
When free markets make it worse: new TLDs - amirmc
http://blog.asmartbear.com/free-markets-bad.html
======
walexander
Terrible article, in my opinion. The thesis is not supported in the slightest.
This was just an unfocused rant about the new TLDs and a quick upvote grab by
putting a trendy jab at free markets in the title.

What are free markets making worse here? He agrees that participants should be
allowed to buy and sell TLDs at whatever they are willing to pay. How is that
not free market? He suggest we fight this buy not paying for it. How is that
not free market? His only complaint seems to be that the price is ridiculous,
and ICANN should be "better than that".

The price of something is what someone will pay for it. If you don't have a
problem with people choosing what they will pay for, then you don't have a
problem with free markets.

Complaining about confusion for users, cell phone towers dotting the landscape
(?), and that some other people would spend their money on something else
(free market), do not help your claim that free markets make it worse either.

~~~
gaius
The new TLDs are a scam by the domain name registrars. If you are a company
that owns trademarks, you have to defend them or lose them. That means buying
the domain name - in every TLD - and now a whole TLD for a 6-figure sum! And
what does it cost the registrar, a few bytes of storage? It's a license to
print money, is the charitable way to look at it, I would say it's a
protection racket.

~~~
tankenmate
New gTLDs are required to support both the UDRP and trademark clearing houses.
These two options provide trademark holders with protections that are
unavailable in any other sphere of the market. With clearing houses trademark
holders don't need to buy domains, they can block their trademark from being
registered, albeit with a one off fee.

The trademark lobbyists have managed to garner a priori chilling of speech and
yet this doesn't seem to be enough to satisfy.

~~~
kelnos
_With clearing houses trademark holders don't need to buy domains, they can
block their trademark from being registered, albeit with a one off fee._

So pay us, or... pay us? Those are the two options?

~~~
tankenmate
There is no such thing as a free lunch; if you want a government backed
monopoly on something you can surely bet it will have to cost you X. Whether X
is a figure that is too much for you is a free market decision you will have
to make.

Is a few thousand a year too much for a limited government backed monopoly on
a name? I would say no.

I would also like to point out that I haven't discounted the social benefit of
trademarks, but the registrant pays model is probably the best practical
model.

~~~
kelnos
I would definitely agree that there _is_ a social benefit to trademarks (much
more significant than that of patents or copyrights).

I don't think I object to the cost in the general sense, from the registrant's
perspective. But from the other side, the registries have the potential to
make a decent chunk of change off this, which really feels like they're making
money not for providing a useful service, but by exploiting features of
trademark law. It just feels a little dirty to me.

------
Sidnicious
I think TLDs solve a problem, to some extent, but not the one ICANN seems to
think they solve.

You can have puppies.com and puppies.org — I suppose that helps if you run an
organization to help puppies, and I own company that sells puppies. But that
does not help when there’s another organization that helps puppies in some
other country.

Ah, but we have ccTLDs — you can be puppies.us, and the other guy can be
puppies.in. That’s a different naming convention entirely, awesome!

But, really, if you tell a bunch of people about your great new puppy venture,
most of them are just going to go to puppies.com (thanks for the business!) or
search for something on Google.

TLDs are _meaningless!_ They’re just semi-random bullshit that we stick onto
domain names so there can be more than one of each domain, to reduce the
chance of someone getting stabbed over who owns the one true “puppies”. (All
of the above taken? Be hip and get puppi.es!)

Of course, in the _real_ real world, puppies.com, puppies.org, puppies.us,
puppies.in, and puppi.es are all taken by domain squatters, so you and your
dogs’ dreams are fucked anyway…

Unless you want to race me to puppy.dog.

~~~
untog
"Ah, but we have ccTLDs — you can be puppies.us, and the other guy can be
puppies.in. That’s a different naming convention entirely, awesome!"

But the point is that it shouldn't have been like that. puppies.org.in,
puppies.org.us, and so on. But unfortunately the US didn't go down that road,
so we end up with a total mess.

That said, the international nature of the internet makes country-based TLDs a
little inappropriate anyway.

------
strmpnk
Who cares?

Personally, I think search engines beat DNS at its own game a long time ago.
Maybe not for some of us but if you ever watch many others, they search and
click (or QRcode scan). The URL bar is currently just some magical text to
most people and might for that reason, completely go away in future browsers.

Besides, the best way to get people to a site is to get a link planted
somewhere they already are. Post a tweet. Post to your Face+ profile. Pay for
an ad. Get a well known blog to review something. All of these seem to be much
more effective than caring about domains being hard to say or type.

~~~
zokier
The internet is not just web.

