Re: [ga] Issue One - Should There Be New gTLDs?

["kidsearch" <kidsearch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

the http:// and www. weren't mentioned. You are correct. But was sticking to the topic of tlds.


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Hugh Dierker 
  To: kidsearch ; Danny Younger ; ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2005 8:52 AM
  Subject: Re: [ga] Issue One - Should There Be New gTLDs?


  It was the best of times, it was the worst of times.

  brick and mortar Versus flash and crash. sex.com was the first billion hit name. .WS and .LA were great raves. A dude who played the sax was in the whitehouse and whitehouse.com was a sex site. I visited federal court over names like burger king and uhaul. We were not squatters we were Sooners. We came in as the casinos on Indian land started. I met with really neat communist leaders in Hanoi and was told I could have no .sex in Vietnam. This was a decade after i celebrated the fall of the Berlin wall with cuba libres flying north from Mexico df with Chinese negotiators while some presidents' dad was running the show and USAins were rioting over "can't we all just get along". And we called the video the information revolution.

  My point is; things change. New TLDs are not landrushes anymore. Oh don't get me wrong speculators and carpetbaggers will always exist. But so will honesty and integrity and building a company the old fashion way. We are getting past a California style real estate market. Now you must build or improve your land in order to increase its' value. I go to your sites and read and learn. Not because you have a flashy name but cuz you got good stuff. The more we liberate TLDs the more we provide freedom of expression and this is good.
  And it is funny how you mentioned automated .com search but skipped completely over the prefix -- WWW and or http://

  e

  kidsearch <kidsearch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
    I'd be willing to bet you that thewre is nowhere near 1700 words left to
    register in .com. ALL intelligible words in the dictionary have been taken
    in .com.

    It's even difficult to find two-word domain names that have any value
    whatsoever. I consult several businesses on their domain name choices. I
    have to find them domain names that make sense, that contain keywords, that
    are memorable.

    The only good thing about the scarcity is that it keeps them coming to me to
    find something, anything, that works. The market for good .com domain names
    is very scarce and a good find today is like gold.

    We have had to utilize good three-word domain names to get generic names
    that serve my customers best.

    Recent names that are considered to be good finds today wouldn't have been
    worth registering in 1995-1999. We just got AffiliateWebsiteDesign.com, a
    long domain name, but with the scarcity of domain names, this one was the
    best we could do for a client.

    With more tlds, we can secure short, memorable domain names for clients.
    People will learn to type in more than .com. Companies like microsoft make
    that very difficult. If you type cnn or nfl or whatever word or acronym in
    your browser, internet explorer will automatically add .com to the end of
    it. Thats the only real hurdle to adding new tlds.

    Chris McElroy
    http://www.AffiliateWebsiteDesign.com
    http://www.TheGiftedOne.com
    http://www.MagicAnswers.com

    ----- Original Message ----- 
    From: "Danny Younger" 
    To: 
    Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2005 1:31 PM
    Subject: [ga] Issue One - Should There Be New gTLDs?


