
Stop Corporate Takeover of New Internet Names - vishal0123
http://www.change.org/petitions/icann-stop-corporate-takeover-of-new-internet-names
======
rehashed
What benefit do these new TLDs bring to the table? If ICANN need additional
revenue, why not fractionally increase the cost of the current gTLDs instead
of introducing more?

All these new domains can possibly achieve, IMHO, is to confuse the consumer
and allow corporations to control access to 'desirable' gTLDs.

If the domain space is so overcrowded, then by all means introduce a new gTLD
- but keep it ICANN controlled. Either run a poll to choose, or allow the
corporations to 'sponsor' their choice of TLDs incorporation into ICANN - but
there is no way they should be commercially controlled!

UPDATE: Im really upset that I missed this - looks like ICANN opened up a
discussion for public comment (which has now closed after only a month? Surely
such a major change should be open to larger public debate..):
[http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/closed-
generic-0...](http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/closed-
generic-05feb13-en.htm)

UPDATE2: I have sent an email to karen.lentz@icann.org requesting that the
discussion be reopened. I believe it is our duty as a community to publicise
this discussion amongst web professionals and have a further chance to fight
it. I would respectfully request that you do the same!

~~~
rehashed
UPDATE3: The more I think about this, the more concerned I become. These new
gTLDs, given the proliferation of combined search and location bars in modern
browsers are tantamount to a direct keyword to those corporations with $185k
to spend. Type in 'antivirus', and you will be directed to symantec - not the
search results you would likely expect. This has to stop - NOW.

~~~
icebraining
That's hardly a reason to stop the new TLDs, you just need a rule that says
you can't have A/AAAA records on the new TLDs.

~~~
rehashed
There are many reasons. That is just one of them.

Please see parent and other posts in the thread, comments on the linked
article, and discussions in the forums for others.

------
CrLf
Franky, I don't see the point of this. It opens an all-new can of worms, just
like allowing unicode in DNS, while being useless even for marketing purposes
(people are used to sites being ".com" and suspect anything else).

So ".com" is crowded. It would be much better if someone did something about
squatters. So many parked domains and so little done about it...

~~~
hello_newman
I agree. I think a viable solution would be something like if you haven't done
something with in 1 year then the domain becomes available. I personally hate
getting an idea, checking through domains only to see someone waiting for
someone else to purchase their domain that they bought for $10 bucks off
godaddy.

~~~
gmazzotti
So domainers only have to upload a Wordpress and post some blog post (with
copied content) and they have done something with the domain,that is not the
solution

------
ctoth
Problem: The .com and similar namespaces are crowded. As someone who has been
searching this weekend for a domain, the sad fact is that a huge number of
domains are simply "Parked free, courtesy of ..." or "Coming soon", or "Under
construction", or "This domain is for sale, please contact..." In short,
domains are being bought up and not used, and the commons is ruined.

Solution: Increase the price of .com and .net and other tlds to approximately
$X. End the domain squatting market and put the sort of implicit requirement
that the domain must generate $X for you to want to hold on to it into the
equation. Now, let's argue about where $X is.

~~~
mdc
It seems like this solution means that if you want to have your own domain,
either you must be rich or the website must be profitable. You're basically
saying that only the rich should have access to domain-branded blogs and other
non-commercial sites, and everyone else can make do with subdomains like a
blogspot or blogger website. I think raising fees would have consequences for
well-intentioned users far beyond the effect it had on domain squatters.

~~~
ctoth
In particular I refer to the .com namespace which, after all, should be used
for commercial purposes. We already have .name and so forth for personal
sites. Given that .name presents the ultimate namespace collision factory we
do come down to a scarcity problem though. Thoughts on how we can handle that?

Also: Note that I said we should argue about the value of $X. I did not at all
imply that $X should be such that "only the rich" have access to the ability
to purchase a domain. That said, people spend $1200 annually for cell phone
service, which I think we can draw comparisons between and DNS. If a person
pays $1200 a year for a number they can be reached at through the POTS, is it
unreasonable to expect them to pay $X (which we still haven't defined, simply
said should be higher than $10) to be reachable on the Internet?

