[bc-gnso] Techdirt: Should Google, Amazon And Others Be Able To Lock Up New Generic Top Level Domains For Their Own Use?

[Phil Corwin <psc@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

FYI---

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130221/02172722048/should-google-amazon-others-be-able-to-lock-up-new-generic-top-level-domains-their-own-use.shtml

Should Google, Amazon And Others Be Able To Lock Up New Generic Top Level 
Domains For Their Own Use?
from the wasn't-quite-the-idea... dept
For many years, we've noted that the entire setup of ICANN rolling out new top 
level domains (TLDs) was a complete 
joke<http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090605/2157135146.shtml>, often driven 
by ICANN members who were in positions to be the registrars and registers for 
those new domains. Thus, all they seemed to do was create money out of thin air 
for those companies, since there was no actual demand for the TLDs, but 
companies felt obligated to buy them up anyway, to "keep them out of the hands" 
of critics, scammers or others. And, certainly a big 
fear<http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120323/03201418221/massive-conflict-interests-icann-called-out-ceo-start-to-get-some-attention.shtml>
 when ICANN decided to offer up its big "generic TLD" setup, whereby anyone 
could make a play for any new TLD, was that the whole thing was a boondoggle 
for domain registers and registrars with which to set up a whole bunch of new 
tollbooths.

However, a funny thing happened along the way. While there certainly were a 
bunch of those kinds of TLDs applied for (many with competing claims fighting 
for the right to cash in), what became more interesting was the fact that the 
list of applications was absolutely dominated by Google and 
Amazon<http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120613/12491719310/rip-off-highlights-top-level-domain-scrum.shtml>
 seeking to gain control over a very long list of TLDs. In fact, we noted that 
in many cases, Google and Amazon were lined up head to head competing over who 
would gain control over those TLDs. For example, they're competing with each 
other (and with some others) for the rights to .book, .shop, .store, .free, 
.game, .search, .play, .movie, .show, .mail, .map, .spot, .talk, .wow, .you and 
.cloud. And both of those companies are going for a bunch of others where 
they're not competing with each other. Google, for example, wants (among other 
things) .car, .dad, .mom, .dog, .family, .fyi, .plus, .tour, .prod, .here, 
.prof, .phd, meme., .lol, .day, .love and more.

As you look down the list, you begin to realize that while the initial fear of 
registers and registrars shaking down everyone to buy new domain names to 
"protect" their trademarks was a legitimate concern, there was a second serious 
concern as well: that a bunch of these new gTLDs were not being applied for to 
set up a registry where anyone could obtain those kinds of domains, but rather 
to lock them up for one company's use. And while Amazon and Google are the most 
prominent players here, lots of other companies jumped in as well. Hasbro wants 
.transformers. Johnson and Johnson wants .baby (so do a bunch of others). Ralph 
Lauren wants .polo. Travelers Insurance wants the completely ridiculous 
.redumbrella, while Nationwide Insurance wants .onyourside. Monster Cable (of 
course) wants .monster.

While some of those more specific ones wouldn't have any demand for anyone else 
to register anyway, there is a growing concern that companies might lock up 
certain TLDs, rather than make them available for registering. I'm sure lots of 
car companies would like theirname.car. But would that be possible?

Apparently, ICANN -- whose boss has already admitted that they're in way over 
their 
heads<http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130130/02052521823/icann-boss-were-not-ready-to-launch-these-half-baked-new-gtlds-so-lets-launch-them.shtml>
 on these new gTLDs -- is now considering whether or not such a use of a gTLD 
should even be 
allowed<http://www.politico.com/story/2013/02/icanns-debating-whats-in-a-domain-name-87816.html>.
But companies such as Amazon, Google, Goodyear, L'Oreal and others also applied 
for a wide array of words and indicated that they would like to operate the 
registry as "closed" -- meaning they may not allow other firms to buy what are 
known as second-level domains.

Clearly, companies want to own and control generic words as domains so that 
they can offer their services. But with that comes the possibility of blocking 
competitors who want to attach their brand to a term. For example, Ford might 
want to buy ford.truck but be blocked from doing so by the owner of .truck.
The article quotes someone from a hosting firm who notes that "It is inherently 
in the public interest to allow access to ... new [generic top-level domains] 
to the whole of the Internet Community, e.g., .BLOG, .MUSIC, .CLOUD."

Of course, there is the flipside to this argument as well -- such TLDs that are 
simply locked up for a single company or service are also not on the market, 
meaning that they're not another in the long list of domains companies feel 
they "need to buy" purely for defensive reasons. Either way, at least one 
(still unnamed) applicant who is competing with a bunch of these companies for 
a few of the new gTLDs is hiring people to lobby Congress and the EU Parliament 
not to 
allow<http://domainincite.com/11861-mystery-gtld-applicant-to-take-google-fight-to-lawmakers>
 firms to lock up any new gTLD.

In the end, I think our original conclusion still stands: the whole gTLD 
process appears to be a continuing boondoggle for certain companies, whether 
it's to lock up certain TLDs or to sell off domains to people and companies who 
don't really want them, but feel compelled to pay up anyway.


Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
Virtualaw LLC
1155 F Street, NW
Suite 1050
Washington, DC 20004
202-559-8597/Direct
202-559-8750/Fax
202-255-6172/cell

Twitter: @VlawDC

"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey