The new system faced surprising criticism from some veteran Internet watchers, who argued that the addition of hundreds of new domain name extensions was a virtual land grab, a train wreck, unnecessary, and not particularly innovative.
The claims that there is no need or interest in hundreds of new domain name extensions may be correct – the additions of domain extensions such as dot-travel in 2005 hardly became a household name – but it might not. Just as when some critics asked why anyone would need an iPad that was neither a smartphone nor a laptop computer, useful innovation is often hard to spot at first glance.
The real question is who should decide whether new domain name extensions can be created. The first round of domain name extensions such as dot-com or dot-net were largely a historical accident based on the early days of the domain name system. The more recent additions have generally failed to inspire, but that may be a function of the bureaucratic trade-offs that led to new domain extensions least likely to offend.
The new system throws the issue to the open market, allowing anyone with sufficient resources to create their own domain name extension. Some will succeed, others will fail, yet a market-oriented approach seems preferable to one managed through bureaucratic wrangling.
In fact, the innovation may be less about the extensions and more in the way they are used. For example, Rogers applied for extensions of several of its brands, including dot-rogers, dot-fido and dot-chatr. It has said little about what it intends to do with them, but perhaps it will offer free domains to its customers with the hope that the personalized domain name for wireless customers will make them less likely to switch to competitors. The same may be true for the NBA or MLB, who may offer fans their own domain as a way to stay connected to the sport.
As with any “gold rush”, it will take years to determine the winners and losers. Assuming the new extensions do not harm the technical architecture that underlies the Internet system (most experts say it does not), there is little reason to object to more consumer choice and the prospect of a new layer of creativity in the way businesses and individuals present themselves online.
While the new domain name extensions may raise few technical concerns, there is the potential for competitive misuse. For example, the Canadian Real Estate Association has been under considerable pressure from the Competition Bureau over access to real estate listings known as the multiple listings service or MLS. CREA submitted an application for dot-mls, raising questions about whether it could use the domain name extension in an exclusionary manner that harms competition.
Similarly, the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy is seeking dot-pharmacy, raising questions about whether it hopes to use the domain name extension to impose a regulatory model on Internet-based pharmacies.
Another concern is hoarding of generic extensions with no plans to make domains available to the public. For example, Amazon has applied for 76 domain name extensions yet has disclosed that no domains will be made available to the public.
The use of domain name extensions to “regulate” or foreclose public registrations raises real concerns that should be addressed before granting final approvals. For hundreds of others, the market-based approach that moves away from ICANN picking winners and losers is a step in the right direction.
I wonder if the problem with top level domains like .travel is that practically nobody knows about them. When the average person runs across a web address like carlson-wagonlit.travel, I doubt that most of them would realize that it was something that they should type into their web browser. While I remain quite unconvinced that the world needs all these new top level domains, it will only take a relative handful of them becoming sufficiently popular to enter the broad public consciousness to make quite a difference to how sites are named on the ‘net. Then again, when was the last time that the ‘net cared about what the world needed?
The real problem…
is that now these private companies have monopoly powers over whole industries. For example, once google’s .book becomes the main place to get books, then they will inevitably make some books easier to find than others, they’ll give big publishers the better domains (i.book goes to Apple?), they’ll block pirating domains – even if they’re just competing, not really pirating.
Dave Winer from the scripting news wrote about it yesterday at http://scripting.com/stories/2012/06/20/icannIsWrong.html
As Dave says, “Sex, love, laughter, babies, books, songs, cars, poetry, etc. These things shouldn’t be TLDs, they’re too important, too basic to life. Not the kinds of things any company, for crying out loud, should be able to claim to own.”
Why should top-level domains belong to anyone?
Why not just open it all up and make the dot-anything be optional in domain names?
All current names would stay the same, with the current TLDs managed by the same organizations. The new names (anything else) could be managed internationally, diluting the excessive control of the Internet by the United States.
Even the current gold rush could continue as it is, if that’s desired.
Asher. I can see what your saying… Tiffany`s artlclee is exceptional, last thursday I got a top of the range Ford after making $7275 this last four weeks and-over, ten-k this past-month. it’s certainly the most rewarding Ive had. I actually started six months/ago and immediately was bringing in minimum $85, p/h. I use the details on this web-site,, DOMAIN.COM
travel domains a tourism boards, to great success.