~~~
icebraining
That's an US centered view. No regular person spends anywhere near $100/month
on cellphone service where I live, nor could many afford it. For $80/month,
you can get a cellphone plan with unlimited sms and calls, 100mbps home
internet, 100 TV channels, and a POTS-over-IP line. And yet, many still can't
afford cable TV or home Internet.

And this is the problem is pricing global product and/or services; what's
reasonable in a market like the US is prohibitively expensive in many others.

------
interpol_p
It's a little unnerving that large companies want control over some entire
gTLDs. I wonder if Google will let iOS app developers have ".app" domains? I
doubt it.

For example, here are some relevant portions from Google's applications for
the .app gTLD:

(Note: Charleston Road Registry is a company wholly owned by Google.)

 _The proposed gTLD will provide Google with direct association to the term
ʺapp,ʺ which is an abbreviation of ʺapplication.ʺ The mission of this gTLD,
.app, is to provide a dedicated domain space in which Google and select
members of its application developer network (“Network”) can enact second-
level domains that relate to the offering of Google’s and its Network’s
applications and application-specific content. Charleston Road Registry
expects uses of the gTLD may include but are not limited to Chrome
applications, web applications, Google App Engine applications, Android
applications, and mobile applications on other platforms. The proposed gTLD
will enhance consumer choice by providing new availability in the second-level
domain space in which Google and its Network can deliver new content and
offerings. It also creates new layers of organization on the Internet and
signals the kind of content available in the domain._

 _Charleston Road Registry intends to operate the proposed gTLD as a closed
registry with Google as the sole registrar and registrant. The goal of the
proposed gTLD is to allow Google and its Network to manage the domain name
space for their application offerings. The proposed gTLD will provide Google
and its Network with the ability to customize domain and website name
application offerings to signal to the general population of Internet users
that .app websites are indeed managed by Google. The specialization goal of
the proposed gTLD is to extend the Google brand and reputation to each .app
second-level domain. This specialization provides a mechanism by which Google
and its Network can easily link and manage their applications and related
services. This specialization makes it clear to Internet users that this is
the authoritative and designated space where they can find Google’s and its
Network’s applications offered in association with the Google brand and
accessible via differentiated and streamlined web addresses._

~~~
apayan
The text you copied explicitly states that they would be opening this up to
other platforms:

 _and mobile applications on other platforms_

Not that I necessarily agree or disagree with the expansion of these TLDs, but
Google is hardly the kind of bad actor I would worry about.

~~~
interpol_p
If you read the quoted sections further:

 _The proposed gTLD will provide Google and its Network with the ability to
customize domain and website name application offerings to signal to the
general population of Internet users that .app websites are indeed managed by
Google. The specialization goal of the proposed gTLD is to extend the Google
brand and reputation to each .app second-level domain. This specialization
provides a mechanism by which Google and its Network can easily link and
manage their applications and related services. This specialization makes it
clear to Internet users that this is the authoritative and designated space
where they can find Google’s and its Network’s applications offered in
association with the Google brand and accessible via differentiated and
streamlined web addresses._

So all .app domains would be Google branded? That hardly bodes well for "all
mobile applications on other platforms".

------
signed0
I somewhat doubt that most of these new domains will catch on. We already have
.jobs, .aero, .travel and .mobi which I have yet to run into while browsing
the web.

Plus people have already gotten used to recognizing a domain name simply by
having a string of characters followed by .com or one of the other popular
TLDs. Trying to keep them from prefixing the domain with www has been a losing
battle.

I could see .app taking off though.

~~~
jpalomaki
I can imagine this could change in the future. Just a matter of educating the
people and if companies of this scale decide to do it, they certainly have the
resources.

Incentive for corporates could be branding marketing. As we know, .com is
crowded. Could be easier to push <http://aging.beauty> into peoples minds than
some clever .com variation.

Currently users solve the problem by using Google or Facebook, but that is not
in the interest of businesses. They probably would like to see the customers
coming directly to then, instead of going through search engine (where user is
bombarded with messages from competitors)

~~~
seanp2k2
>" Just a matter of educating the people and if companies of this scale decide
to do it, they certainly have the resources."

