

ICANN Pushes Ahead With New TLDs - dan_manges
http://allthingsd.com/20120111/grab-your-cash-and-warm-up-the-wagon-icann-domain-rush-kicks-off-tomorrow/

======
joshuahedlund
I don't get why articles keep referring to "22" existing TLDs when there's a
huge existing list[1]. Sure a lot of those are restricted, but we've seen a
large number of them (.fm .me etc) move beyond their original country-specific
intention and be used similar to the ones in the "generic TLD" list.

As for the new ones, I'm more curious than anything, as there are two huge
unknowns here. First, people/companies have to buy the domains. Second, the
public at large has to accept them. We've already seen TLDs both generally
catch on and generally fail (anyone remember the dot-mobi craze?). I'm not
convinced that companies are going to have to spend lots of money to squat
"mycompany.apple" or "mycompany.hotels" or whatever just to "protect their
brand." I mean, companies don't generally worry (AFAIK) about other people's
subdomains now, and if new TLDs catch on people may start to view the 'middle'
name in the same way. Or maybe not. It's just a big unknown right now.

[1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Internet_top-
level_doma...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Internet_top-
level_domains)

------
freejack
I'm super pleased to see this move ahead. Competition has been absent from
this segment of the market for far too long. I'm really looking forward to
seeing some flowers bloom.

~~~
marshray
You realize that the gTLDs they're selling are not going to work reliably?

Single label names always resolve first on the local domain. Except when they
don't. This isn't currently a problem because no admin in their right mind
would name their servers "com", "org", or "net". It's a tacit convention
that's now being broken. I can think of a few security problems this creates,
lord knows how many we haven't thought of yet.

ICANN is selling names in a namespace they don't control.

As Dan Geer puts it, "ICANN has devolved into nothing but a protection
racket." <http://geer.tinho.net/ieee/ieee.sp.geer.1107b.pdf>

~~~
freejack
And on that basis, it makes sense to create a monopoly and concentrate very
real control over vast tracts of the namespace with unregulated private
corporations?

Sounds like a great plan.

I'm always amazed at the large numbers of people that criticize ICANN's work
and the very small number that contribute to it.

~~~
marshray
Oh look, the current system isn't ideal either.

 _vast tracts of the namespace_

The thing about (even) the current TLD system is that there is a variety of
namespaces and each one by itself is effectively unlimited. Sure, everybody
wants to have a .com but when it comes down to it, it really doesn't matter
except for brand name purposes. People who need to publish and read
information can use something else (that most "rogue" of websites Wikileaks
proved this).

On the other hand, moving all the expensive commercial brand stuff to the top
level (as ICANN aims to do) really _does_ create a single tract of namespace
under monopoly control.

~~~
freejack
yes, and my point unless the market allows for competition to .com, then we've
effectively given control of the namespace to one or two organizations -
namely Verisign and ICANN.

I don't understand your point about competition creating a monopoly unless you
are referring to ICANN"s "powers". It is an artifact of the community. Show up
and participate in the monopoly if you are concerned about how it wields its
influence and directs its policy.

------
obituary_latte
Well at least now I have a good reason to let all of my "land grab" .com and
.net domains expire. Also, they are really dumb.

