We must first clarify our objective before we can debate if and
when and how many gTLD’s should be added to the DNS. (Question): Do we want Domain
Names with mnemonic appeal to provide a commercial advantage in the future or not?
If so, there will always be a battle between those who do not have them and those
who do. Largely because their value would depend on their availability, which is
artificially controlled by ICANN. As for today, whether we
like it or not, the reality is that a .com domain name with mnemonic appeal does
currently provide a commercial advantage for one using it.
And the battle is between
competing interests. At one end, are people who do not want the commercial advantage
(and possibly their trademarks) to be diluted by adding more gTLD’s. At the
other end are people who want to eliminate the commercial advantage altogether, by
flooding the Internet with an infinite number of gTLD’s, so the playing field is
“made level” for them and any future would be start-ups. Somewhere in the middle
are the advocates of pre-registered gTLD’s who seem to be in favor of opening up
the playing field just wide enough to let them in “first”.
The problem is that
this battle is a losing proposition for everyone. Any start-up company that is successful
will ultimately have the same concerns of cybersquatting, Trademark infringement,
and overall “Internet stability” that could threaten their business. And, on
the other side, any attempt to restrict competition or tailor the DNS around the
interests of a few American companies now will ultimately be thwarted by global pressure
of the masses later.
So, what is the answer? First, I would ask everyone to set
aside for a moment their own short term interests, and look impartially into the
future. And ask yourself, what would ultimately be the highest and best use
of the DNS system? How can we make it evolve so it benefits the greatest number of
people, worldwide, and be utilized to its fullest potential?
If we can’t clarify
this objective, the execution is meaningless.
My answer? I think our objective
should be to evolve the present DNS (DOMAIN NAME SYSTEM) into a DCCL System (DOMAIN
/ CATEGORY / CLASS/ LOCATION) System over the next 6 years.
(Note: The term “CATEGORY”
is essentially meant to be the same as a Chartered gTLD)
In six years I want to
sit down at my computer, pull up a Search Engine screen, and be able to prioritize
my searches by DOMAIN NAME, CATEGORY, CLASS, or LOCATION.
And, I want to have
a graphical image of the entire earths surface on my screen so I can click
onto any location in the world and target all the websites within my defined radius.
Then, I want the ability to narrow down those choices by displaying only the websites
listed under my selected “category” (i.e. Chartered gTLD). Then, I want to further
narrow down my search to display only those websites who offer products or services
within whatever “class” I specify.
And I want the search Engine to provide drop
down menus listing and explaining each category and class, so I can just click on
the ones I want.
The critical difference between this search scenario and one
that is orchestrated by the search engines of today is that the prioritizing and
scope of the search is controlled by me, the user, and the category/ class / location
of every website is determined by the company or person who owns it. There would
still be plenty of opportunity for search engines to compete with each other by devising
“smart searches” and intuitive features tailored to individuals preferences.
Would
this proposed DCCL System reduce the likelihood of Trademark infringement and confusion?
In my opinion, yes. Would it favor large established companies, or prejudice those
without mnemonic Domain addresses. In my opinion, no. Would the entire world
benefit from such a system? In my opinion, yes.
For argument sake, if the above
“future objective” were to be agreed upon, then the question for today becomes more
tangible. How do we get there in a way that is fair to all competing interests?
In a previous ICANN post I have laid out a detailed plan of how this could be
implemented if anyone cares to read:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-gtlds/Archives/doc00009.doc
All
constructive criticisms are welcome.
Dave Galomb – July 4,2000
dave-g@prodigy.net