As others have pointed out, we've had things like "travel", "biz", "pro",
"me", "mobi", etc for some time now. Not many legit sites operate under these,
so I don't really think that these new ones have a big chance. Consumers are
already confused about what "www" really is and there is a lot of bad / not-
quite-correct / flat-wrong info about what "www" is if you ask even folks who
self-identify as "tech savvy".

I sense a lot of consumer confusion coming up, a lot of malware / marketeers
using these things, snakeoil SEO firms insisting on them, brands buying up
tons because they're scared, and generally a bad time for domains.

~~~
jimktrains2
me is actually the ccTLD for Montenegro.

------
jacoblyles
This is why we need something like namecoin to take off: <http://dot-
bit.org/Main_Page>

~~~
seanp2k2
Yup; let us know when ya'll are done with the ICANN shenanigans so we can
start implementing P2P DNS more widely, start publishing worthy content on it
to draw people to it, then take back what is rightfully ours:

The Internet.

------
vladd
An open requirement from ICANN won't prevent Amazon requiring something
outrageous ($1'000+) per domain that most won't afford.

Any open requirements should come as a maximum price limit for creating new
additional entries under the TLD.

Hopefully they'll also include non-discriminatory pricing (so that the owner
of a TLD won't be able to raise the rent once a specific domain becomes
popular in traffic/sales).

~~~
wilfra
That would be a PR nightmare for Amazon - instead of the PR coup that giving
them away for free would be. Would be one helluva promotional tool for AWS if
it came with unlimited free .app domains.

I don't understand why people are so quick to assume companies are buying
these up for nefarious reasons or to harm consumers.

~~~
Swizec
> I don't understand why people are so quick to assume companies are buying
> these up for nefarious reasons or to harm consumers.

Because, historically speaking, that's what big faceless corporations usually
create monopolies for.

It's not that they're against consumers, it's that they are _for_ themselves.
This rarely aligns with what's best for consumers on a small scale.

~~~
wilfra
This is the exact opposite of a monopoly. Everybody and their sister is going
to have their own extension and anybody who can afford one can still buy their
own.

~~~
OGinparadise
_Everybody and their sister is going to have their own extension and anybody
who can afford one can still buy their own._

so I can get a .shop extension too after Google gets the one and only?

~~~
wilfra
think about them like really expensive .com's and this will be easier to
swallow. you can't get google.com or sex.com because they are taken - but you
can get any other .com that is available. or you can get on somebody elses
domain for free like .blogspot.com .wordpress.com .tumblr.com etc.

there are a lot of reasons i don't like that ICANN is doing this but fear that
these companies are going to employ abusive monopolistic tactics is not one of
them. and i think ICANN is likely to just ignore such complaints, because they
don't make any sense. this is the opposite of a monopoly and these companies
would be dumb not to share the extensions.

~~~
OGinparadise
edit: his comment was edited after I typed mine and I'm too lazy to change it
back and forth-

for $1 million plus in costs. You are confusing the extension with a domain
name. The point is not to have ONE company own and control an extension (like
.com) and all the domains in it. ICAAN should control them and then allow
people and corps to register domains within that extension.

~~~
wilfra
I'm not confusing anything I'm trying to put it in terms you will understand.

One company does control .com right now, and .net. Their name is VeriSign.
Just like VeriSign administers those, Google is going to administer .shop.

~~~
OGinparadise
Wrong, they do not control anything, they administer it. I can register any
.com that is free and Verisign cannot stop me. Google can refuse to allow
anyone else from having televisions.shop or whatever.shop

~~~
wilfra
That's a theoretical problem that wont matter in practice. Google only has two
practical options: they can make .shop completely open and operate it just
like .co or .io, or they can lock it down and use it only for themselves, in
which case it will essentially just be a vanity domain, not an extension.

If they choose the latter, just use any one of the hundreds of other
extensions that will be available.

I hate that ICANN is doing this - but not because of some theoretical power it
technically gives Google.

~~~
unclebucknasty
I understand what you're saying, but not sure it will be that benign in
practice.

That is, given that the domain format requires a minimum of two parts (the TLD
and one other), ownership of entire swaths of possibilities/permutations can
be locked down via complete ownership of one TLD.

