Notice how 70 were applied for by "Top Level Domain Holdings Limited". Go to their website, and click management. http://www.tldh.org/management/
The exe's bio says, "Prior to joining TLDH, Peter Dengate Thrush was Chairman of the Board of Directors of ICANN, and in that role led the process that resulted in the historic decision to launch the new gTLD program in June 2011."
1) Get on ICANN board of directors
2) Convince ICANN to create gTLDs
3) Quit ICANN and create a company to squat and resell gTLDs
This whole process is a scam designed to extort more money from trademark holders and well-known names through ever-growing defensive registrations.
In the real world this would be construed as protection money.
No further semantic information is conveyed by another domain registration; there is no improvement whatsoever in resource discoverability.
The only winners are the name squatters, with Google and Amazon and every other applicant greedily lining up to be the slum landlords of their own worthless little namespace.
ICANN should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves for presiding over this farce.
Going by the count of strings in the CSV attached to that page, and the $185,000 price tag quoted on Wikipedia for applying, that's already around $357M raised before the process has even got in full swing.
It wouldn't have been a big deal if the TLDs were at least more restrictive (maximum character length, protections for rights-holders), but as it stands, it's hard to see how this wasn't at best horribly conceived, or at worst, truly a corrupt way to wrangle money out of brand-holders.
TLDH existed without Peter Dengate-Thrush's input for several years. Antony van Couvering was/is the driving force behind the formation of TLDH / Minds & Machines and its commercialisation.
So a year ago, when the new ICANN TLD expansion was announced, I wrote up an FAQ for normal people explaining the process. I actually read the entire 352 page document and took the time to call ICANN (and ICANN does not like me because I've been critical of their policies in the past, so that was no small feat) and get confirmation on how the process works.
This week, we've run a number of stories discussing the current phase of the situation, but to be honest, the general audience response has been 'meh.' CNN wanted me to do a spot on Tuesday or Wednesday about it, but it was a scheduling conflict.
The reality is, the story isn't substanatively different than it was a year ago. We're now at the application phase. For certain generic TLDs, communities can appeal against the use by one party. For many of the most contentious TLDs, there have been groups fighting for control for years. See .music.
The reality is that at this point, Google and Amazon applied for the use of certain TLDs. Some are likely to receive pushback -- cloud and search seem ripe for appeal. Google could argue that "blog" is synonymous with "blogger" -- they might win that (tumblr and WordPres could register tumblr and wp if they wanted). The reality is these won't be issued over night.
With some, Google might even have plans to act as an exclusive registrar for some of them.
The situation is this. Despite ICANN's claims that this process would be designed to prevent abuse and land grabs, what's happening is what we all expected: land grabs and abuse, but just from the people rich enough to file the application and pay for the ensuing infrastructure. It is what it is.
I don't see this phase as a huge story, only because it's the expected next step. The story will be what gets approved and what are the implications of those approvals. It's too early in the bureaucratic process to start trying to get people up in arms about a process the was designed to be as cumbersome and difficult to navigate as possible.
Publicizing (again) the way the process works won't change the process.
Meh...if this is how it ends up working, doesn't this mean that gtld's will basically end up being equivalent to subdomains, but on the other end of the URL? Does it matter if some crappy blog is at unicorns.blog instead of unicorns.blogspot.com? I just see this landgrab as guaranteeing that those gLTD's won't end up being that valuable or prestigious in the long run...
It's more likely that some of these are defensive applications, to lock competitors from getting them (eg: blog, tunes).
Winer is right, and I'm surprised nobody is writing about this or calling much attention to it. There's enormous potential marketing value behind domains like "beatles.music" or "harrypotter.books" or "superman.movies".
With the advertising and reach of companies like Amazon and Google (or even Warner and Sony), I think these new domains have the power to split the web, and potentially turn .com, .net, and .org into something of a ghetto (sorta similar to how .biz and .name might be viewed by Joe Consumer now).
On the other hand, it may well be meaningless. I'm continually surprised to see big companies use facebook.com/[companyname] in their advertising too.
> Does it matter if some crappy blog is at unicorns.blog instead of unicorns.blogspot.com?
Yes - it matters greatly! Domains are used to define a number of critical Internet policies. Cookie policies are one example where subdomain interactions can confuse even seasoned veterans.
Verisign's name grab is more interesting - the most natural spelling of the '.com' TLD in scripts other than Latin. Cyrillic, Hebrew, Arabic, etc.
