jrosenthal writes:>Like I have mentioned before, if
the registration systems are built properly, "techies" will not be able to use scripts
to register all of the "good" domains.<
I think that the issue of scripts or automatic
submissions has to be addressed, for any new domains. Even manual submissions on
day one are going to be akin to a well co-ordinated flood attack. I don't think you
can build a registration system that is immune to scripts, it is an arms race like
much else online these days, they'll no sooner be able to block one exploit than
someone will find a workaround.
If a registrar does manage to block them, do they
even have a right to do so? If the registrar doesn't specifically ban automatic submissions
and require that they be manual, do they not put themselves in legal jeopardy by
blocking a submission? Even assuming they can tell a human from a script and expressly
forbid the latter, an enterprising and well-funded speculator could hire a bank of
speed typists. Don't laugh, someone would do it if they thought it would give them
an edge.
The concept of first come first served worked in the early days but now
it's all at light speed. If the internet is the Wild West, some will fancy themselves
as gunslingers, and someone will invent a Gatling gun. I have no answer to this problem
but I think it has to be addressed now or any concept of fairness is lost. This is
yet another reason why I support chartered .reg domains, there is no benefit to registering
in the first hour or day.
This is not to say that there should be no open domains
tried. I suspect that the good names will be taken by speculators very quickly. As
many speculators don't know a head from a body tag, most of those sites will never
resolve, or will at best sprout 'for sale' signs and confusing affiliate links to
unrelated sites. This will doom that TLD through a lack of interest by the general
public. These sites also won't sell and go live with interesting content because
those offering interesting content will continue to route around them.
Perhaps
this will get it through to the speculators once and for all that there is almost
no market for domain names, the gold rush is over (it never really began, it rivals
Y2K as the biggest tech urban legend hype ever perpetrated), the only ones making
money are those selling gold panning equipment, Great Domains et al, and most of
them aren't profitable either.
>Let's see the supporters of ANY preregistrations
(whether they be IOD, CORE, or Namespace) give their reasons why keeping preregistrations
is good for the general Internet population<
Oops, got on a rant there. :) To
answer your question, much as I have no sympathy for those who took a chance on .web
(they flipped the coin and perhaps at least can tell a head from a tail) nevertheless
I think .web and its database should be brought into the root. This is proof of concept
time. Allow .web and some similar but not pre-registered open TLD and then compare
what happens and learn from it, assuming there are any lessons to be found. If I
was to run scripts on opening day I'd probably target the latter TLD.
I don't
really think there will be much difference, I suspect any new open TLD will largely
be a failure, amazon.com will also be at amazon.new or suing whomever is there first,
mysmallnetbiz.new and mysmallnetbiz.com will both continue to lose money and fold,
picturesofmydog.new will receive the same 10 visitors/year than its .com counterpart
gets, buythisdomain.com and .new will both remain unsold, etc. There are tens or
hundreds of thousands of ccTLD names registered now which aren't in use, having the
same in .web and .new won't inconvenience the majority of net users so why not give
it a try?
If it does turn out that .web functions better than its .new counterpart
then that is something to keep in mind for the next round of TLDs. Surely not that
pre-registrations should be allowed in the same fashion in future, .web was a historical
anomaly that can't be repeated, a future pre-reg would be hit by the same scripts
and problems as mentioned above. And the last thing we need is people starting a
new gold rush by squatting or speculating on possible future TLDs. However, seeing
how .web fares may have some instructive values as yet unseen.
>According to US
law (ask your lawyers), IANA is a defunct agency, so any agreements, if any, made
by them with other parties, are not binding for ICANN.<
While IOD has never been
supported in court that is partly because it has never been properly tested. It is
not inconceivable that a court could find in favor of IOD. The DNS shouldn't be managed
by lawsuits. Nor should ICANN be managed by the threat of lawsuits. On balance, and
it is no more than a flip of the coin really (I am not privy to what may occur behind
closed doors), I think the interests of the public are best served by putting the
.web issue behind us. It is from another age, when I could have posted the .web name
I intend to register and it still would have been there when I arrived. Now it would
be registered in seconds by a speculator and a price tag affixed, no doubt in the
name of freedom.
This new age needs new strategies. I don't envy ICANN their mission.
I don't envy the speculators either, the most succesful new TLD might be .boothill
for all the for sale domains that will never sell regardless of what ICANN decides.
The idea that opposition to .web shills is fueled by envy that I have no names to
bury there is ludicrous.