Domain name governing body Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and
Numbers (ICANN) continues to be under fire for the new top-level domain
names it approved last month.
ICANN, which oversees the Internet addressing system, voted on November 16
to add seven new generic top-level domain (gTLD) names, the first since the
80s, in an apparent bid to stoke competition and fulfill demand for new
addresses.
But the seven chosen, .biz, .info, .name, .pro, .aero, .coop, and .museum,
have rankled detractors and disappointed prospective registrants.
Technology writers Bob Rankin and Ellen Rony criticized the choices and
questioned the "arbitrary restrictions" placed on them.
"The new domain names are poorly chosen and will only cause confusion and
further litigation," says Bob "Doctor Bob" Rankin, author of several
computer books and the widely read Internet Tourbus newsletter.
Ellen Rony, co-author of the Domain Name Handbook, agreed, describing the
new domain names as a "lackluster clutch."
"ICANN is risk adverse and erred on the side of caution. I question how
much the limited purpose of the new domain names will contribute to the
soaring demand for desirable domain names. As a process, it just seems that
the board is making this up as it goes along," she said.
Rankin explained in his newsletter that ICANN's main charter when it was
set up two years ago was to increase competition in the domain name
registration process and to consider the addition of new gTLDs.
"I think they did a fine job at the first task, but when it came to the
latter they made a mess of it," said Rankin. " I just don't see how the
addition of the .biz domain helps anyone. We already had a suffix for
businesses, and you can be sure that there will be a stampede by the owners
of existing .com domains to register .biz equivalents to avoid being held
hostage by cybersquatters. Those who do succeed in grabbing .biz addresses
which conflict with .com sites will either generate confusion or lawsuits.
Not a pretty sight. "
Rankin said the same set of problems arises with .info. "ICANN says it's
for unrestricted usage, but if I was to register nike.info or pepsi.info,
how long do you think it would take before I got a menacing phone call from
a corporate lawyer? The .pro domain has this problem too. Who wins when
the owners of DoctorSmith.com and DoctorSmith.pro head to court? And why
should it be limited only to doctors, lawyers and accountants, anyway?"
Rankin said the .aero, .coop and .museum gTLDs also seem unnecessary when
.com and .org do just fine.
"Is there an airline that doesn't already have a .com address? And why are
non-profit business cooperatives so special that they need their own domain
space? Sounds like a job for .org to me. If museums get their own
top-level domain, then why not national parks and public toilets?" he said.
The sole gTLD that Rankin likes is .name, which is clearly defined for
personal sites, but even this he doubts will be free from litigation.
Rankin's criteria for good domain names are those that have clarity of
purpose, can segment domains by content or geography, and have no conflicts
with existing gTLDs.
He said the existing domain names such as .com for companies already work
well, except that the registrars have not been enforcing the original
charters for .net (network and service providers) and .org (non-commercial
organizations).
"New TLDs should address very specific types of content. Some of the best
ones I've heard proposed, such as .kids, .law, and .health were rejected. I
hope they'll reconsider these in the future," he said.
Rankin said he would also support recommendations that adult-oriented sites
be relegated to a .sex or .xxx domain, if only to make it easier to filter
them out for those who wished to do so.
Author and domain name activist Rony, also in an e-mail response,
questioned the selection process for the new TLDs. "The voting was done by
consensus with only 12 board members participating. Thus, some of these
TLDs were probably selected by less than half of the ICANN board. The
overriding question is why didn't ICANN wait one more week to allow the
elected at-large members an opportunity to participate in this decision?"
Five at-large members representing five global regions were elected to the
board on October 10, but had no say in the selection of the new domains.
Rony added also that 37 rejected applicants, who each had to fork out a
non-refundable $50,000 to propose new gTLDs, should receive a full
evaluation on why their names did not meet the non-profit board's criteria.
"Where are the 'deliverables' or individualized evaluations to justify the
sum each applicant paid? Will rejected applicants receive a discount in
the next round?" she asked.
Rony suggested that a better approach to choosing names would have been to
collect international consensus about which TLD strings the Internet
community wanted, and then ask for technical proposals on the top ten or
twenty.
Published in Newsbytes.