~~~
strmpnk
Right, but the article was about sites and specifically users getting to sites
on something we all like to call the web. Especially once the article pulled
out the <http://> thing.

More to my point above, the people the article is complaining about probably
don't bother distinguishing the internet and the web in the first place.

------
svedlin
Interesting article. One concern is that the steep cost of the new TLDs might
make it more difficult to establish a domain name that has "credibility". For
instance, second-level domains under .com might eventually be seen by some
consumers as "second-rate" ("inferior goods" in economic terms, perhaps the
way some users view non-.com domains like .biz now).

Sites with their own TLD might be seen as more credible consumer destinations,
establishing 2 different tiers of credibility, and reinforcing the standing of
incumbent e-commerce sites.

You can imagine that having your own TLD might factor into your search engine
rankings at some point or might be given more leeway by spam detectors.

The steep $185K registration fee for a service whose cost to provide and
maintain is pretty miniscule in comparison does not level the playing field.

Simultaneously this weds ICANN even more strongly to the interests of deep-
pocketed clients and would make it even harder for non-commercial entities to
get fair treatment.

Wealthy organizations should not have special privileges when it comes to
naming rights. Especially when the supply of naming rights is essentially
unlimited. This is a good example where a quasi-public good with nearly
limitless supply is privatized and made artificially scarce for the benefit of
a few.

And what about users who register second-level domains within a privately-
managed TLD? Would they be subject to even more sweeping seizures and
shutdowns for objectionable content? ICANN may find it easier to deflect both
the responsibility and blame for such "oversight" onto privately-managed TLDs
once the number of such domains increases. "Sorry your domain was snatched,
but you'll have to take it up with .SomeTLD."

Hopefully P2P-DNS and namecoin will gain traction.

------
noarchy
So we're talking about a free market, yes? Ideally, if folks didn't like the
pricing scheme that ICANN has presented, they'd go to a competitor. Then you
could "fight with your wallet", to quote the article. Where is ICANN's
competition?

~~~
fexl
Ah but now you're bringing up so many more profound issues, such as
centralized versus decentralized DNS, what a decentralized DNS even means,
whether there should be a DNS, the SSL certificate authority man-in-the-middle
fiasco, etc.

In the current situation, a domain name is property, which means it can only
have one owner, which means that someone must maintain a title registry,
somewhere.

 _Given_ the current situation, it's hard to think outside that box. But the
newer ideas I've heard, such as including a hash digest of a public key inside
the URL itself, and even the methods employed by TOR with no central
registries, are promising. With those methods, I don't think you'll end up
with domain names that are universally unique and universally recognized and
easily typed (see Zooko's Triangle), but maybe that's not such a bad thing,
given the use of search engines and bookmarks.

To answer your question directly, there _are_ alternative top-level domain
registries. But most computers and browsers are not configured to query them.

------
fexl
This article was more nuanced than I first thought. I figured it would be yet
another screed against "too much choice", as if the fifteen brands of mustard
in the grocery store throws shoppers into a fetal position, sobbing.

Thankfully, the author does not advocate the use of force to prevent this. As
he says:

 _So should it be legal? Of course, they can do what they want. And that’s
better than the other extreme; I’d rather live with too many products and
companies making money off other company’s ignorance than the reverse, where
regulation stifles progress, controlled by the only entity capable of more
waste and more ignorance than even the largest company: government._

With the threat of force off the table, I am far more likely to hear him out
and be amenable to his suggestions. I for one will not be buying a new top-
level domain, but anyone who wants to shell out $185,000 is free to do so. It
makes no difference to me which account number holds that $185,000, since it's
not my money to begin with.

~~~
icebraining
What force? As far as I know, ICANN only manages DNS on behalf of the US
government, as stated in contract. They can simply not renew their contract,
no force needed. In fact, the current contract expires in September.

~~~
fexl
I was referring to his question: "So should it be legal?" He answered: "Of
course, they can do what they want." Therefore I conclude that the author does
not advocate that government employees use force to stop this new TLD
business.

~~~
icebraining
OK, but in reality the question is irrelevant, because the govt. can stop it
without making it illegal or use force.

~~~
fexl
Oh! You just blew my mind. You meant "They [the US GOVT] can simply not renew
their contact [with ICANN]." For some fool reason I had that backwards.

Interesting scenario, but then my questions would be (1) who would the U.S
government use besides ICANN, or even (2) could ICANN just keep doing what
they do with the U.S. government's sponsorship?

Shows you how much I know about what goes on up there.

~~~
icebraining
Well, even now the DOC¹ has to approve any change in the DNS root zone, so
ICANN can't unilaterally do whatever they want. My guess is that the govt
would simply cut ICANN out of the loop and implement the policies themselves.

As for who would run it besides ICANN, well, before 1998 IANA² was run by Jon
Postel, so it's not absurd to consider they could find someone to manage it.
This is purely speculative, though, I really don't know nearly enough to be
sure about this.

¹ Department of Commerce ² The organization (nowadays, set of functions in
ICANN) which actually manages DNS and such.

------
photon_off
I hate the domain registration system as a whole, but I love the idea of TLDs.
It's likely my anger is misplaced since I scarcely understand the business of
it, but I find it infuriating that most ".com" domain names are taken by
squatters. Perhaps squatting is just too hard to enforce (I think somebody
could come up with an anti-squatting policy), but more likely I feel a lot of
people decided it better to make an easy buck and have the "market" sort
itself out.

However, I really like the new concept of TLDs. There are a few reasons why I
think this will benefit the internet as a whole.

First, if it catches on, then TLD's will mean a whole lot less. ".com" will
lose it's ubiquity, and I (along with thousands of entrepreneurs) will finally
be able to register suitable domain names. No more need to make up names. No
more need to negotiate with professional squatters, domain name dealers, etc.

Second, it's not just about the _name_ of the TLD, but a lot about the policy.
Imagine if ".startup" was just $1/yr, but you have 1 month to put up a _real_
site or your domain gets put back onto market. Or you could have strict rules
of inclusion: Imagine a TLD called ".realperson" that requires a video of you
to be sent doing a backflip before registering the domain. Of course, the
authentication of doing a backflip would likely be replaced by something
meaningful.

Third, as alluded to in my second point, it creates opportunity for businesses
built off of the concept of TLDs. There really is a ton of room for
innovation.

Finally, I think there is _a lot_ in a name. .tv, .info, etc didn't fail to
catch on because nobody cares about names. They failed because all of the .tv
and .info domains weren't owned by the same entity. If you add cohesion to a
TLD, I think it could become quite powerful, and I think there are actually a
lot of cool things people will come up with. For example, if .info were
created under the new system, "foo.info" might be able to send you to a
wikipedia summary of "foo". Alright, that example is not entirely useful, but
you get the picture.

* Disclaimer, I scarcely understand the domain business. Any correction or insight is greatly appreciated.

~~~
zipperhead
If it catches on, yes. Did you note the price? $185K for a domain name. I
agree with you about the domain-name squatting - it's a real issue - but I
don't see how this makes things any better.

------
bruceboughton
I agree, but:

"I know you’re already with me. The next step is to fight the leeches. Fight
with your wallet and your words."

How do you fight with your wallet against ICANN--a monopoly?

~~~
mmorris
I think the idea is that some of the new TLDs will be created as registrars
who sell individual domains to third parties. So, for example, someone might
register .camera and then try to sell .camera domains to other people and
companies.

If, like .biz or others, .camera domains never catch on (i.e., if people who
buy domains don't buy those specific domains), other potential TLD creators
will be less likely to do so in the future.

------
cletus
I see new gTLDs as a _good thing_.

Obviously the registrars are in it for the money but this will be like the new
.com domain but with several advantages:

1\. The high price will eliminate squatting;

2\. The lack of squatting will greatly reduce phishing through real-looking
domains;

3\. The price is low enough that startups with serious series A/B funding will
probably buy their gTLD; and

4\. gTLDs may well be out of the jurisdiction of ICE and the US government
(unlike .com and .net domains as witnessed by recent seizures).

Bring it on, I say.

~~~
romaniv
Firstly, squatting is a problem that ICANN itself created (or at least
contributed to creation of) through their broken reseller policies. Since
squatting drives domain prices up, it might even be financiall beneficial to
ICANN.

Secondly, squatting is mainly a problem _because_ it drives the prices up,
especially for small website owners. Sure, you can buy a cool domain you want,
but it will be $1k, instead of eight dollars. A corporation could simply sue
for their brand name. How will thse new expensive gTLDs solve this problem?

Thirdly, I would argue that the same effect you describe could be achieved
simply by creating .corp domain that is more expensive and has some checks in
regards to business legitimacy. That would be less disruptive for everyone.

New gTLDs _could_ have been be a good things, but not when they are "released"
like this.