    > From the WG-C report -- final version
    > http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-c/Arc01/msg01095.html
    >
    > Discussions within the working group
    >
    > The working group quickly -- by mid-July, 1999 --
    > reached consensus that there should be new global
    > top-level domains. There was very little dissent from
    > this position.
    >
    > Arguments supporting the consensus position
    >
    > Expanding the number of TLDs will increase consumer
    > choice, and create opportunities for entities that
    > have been shut out under the current name structure.
    > Today, .com stands astride the name space: it has more
    > registrations than all other top-level domain names
    > combined, and is ten times the size of the largest
    > ccTLD. Yet it has become nearly impossible to
    > register a new simple domain name there: Almost a year
    > ago, in April 1999, a survey found that of 25,500
    > standard English-language dictionary words, only 1,760
    > were free in the .com domain.
    >
    > This situation is undesirable. It requires companies
    > to register increasingly unwieldy domain names for
    > themselves, and is inflating the value of the
    > secondary (speculators') market in .com domain names.
    > Existing second-level domain names under the .com TLD
    > routinely change hands for enormously inflated prices.
    > These are legitimate trades of ordinary, untrademarked
    > words; their high prices reflect the artificial
    > scarcity of
    > common names in existing gTLDs, and the premium on
    > .com names in
    > particular. The inflated value of the speculators'
    > market imposes
    > additional costs on businesses making defensive
    > registrations of domain names.
    >
    > Companies that currently have a domain name in the
    > form of have an extremely
    > important marketing and name-recognition tool. They
    > have an advantage over all other companies that do not
    > have addresses in that form, because the
    > companyname.com firms are the ones that consumers,
    > surfing the Net, will be able to find most easily. If
    > the name space is expanded, companies will be able to
    > get easy-to-remember domain names more easily, and the
    > entry barriers to successful participation in
    > electronic commerce will be lowered. Addition
    > of new gTLDs will allow different companies to have
    > the same second-level domain name in different TLDs.
    > Those businesses will have to compete based on price,
    > quality and service, rather than on the happenstance
    > of which company locked up the most desirable domain
    > name first.
    >
    > Similarly, addition of new gTLDs could enlarge
    > noncommercial name space, and allow the creation of
    > top-level domains designed to serve noncommercial
    > goals. One proposal made in WG-C, widely applauded in
    > the public comments, advocated the creation of a new
    > top-level domain to be operated by North
    > American indigenous peoples. Other examples are easy
    > to imagine.
    >
    > Creation of new generic top-level domains can be
    > beneficial in other respects. One proposal before
    > WG-C, with significant support, urges the creation of
    > multiple registries, each capable of managing
    > registrations for multiple TLDs, so as to eliminate
    > the single point of failure for the registration
    > process. Under this view, multiple new gTLDs are
    > necessary to support the multiple registries needed
    > for stability.
    >
    > Adding new gTLDs to the root, finally, is an
    > important part of ICANN's mandate. ICANN was created
    > because the institutions that preceded it were unable
    > to resolve the intense political and economic
    > conflicts created by demand for new top-level domain
    > names. The U.S. Department of Commerce's White Paper
    > saw the establishment of policy "for determining the
    > circumstances under which new TLDs are added to the
    > root system" as one of ICANN's fundamental goals.
    >
    > Arguments opposing the consensus position
    >
    > Three arguments were made in WG-C that cut against
    > the addition of new gTLDs. First, some working group
    > members suggested that the perceived need for new
    > gTLDs was illusory. Public commenters raising this
    > issue included Bell Atlantic and Marilyn Cade.
    >
    > Second, some working group members suggested that an
    > increase in the number of top-level domains could
    > confuse consumers, because it would be harder for
    > consumers to keep in mind and remember a larger set of
    > top-level domains. Accordingly, any increase in the
    > number of new gTLDs should be
    > cautious. Notwithstanding requests, though, no
    > working group member offered studies or other evidence
    > backing up this view.
    >
    > Finally, some working group members raised trademark
    > policing concerns: Expansion of the domain space will
    > create additional opportunities for the registration
    > of domain names that are confusingly similar to
    > existing trademarks. It will present a risk that bad
    > actors will seek to confuse consumers by registering
    > SLD strings identical to those registered by others in
    > other TLDs. It will likely increase trademark owners'
    > policing costs and the costs of defensive
    > registrations.
    >
    > The relationship between domain names and trademark
    > rights presents an important and difficult issue, and
    > is appropriately addressed by registry data
    > maintenance requirements, dispute resolution
    > mechanisms such as the
    > UDRP, and any other device that ICANN may choose to
    > adopt, as well as by national legislation. Trademark
    > owners' concerns in this regard are important ones,
    > and not to be overlooked. In public comments on the
    > Interim Report, a substantial number of commenters
    > urged that deployment should be delayed until after
    > implementation of the uniform dispute resolution
    > procedure, improved domain name registration
    > procedures, and adoption of a system for protecting
    > famous marks. They included, among
    > others, Jonathan Cohen (then an NC member, IPC), Dr.
    > Victoria Carrington, AOL, British Telecom, Disney,
    > INTA, Nintendo of America and Time Warner. Steven
    > Metalitz expressed a similar view: "New gTLD's should
    > be inaugurated only when, and to the extent that,
    > established and proven procedures are in place in the
    > existing gTLD's to improve the quality and
    > accessibility of
    > registrant contact data, as well as satisfactory
    > dispute solution
    > procedures."
    >
    > The comments of the WG-C Rapporteur of the Business &
    > Commercial constituency urged, on behalf of the
    > constituency, that "business requirements such as the
    > effective implementation of the UDRP and international
    > business practices such as jurisdictional domains"
    > hould be addressed satisfactorily before new gTLDs are
    > deployed. The Software and Information Industry
    > Association noted its support for adding new gTLDs,
    > but only after the creation of a robust, responsive
    > whois system.
    >
    > Other commenters, by contrast, do not believe that
    > trademark-related concerns justify delay in the
    > introduction of new gTLDs. These included Hirofumi
    > Hotta (NC member, ISPCPC) (emphasizing that discussion
    > of famous-mark protection should not delay the gTLD
    > rollout), Kathryn Kleiman (NC member, NCDNHC), Michael
    > Schneider (NC member, ISPCPC), Computer
    > Professionals for Social Responsibility, Melbourne IT,
    > AXISNET (Peruvian Association of Users and ISPs), the
    > United States Small Business Administration's Office
    > of Advocacy, Register.com, InterWorking Labs,
    > Tucows.com, InterAccess Company and PSI-Japan. Raul
    > Echeberria (then an NC member, NCDNHC) filed comments
    > urging that the establishment of new
    > gTLDs was important and positive, but that rules
    > should be devised to avoid massive speculative
    > purchases of domains in the new TLDs, or trademark
    > holders simply duplicating their existing domains.
    >
    > Within the working group, the argument that ICANN
    > should impose substantial delays on the initial
    > deployment of new gTLDs in the interest of adopting or
    > perfecting trademark- protective mechanisms won little
    > support except from Intellectual Property constituency
    > members.
    >
    >
    > __________________________________________________
    > Do You Yahoo!?
    > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
    > http://mail.yahoo.com




  __________________________________________________
  Do You Yahoo!?
  Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
  http://mail.yahoo.com