLDs?
Because we can
We only need one more top-level domain...
We only need one more top-level domain, and that's something like ".kids". Only legitimate, traceable organizations would be allowed to register, and anyone peddling un-wholesome content could be banned and fined. ISPs could easily provide a bullet-proof kiddy filter by only allowing IP traffic to sites that reverse-resolve to the correct address in that domain.That would provide a safe corner of the internet for those needing an electronic baby-sitter, and allow us adults to get on with our business elsewhere.
The whole new TLD nonsense is just holding anyone with a significant internet presence to ransom. Pay us a bucket-load of money or your name will be sold to the highest bidder...
I'm fairly sure that
assuming they get .cocacola and .coke, then they won't need to pay any additional fees for coke.cocacola and coke.coke
I expect better reporting from you El Reg.
".cocacola, .coke, .dietcoke, .fanta, coke.cocacola, coke.coke,"
beat me to it, why don'tcha? ^_^
time for multiple root zones ?
The root zone is a small enough file and well enough known that there's room for more than one player to create a version. It's really up to the DNS resolver software implementers and operators to configure the well known addresses from which a root zone is served and these influencers might not all want to make the same choice.
Metcalfe's law suggests there could only ever be one player here, but If ICANN do what they propose i.e. to flog prestigious TLD entries in their root version to the highest bidder, then I remain to be convinced that no other organisation is capable of providing a more trusted root zone at least to some users. Maybe one such organisation could be the ITU (which is part of the UN), if they could improve their decision making procedures and cut down on the bureacracy. In terms of legitimacy this would be a better solution. But if we end up with multiple root zone providers it also becomes possible that not every TLD will resolve the same way on every DNS client.
We would naturally tend to think of such a scenario (a domain name potentially resolving to more than one possible target) as chaotic and evil, but how else to discipline monopoly providers than through the possibility and actuality of competition ?
Do we really need gTLDs?
No, we do not. It will confuse the public (is that coke.com, coke.coke, coka.cola, etc?) and cost a fortune for small-medium companies to protect their brands, many of which cannot afford it.
The only people who would benefit are phishing gangs, cybersquatters, and the ICANN directors. Most of the directors already hold external commercial positions that would massively benefit of gTLDs went ahead.
ICANN are basically after a license for its directors to become very, very rich.
Thumbs up because I'm pleased the UN and IMF are also opposed.
F. Scott Fitzgerald said that "advertising is a racket, like the movies and the brokerage business. You cannot be honest without admitting that its constructive contribution to humanity is exactly minus zero."
In that spirit, if all the big advertisers are against gTLDs, then I am all for them.
How many more TLDs is ICANN going to create?
After large brand names are exhausted, what shall follow? IT-related TLAs? (.www, .ftp, .vga, et cetera) Family names? (not that I wouldn't mind owning the .farah TLD, but still...)
IMHO, this has gone way beyond the acceptable.
At a price of £185,000 per domain, we're talking about some very special cybersquatters....
Plus the extra money for all the .uk, .us, .cn domains?
Doesn't making high level domains consequently reduce the amount of names that can be used...