I have read a number of comments in the ICANN public
forums claiming that, due to the long existence of IOD’s dot-web registry, all of
the good dot-web domains have been taken. At least one such comment made it into
the “Substantive Comments” section (D4) of the ICANN summary of IOD’s application:“It’s
a disgrace that the majority of dot web addresses are currently squatted. If you
look for any generic English name they all appear to be bought by Americans.”
Hogwash.
Even
if this argument were true, it would be irrational to use it against IOD, since other
objectors are claiming that 20,000 registrations is an insignificant number. One
of the selected public comments opposing IOD calls 20,000 registrations “not a substantial
figure” (D3), while two of ICANN’s own comments refer to 20,000 as “small” (B1 and
B3). You can’t have it both ways, so which is it--too many dot-web registrations
or too few?
The answer is neither. 20,000 registrations is a very significant
number, especially given the fact that each one represents a financial gamble by
the registrant. But is not so large that it means that all of the “good” dot-web
names are taken. To prove my point, I recently spent some time on the IOD web site
and compiled an “available” list of well over 1,000 strong, single-word domains.
Sidebar: I have no intention of registering those domains or sharing my list with
others who will. Eventually, however, other people will discover and register them,
and I will not begrudge their doing so. That’s how domain registration works. There
is a definite first-mover advantage; you snooze, you lose. (And rightfully so; nothing
else would be fair.)
Another selected public comment claims that IOD’s registrant
base is comprised of “a small number of experienced Internet users” that has been
registering dot-web domains “for a number of years.” Also inaccurate. Here’s my story:
A
few months ago, after a protracted, frustrating search for decent available dot-com
(and dot-net and dot-org) domain names, I began to explore other TLD’s. Only after
extensive searches on the heavily marketed WorldSite.ws and Spot.cc registry sites
did I discover that dot-ws indicates Western Samoa, not World Site (or Web Site),
and dot-cc indicates the Cocos Islands. Not quite what I had in mind.
A continued
search led me to iGoldRush.com and its list of “Alternative Domain Names.” Under
their heading “The Best,” the first company listed was (and still is) Image Online
Design. I was thrilled about the existence of a dot-web registry. (Dot-web is a wonderful
TLD and is far better than any of the other proposed new TLD’s I’ve since learned
about.) I was also happy to find that, although IOD’s registry had been open for
all the years that the company had spent jumping through hoops to obtain the blessing
of the Internet gods (ICANN et al.), there were still so many good dot-web domain
names available.
Including one I really wanted: enable.web. How tough was it to
find an “enable” domain name? Needless to say, enable.com was long gone. In fact,
it was registered way back in 1993. (I wrote to the owner, who confirmed this.) And
WhoIs.net lists over 16 HUNDRED dot-com permutations of "enable" that are also gone
(2enable.com, 800enable.com, abcenable.com, ad nauseum). Well, then, how about enable.net?
Gone. Enable.org? Gone. What about enable.ws or enable.cc? Both gone. In fact, even
if I did want “enable” from one of the more accessible foreign TLD’s, all of the
following were also unavailable: enable.as, enable.dk, enable.lt, enable.nz, enable.co.uk,
enable.org.uk, enable.co.nz. For the record, enable.tv was available--and still is--but
there’s a catch: it’s considered a “high profile domain name” and would cost $4,000
to register. And that’s PER YEAR. Fortunately, when I went to webtld.com, I
found that enable.web was available. AVAILABLE! So I happily registered it. That
occurred just over two months ago.
ICANN notes in its summary of IOD’s application
that “several of the people who posted comments in support of the application said
they had existing .web registrations with IOD” (D2). Although I wasn’t among those
who posted comments in the first round, I certainly hope ICANN’s statement doesn’t
mean they lend less credence to the comments of those of us who have paid for dot-web
registrations. In fact, it is people like me that ICANN should be listening to--those
of us regular-Joe Internet users who are so happy to have found IOD and so confident
in their ability to service us that we’ve “voted with our pocketbooks.”
There
are 20,000 such votes. That IS a significant number. (Just ask Florida.) ICANN, please
don’t let us down. Choose dot-web. Choose IOD.