Now that's going to be fun for people who already own .com domains targeted to those audiences, because I could see people reverting to .com in their native script very easily, and unless you buy the right domains from Verisign, they won't necessarily get to the same domain.
I imagine Verisign will be the only place in the future where when you buy the .com, they'll upsell you on the equivalent .com in various other scripts.
The concept of top level domains seems a bit outdated. I can only guess that under the new system "store.apple.com" will become "store.apple", "myname.blogger.com" will become "myname.blog", etc. So why not go the other way and just drop TLDs altogether? I know there are a few cases where a ".net" domain would clash with a ".com", but the people in those cases are already used to the conflict, so let them work it out which one keeps the TLD in their name and which one becomes TLD-less.
The way it's going seems like a money grab by ICANN.
Personally I think the new gTLDs are an incredible abuse of power. They were cooked up only so ICANN could cash in on being the authority. Having new gTLDs are going to cause a lot of problems and they are prohibitively expensive.
Something I haven't seen discussed: how are web browsers going to handle somebody typing a generic keyword that is also TLD into the address bar? The chrome-style omnibar that every browser has since adopted is predicated on the fact that URLs are fairly easily recognizable.
But if amazon owns "books" and hosts something at http://books/, should browsers navigate to Amazon whenever someone attempts to search for "books"?
[Actually, is it even allowed to host A records directly on a TLD? I've been reading through RFCs and haven't seen it explicitly disallowed, but nobody seems to have done it with a currently-available TLD.]
Yes. Tonga turned their TLD `.to` into a domain shortener, although because of the browser issue you mention it generally had to be accessed via http://to./
However, it hasn't been available for a long time now.
EDIT: As pointed out below, http://ac/ points to a real website
Browser can and sometimes do override DNS. The omnibar is one recent example. This is obviously very bad.
It is like the NXDOMAIN problem.
Is it the web? Or is it some company's interpretation of the web? "In this situation, when the user types ______ the user should be directed to ______."
I wonder if people are overvaluing these gtlds. Of the general public, how many people are going to see "great.books" and think "Oh that's a URL I should type."
Exactly. And, more to the point, if they're kept private, they become less novel as people very quickly learn to equate them with Amazon or Google, etc.
The gtld idea only produces significant value when the tld's are used for public registration and diverse use. At least that's my claim/prediction. Otherwise it becomes just a sideshow. Heck, even with open registration it might. Look at .tv or .mobi or .me or any other "valuable" tlds that current exist. They really don't seem to be as disruptive as some may have expected.
This is the best example I've seen. We've spent the last 20+ years training the public that ".com", ".net", etc equals "website". Now that anything could be a URL, it's going to be a lot more confusing for people.
What if some people are already typing this? What if some people have been typing great.books in the Address Bar for years because they just don't how to use a search engine? Is that possible? How much money could you make by capturing all that traffic?
I really agree with Dave, private gTLDs shouldn't be allowed. One thing is to open new gTLDs as .data (interesting!), .kid, .book and another thing is to get it and use it for yourself. That's not how the gTLDs should be run. Those gTLDs have not public interest!
Google and Amazon should be ashamed of themselves for trying to buy .blog, .book (etc) and just want them for their own interest when those gTLDs, used wisely, can be really useful.
The only people who are in favor of this are those who stand to benefit: ICANN (who likes elaborate meetings in exotic places), registries, back-end providers, advisors (lawyers), and registrars (hello larrys). Did I miss anyone?
Any end users who think this will benefit them are clueless. As this blog post says most people have not a clue what the above parties are up to.
There are basically two main camps among the applicants: domainers looking to capitalize on type-in navigation and overpriced sales of key terms, and companies looking to protect their trademarks. They are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
ICANN is a non-profit organization. They are tax-free. But they treat themselves to perks many for-profit companies only dream about; they live a lavish lifestyle (they just raised 300 million for essentially nothing!) for an organization that is supposed to be acting in the public interest.
It is one heck of a racket.
There will be non-ICANN DNS with some new features emerging out of this fiasco. You can bet on that. ICANN has gotten far too greedy. The conflicts of interest are blatent and insulting.
"Did you think this is how it would work? I sure didn't."
Was there something you read that indicated that what they did wasn't allowed?
"Another angle on this, the ICANN people must have known about these applications long before they were made public. How could they continue this process, knowing that is how Google and Amazon interpreted the idea of new TLDs?"