------
rogueriver
I'm still trying to figure out why ICANN charges what it does for just
registering a domain name. Yes--close to $7.00 a year is too much for what
they actually do.

If you have a problem with your domain name, and try to go up against
Corporate Lawyers--you're in for a loosing, expensive battle.

That $7.00 times millions equalls a lot of money, but they won't, actively,
defend your rights with competent lawyers.

The whole name game has irritated anyone involved with website design, at
least in my world.

In the end, the poor and middle class webmasters need to stick together, and
fight Corporate Abuse of Power.

------
brownbat
TLDs were originally going to communicate something to the user, they never
actually did.

Now they represent... how many wasted keystrokes per day? If Berners-Lee
agonizes over the second slash after http, then ".com" has to be one of the
biggest failures of usability in history.

TLDs were designed by folks who guessed most of the internet would be used for
governments and non-profits, and commerce would be this token side niche. Now
that nearly everything's .com (or under a quirky country domain to sidestep
the whole system), it's lost any significance.

We should scrap it as soon as possible.

~~~
MatthewPhillips
And replace it with what? If everyone has to fight over a global namespace we
just wind up with a different sort of problem.

~~~
thaumasiotes
I think the point of the comment you're replying to is that everyone _is_
fighting over a global namespace now, but one that unnecessarily appends
".com" to everything in it.

That interpretation might be overly colored by my personal view of things.

However much I might be inclined to agree that we have a global namespace now,
I can't agree that ".com" is 'one of the biggest usability failures in
history'. The point has been made before, but seeing "facebook.com"
immediately signifies a website to people, using fewer characters than "find
us on the web at facebook" ever really could. I found it very interesting to
see mainland chinese advertisements with web addresses - for example,
renren.com might appear in an ad as "人人网". The two 人 would be written in
pinyin as "ren", and directly represent the name of the site; the 网 is
pronounced "wang" and means net (here, the internet), but actually represents
the unpronounceable suffix ".com". Thus I argue that ".com" is not even a
clear loss in usability; it's providing context that people want.

~~~
brownbat
a) That was indeed my point,

b) I was gilding the lily a bit, that's fair,

c) I remain skeptical the benefits exceed the costs, (given the viability of
sites that don't end in ".com", and the fact no one's raising "lack of
context" as a counterpoint to expansion of TLDs), but you make a provocative
point. I could see it as an open question.

------
sek
The only one I find even remotely interesting is .blog nothing else.

In the end the rule for which domain you should get is: .com .com and .com.

------
brackin
I think it'd be smarter to just add 10 - 20 new names for specific categories
rather than an extension for every brand you can imagine ".apple, .amazon,
etc". This could lower the resell price of the .com slightly and raise
revenue. Like .co did but it wouldn't confuse the user heavily as this move
feels like its changing everything.

~~~
ufo
Like .biz, .travel and .museum? :P

------
jasonkostempski
I hope this works. The attempt to grab .ski domains for ski related companies
only [1] would keep me from obtaining my dream email address.

[1] [http://www.dot-ski.com/2012/06/13/starting-dot-
application-f...](http://www.dot-ski.com/2012/06/13/starting-dot-application-
for-ski-top-level-domain-officially-revealed-by-icann/)

------
networked
Could you create a viable alternative DNS root today, preferably one without
TLDs at all? It seems like none of the attempts so far [1] gained much
traction.

[1] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_DNS_root>

~~~
richardwhiuk
No - the network effect here is huge, and so is the cost of change.

------
gesman
Attempt number 1000 to generate crowd's excitement over long, worthless and
often confusing domain extensions. Instead of adding really useful and short
two-letter extensions, such as .js and others.

~~~
jurassic
I completely agree. I'd love it if there was a broader selection of
"anagramable" 2 letter extensions that aren't encumbered with geopolitical
associations (e.g. ly=Libya, ir=Iran, etc.) I have zero interest in .long_noun
extensions.

------
mesozoic
This is pretty silly. ICANN is only opening these domains so they can collect
$100k application fees from big companies so of course big companies are
taking them over.

