|
::: Dot Travel already exists to 175
million users, travel businesses and customers.
Since the launch of New.net in March
2001, the company maintains a vision to expand the domain name space through an
ever continuing amount of partnerships with ISPs (Tiscali, Earthlink, Prodigy,
Netzero, Juno) who are a key factor in DNS
resolution enabling internet users to resolve New.net's extensions for
web and mail access, one that is now a stable and profitable
venture, something that few internet companies can claim.
The debate of is a domain extension
"real" or "fake" is rather moot for the reason that:
Vint Cerf himself is quoted as
having said about New.net's strategy and deployment as being:
"This is a cute trick...It's almost
like a sleight of hand.".
The question really is how different
is the existing name resolution platform overseen by ICANN that essentially
resolves common generic alphanumeric roman characters through any browser
address bar to a series IP addresses, the format of which interconnected
computers talk to each other?
We all know that one of the most
popular Internet portals is known by the common name of "Google.com" but this is
just a masquerade for it's real identity one of which
resolves "216.239.57.99"
The system in operation that exists
today is no different "a cute trick", one that many magicians would be equally
proud of. The question of real or fake is immaterial in discussion and poorly
articulated by the opposition. The discussion of starting your own root is
equally moot for the reason that the investment and infrastructure required to
operate a viable name space on the magnitude required is one that few can
realistically hope to achieve less even imagine.
What is of importance is the
resolution and confusion that can occur when and if ICANN introduce a .travel
extension that collides with New.net through Tralliance. One of the primary duties of ICANN
is to ensure stability within the name space or introduce functionality that
would lead to confusion and that can only be done with the co-operation of
New.net and a likely formal agreement with Tralliance that can be a conditional term of
acceptance and approval.
What makes New.net's existing
.travel extension a serious and viable option and one that should not be
under-estimated is that registry sites developed around that space over the
past 3 years have been and are widely promoted through New.net's Quick!
search portal reaching a target audience of approx 175 million internet users
satisfying the need of the user base to find relevant information. Businesses
and speculators have invested into the registry, in addition to developing
and promoting their content around the .travel extension offering services to
travel customers in the forms of accommodation, car rentals, flights, related
travel services etc. There already exists an overwhelming understanding of
what a .travel site can do with existing services online using that space for
commercial business. The introduction of a collision, and make no uncertain
terms, collision is what it will be by ICANN in contrast to their policy
will lead to commercial confusion and likely suits of passing off or loss of
business, none of which serves in the best interests of anyone least the end
consumer. Breaking the bad faith and goodwill that already exists between
thousands of customers and millions of users.
Furthermore, New.net have support
within the ICANN community of accredited registrars (RegisterFly, Bulk Register,
Easy Space) that have been selling and are continuing to sell .travel domains to
tens of thousands of customers world-wide.
The integrity of the sponsored TLD should be maintained
in respect of bona fide travel business interest and merely compliments what
New.net have already achieved in respect of promoting a relevant
directory.
New.net already have a platform that resolves .travel domains and
promotes relevant .travel content to hundreds of millions of users, the
viability and scale of that achievement cannot be questioned but the
introduction of a collision can be and that is the heart of the discussion. At
the very least, existing private and commercial registrations should be
grandfathered into any new registry and it should not be seen as a concession
but of a necessity abiding by the governance of Internet stability and good
administrative practice that Tralliance and ICANN should abide by as stated in
their respective policies and practice.
|