Everything including the entire process and requirements were public and anyone could have read and determined the specifics prior to any submissions (and voiced objections). From my reading there was nothing to prevent this anymore than if you filed for .winer you could determine only your family could use it. (Same as you get to decide who uses scripting.com, right?)
At this point anyone can file objections to granting a particular TLD (the fact that you are the only applicant doesn't guarantee getting granted the TLD).
So I would suggest to the OP (Dave Winer) that he writes an objection if this bothers him which will also serve to alert the tech press.
Was there something you read that indicated that what they did wasn't allowed?
No kidding, private entities bid on, to buy, new gTLDs. Did the author assume that they would pay for them and then have to offer them up as a public good?
What's the point in having so many top-level domains? I can see the value in having country codes, because otherwise there would be an international (probably US-dominated) authority that imposed its power on the Internet, but why any beyond that?
Agreed. This will just add unnecessary confusion for a lot of people. Might look good for marketing, but I bet most of these will just redirect to the '.com' site.
I found that one individual had applied for 300 gTLDs, Google for 98 including for .lol and .foo. In reality, each company could have used just one gTLD such as .google and could have extended it having app.google domains. To Dave's point, these domains are not necessary open for the public. If google wins, .dad, they don't have to give you a domain in that gTLD.
Many TLDs already have restrictions, and are not 100% "open for the public". There's been controversy about whether .job is enforcing its restrictions correctly; .edu is strictly limited to US accredited 4-year secondary educational institutions; .gov and .mil are "owned" by the US government; many ccTLDs have restrictions, for example .cn at times has required registrants to have a business license in China, etc.
You can can find Google's applications by looking under "Charleston Road Registry Inc.". Amazon is under their own name. Between the two of them, they have some pretty generic applications. i.e. ".lol", ".mom", ".pet" & ".soy"(?) etc...
It looks like Google only applied for 3 non-english TLDs. Amazon has closer to a dozen. Might say something about long term plans.
Microsoft has about a dozen applications, mostly for things they have trademarked. ".xbox" etc.
Apple is in there as well, but only for ".apple". ".app", ".tunes" were both applied for by Amazon.
I searched for .rugby. One is the IRB (the main governing body of rugby basically, which is understandable).
But also one from "dot Rugby Limited" which if you look closer, is a likely brand new LLC purely created to bid on domains. They also applied for .soccer, and the emails are all "icanntas<number>@famousfourmedia.com", the number I assume corresponding to the number of applications. Rugby is at 23.
Their site basically says "we're going to buy tlds to make money off".
"Tech press ignores expected next phase of ICANN's gTLD sales."
would be a more accurate title.
Like a public good, the dilution costs of issuing gTLDs is externalized and paid by everyone (other than ICANN).
ICANN has an exclusive license on this valuable virtual real estate, little accountability and a well demonstrated intention of making all the money they can.
Don't blame smart buyers who get in early - they're not the ones who created the situation.
Although I think adding more names is good (why not?), it seems like most people would be better served if the gTLDs were controlled by neutral groups rather than dollared interests or squatters.
Why not serve the new gTLDs through charities which operate registration and lookup at cost?
They shouldn't grant generic names as TLD to businesses. They should only grant their own registered marks: I wouldn't have anything to object to .google, .facebook etc.
[+] [-] nostromo|13 years ago|reply
Look at the full list here: http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/application-resu....
Notice how 70 were applied for by "Top Level Domain Holdings Limited". Go to their website, and click management. http://www.tldh.org/management/
The exe's bio says, "Prior to joining TLDH, Peter Dengate Thrush was Chairman of the Board of Directors of ICANN, and in that role led the process that resulted in the historic decision to launch the new gTLD program in June 2011."
1) Get on ICANN board of directors
2) Convince ICANN to create gTLDs
3) Quit ICANN and create a company to squat and resell gTLDs
4) Profit!
[+] [-] inopinatus|13 years ago|reply
In the real world this would be construed as protection money.
No further semantic information is conveyed by another domain registration; there is no improvement whatsoever in resource discoverability.
The only winners are the name squatters, with Google and Amazon and every other applicant greedily lining up to be the slum landlords of their own worthless little namespace.
ICANN should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves for presiding over this farce.
[+] [-] larrys|13 years ago|reply
From the "Journal of I told you so" I had posted info on that over 4 months ago on HN and had the only comment. It got exactly 1 point:
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3480531
[+] [-] seanconaty|13 years ago|reply
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/icann-departures-draw...
[+] [-] forgotusername|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] franze|13 years ago|reply
there won't be that much profit, because of inflation. don't worry, just wait by the sidelines and watch the new bubble.
[+] [-] unknown|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] dclowd9901|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tankenmate|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] filmgirlcw|13 years ago|reply
This week, we've run a number of stories discussing the current phase of the situation, but to be honest, the general audience response has been 'meh.' CNN wanted me to do a spot on Tuesday or Wednesday about it, but it was a scheduling conflict.
The reality is, the story isn't substanatively different than it was a year ago. We're now at the application phase. For certain generic TLDs, communities can appeal against the use by one party. For many of the most contentious TLDs, there have been groups fighting for control for years. See .music.
The reality is that at this point, Google and Amazon applied for the use of certain TLDs. Some are likely to receive pushback -- cloud and search seem ripe for appeal. Google could argue that "blog" is synonymous with "blogger" -- they might win that (tumblr and WordPres could register tumblr and wp if they wanted). The reality is these won't be issued over night.
With some, Google might even have plans to act as an exclusive registrar for some of them.
The situation is this. Despite ICANN's claims that this process would be designed to prevent abuse and land grabs, what's happening is what we all expected: land grabs and abuse, but just from the people rich enough to file the application and pay for the ensuing infrastructure. It is what it is.
I don't see this phase as a huge story, only because it's the expected next step. The story will be what gets approved and what are the implications of those approvals. It's too early in the bureaucratic process to start trying to get people up in arms about a process the was designed to be as cumbersome and difficult to navigate as possible.
Publicizing (again) the way the process works won't change the process.
[+] [-] ryanwaggoner|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cowboyhero|13 years ago|reply
Winer is right, and I'm surprised nobody is writing about this or calling much attention to it. There's enormous potential marketing value behind domains like "beatles.music" or "harrypotter.books" or "superman.movies".
With the advertising and reach of companies like Amazon and Google (or even Warner and Sony), I think these new domains have the power to split the web, and potentially turn .com, .net, and .org into something of a ghetto (sorta similar to how .biz and .name might be viewed by Joe Consumer now).
On the other hand, it may well be meaningless. I'm continually surprised to see big companies use facebook.com/[companyname] in their advertising too.
[+] [-] superuser2|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] adgar|13 years ago|reply
Yes - it matters greatly! Domains are used to define a number of critical Internet policies. Cookie policies are one example where subdomain interactions can confuse even seasoned veterans.
[+] [-] blhack|13 years ago|reply
I want to run an online bookstore. Dare I say I want to start an amazon competitor.
Well now amazon owns .books -- Amazon owns books on the internet.
That is bullshit.
[+] [-] gyardley|13 years ago|reply
Now that's going to be fun for people who already own .com domains targeted to those audiences, because I could see people reverting to .com in their native script very easily, and unless you buy the right domains from Verisign, they won't necessarily get to the same domain.
I imagine Verisign will be the only place in the future where when you buy the .com, they'll upsell you on the equivalent .com in various other scripts.
[+] [-] jlarocco|13 years ago|reply
The way it's going seems like a money grab by ICANN.
[+] [-] seanconaty|13 years ago|reply
https://gtldcomment.icann.org/comments-feedback/programfeedb...
Personally I think the new gTLDs are an incredible abuse of power. They were cooked up only so ICANN could cash in on being the authority. Having new gTLDs are going to cause a lot of problems and they are prohibitively expensive.
[+] [-] larrys|13 years ago|reply
What problems do you see this creating?
[+] [-] necubi|13 years ago|reply
But if amazon owns "books" and hosts something at http://books/, should browsers navigate to Amazon whenever someone attempts to search for "books"?
[Actually, is it even allowed to host A records directly on a TLD? I've been reading through RFCs and haven't seen it explicitly disallowed, but nobody seems to have done it with a currently-available TLD.]
[+] [-] garethadams|13 years ago|reply
However, it hasn't been available for a long time now.
EDIT: As pointed out below, http://ac/ points to a real website
[+] [-] rootzoned|13 years ago|reply
It is like the NXDOMAIN problem.
Is it the web? Or is it some company's interpretation of the web? "In this situation, when the user types ______ the user should be directed to ______."