~~~
Dove
_Firstly, squatting is a problem that ICANN itself created (or at least
contributed to creation of) through their broken reseller policies._

Would you mind elaborating on that? I'm curious what you think they should
have done.

~~~
romaniv
There are two issues that, in my opinion, contribute to massive squatting
problem.

First, squatters can buy domains in bulk and pay next to nothing for each of
them. (Sometimes they pay nothing at all, abusing trial periods and renewal
rules.) This is what makes squatting on such a massive scale possible.

Second, modern DNS structure is effectively a global namespace: there are only
a handful of TLDs that matter and they are awfully generic, so they collide.
TLDs do not classify anything, and they should. Also, if someone bought the
name you want, there are no equivalent (but different) alternatives. That's
another thing that makes squatting profitable.

------
Flenser
Are there a security and usablity problems with having to maintain an ever
growing list of TLDs? Browsers need to know what the TLD in a URL is so that
they know how to stop cross site cookies being created, as well as for lots of
other reasons that affect useability[1]. If the TLD list gets too long could
it slow down web browsers?

1\. <http://publicsuffix.org/learn/>

------
jodrellblank
It surprises me that compared to the huge fuss over IPv6, custom TLDs feel
like they've popped up from nowhere - but they will potentially cause very
similar widespread problems with any kind of CMS or web form or shell script
with email or URL validation, or webserver, proxy or rewrite engine,
framework, etc. being unable to handle them.

Have I just missed the fuss and planning, is it a non issue, or has it not
happened?

~~~
wmf
Dozens (maybe hundreds) of lawyers and bureaucrats have spend about five years
arguing about new gTLDs. It's been meticulously documented (i.e. deadly
boring) at places like <http://www.circleid.com/>

------
EwanToo
I'm a bit more optimistic about the new TLDs, I hope multiple TLDs are created
with a fairly generic name, .site or something, and domains sold for pennies
each.

While they will never be .com, these new TLDs will hopefully devalue .com and
the other old TLDs, making the existing hoarded domains into more general use

------
dedward
From my reading of things, you can't just fork over the cash and obtain
"blah.mysite" - your new TLD needs a business plan - and that has to be
approved. You need to sell (or otherwise distribute) domains beneath that -
you can't just keep the TLD for yourself.

IBM can't just register ".ibm" and keep it to themselves - that won't fly.

------
knieveltech
"But the market isn’t wise. It seeks immediate gratification over long-term
utility. It seeks profit for the few instead of optimizing for the many. The
market has a child’s proclivities, not an adult’s wisdom."

Obviously true now. Has this always been the case or has something changed?

------
stickfigure
Why do we even have TLDs in the first place?

I guess really I'm asking why we have 2nd level domains. Why not just charge
everyone $9/yr for a word at the top level? This seems unlikely to be a
technical issue.

------
jarin
There's only one new TLD that we need, and it's ".app". If I had the money,
I'd be building a registrar for it right now. :)

------
waratuman
If people want a TLD, there is a market for it. How is it a bad thing to
profit from providing something people want?

~~~
webXL
Uh, don't you mean within reason? What if I wanted you to be my slave? And
markets can have negative externalities, especially on the existing markets
they're dependent of, so I think some of the concern is justified even though
I'm typically pro-free market.

~~~
waratuman
Of course I mean within reason, why wouldn't I.

I don't see how your statement that if you wanted me to be your slave applies.
But, say you did want me to be your slave, if I could profit from it and held
the reward for doing so as greater than doing my own thing, then yes you can
pay me to be your slave (not that that would ever happen). In that case am I
still you slave or have we entered into an voluntary agreement? If you plan to
use force to make me your slave, well then we don't even have a market do we!

Yes I do agree that there may be a negative externality, but why is of any
concern to ICANN unless they violate others rights. Have they violated
someones right to only have a dozen or so TLDs? If so, prove that there is
such a right.

There is a market, there is demand. So again, why is it wrong for someone to
profit by providing a solution that does not violate someone else's right?

------
joshfraser
The publicsuffix.org list is about to get incredibly messy and annoying to
keep updated.

------
bluedanieru
Free markets stopped being a means to an end and became an end in itself early
in the Cold War. Whether gTLDs spur "innovation" in whatever space ICANN is
defining for us is irrelevant. At any rate, if ICANN was serious about "the
magic of the free market" or whatever other nonsense, they would implement
distributed DNS and then dissolve permanently. One quality of a healthy free
market is that power is distributed such that no one entity can grab control
of the entire economy. That's not the case here. Rather they are interested
in: scamming money out of trademark-holders, and keeping enough power that
they can act as the tool of the US government when the need arises (the need
will continue to arise more and more frequently).

------
lhnn
It seems like it's been said already, but to make sure it's stated correctly,
let me specify:

This is not the free market at work: The free market would be multple DNS
hierarchies being run simultaneously, and users choosing which ones to use.

Our 'choice of DNS' is non-existent; we're just getting forced into using a
shittier product.