Remember AOL keywords?
[+] [-] Sami_Lehtinen|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] newobj|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] incongruity|13 years ago|reply
The gtld idea only produces significant value when the tld's are used for public registration and diverse use. At least that's my claim/prediction. Otherwise it becomes just a sideshow. Heck, even with open registration it might. Look at .tv or .mobi or .me or any other "valuable" tlds that current exist. They really don't seem to be as disruptive as some may have expected.
[+] [-] roc|13 years ago|reply
That said, it still reflects horribly on ICANN. Particularly with a former director flipping over to shameless gTLD profiteer.
And it still reflects poorly on the tech press for not having at least pointed any of this out.
[+] [-] kschults|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rootzoned|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fesja|13 years ago|reply
Google and Amazon should be ashamed of themselves for trying to buy .blog, .book (etc) and just want them for their own interest when those gTLDs, used wisely, can be really useful.
We should write a public letter to ICANN about this issue and email them through here https://gtldcomment.icann.org/comments-feedback/applicationc...
[+] [-] nonameyes|13 years ago|reply
Any end users who think this will benefit them are clueless. As this blog post says most people have not a clue what the above parties are up to.
There are basically two main camps among the applicants: domainers looking to capitalize on type-in navigation and overpriced sales of key terms, and companies looking to protect their trademarks. They are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
ICANN is a non-profit organization. They are tax-free. But they treat themselves to perks many for-profit companies only dream about; they live a lavish lifestyle (they just raised 300 million for essentially nothing!) for an organization that is supposed to be acting in the public interest.
It is one heck of a racket.
There will be non-ICANN DNS with some new features emerging out of this fiasco. You can bet on that. ICANN has gotten far too greedy. The conflicts of interest are blatent and insulting.
[+] [-] larrys|13 years ago|reply
Was there something you read that indicated that what they did wasn't allowed?
"Another angle on this, the ICANN people must have known about these applications long before they were made public. How could they continue this process, knowing that is how Google and Amazon interpreted the idea of new TLDs?"
Everything including the entire process and requirements were public and anyone could have read and determined the specifics prior to any submissions (and voiced objections). From my reading there was nothing to prevent this anymore than if you filed for .winer you could determine only your family could use it. (Same as you get to decide who uses scripting.com, right?)
At this point anyone can file objections to granting a particular TLD (the fact that you are the only applicant doesn't guarantee getting granted the TLD).
So I would suggest to the OP (Dave Winer) that he writes an objection if this bothers him which will also serve to alert the tech press.
[+] [-] davewiner|13 years ago|reply
I didn't write an objection, I wrote a blog post.
[+] [-] drivebyacct2|13 years ago|reply
No kidding, private entities bid on, to buy, new gTLDs. Did the author assume that they would pay for them and then have to offer them up as a public good?
[+] [-] timmaxw|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fletchowns|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cgusto|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] xelipe|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jleader|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] regularfry|13 years ago|reply
At least, that's my assumption. He might want to run ".domains".
[+] [-] citricsquid|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] seaco|13 years ago|reply
It looks like Google only applied for 3 non-english TLDs. Amazon has closer to a dozen. Might say something about long term plans.
Microsoft has about a dozen applications, mostly for things they have trademarked. ".xbox" etc.
Apple is in there as well, but only for ".apple". ".app", ".tunes" were both applied for by Amazon.
[+] [-] decadentcactus|13 years ago|reply
But also one from "dot Rugby Limited" which if you look closer, is a likely brand new LLC purely created to bid on domains. They also applied for .soccer, and the emails are all "icanntas<number>@famousfourmedia.com", the number I assume corresponding to the number of applications. Rugby is at 23.
Their site basically says "we're going to buy tlds to make money off".
[+] [-] divtxt|13 years ago|reply
would be a more accurate title.
Like a public good, the dilution costs of issuing gTLDs is externalized and paid by everyone (other than ICANN).
ICANN has an exclusive license on this valuable virtual real estate, little accountability and a well demonstrated intention of making all the money they can.
Don't blame smart buyers who get in early - they're not the ones who created the situation.
[+] [-] abhaga|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bahularora|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bickfordb|13 years ago|reply
Why not serve the new gTLDs through charities which operate registration and lookup at cost?
[+] [-] wmf|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] danmaz74|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] guscost|13 years ago|reply
Stick with the existing ones?
[+] [-] Harkins|13 years ago|reply