Ellery to ICANN: Just toss out TLDs altogether

Several Wild Ducks have asked me to comment about gTLDs and the numerous articles about the imminent availability of these Generic Top Level Domains. Under a new plan, recently approved by ICANN, domain registrars will begin selling Top Level domains that allow individuals and organizations to end their Internet address in any way they like. For example, you could become the arbiter of coca-cola, and then dole out domains that end in this way, such as corp.coca-cola or drink.coca-cola. (There is no .com, because in this example, the top level is the phrase "coca-cola".

First, some background (or skip directly to my opinion)...

In the beginning, there were just a few TLDs. Most web surfers still think of the group as the legitimate core, because they represent an established cadre of online companies and organizations: .com, net, .org, .gov and the individual country endings, such as .co.uk, .il, .tv, .cc, etc.

Then, some wise guy got it into his head that we needed .info, .museum, .movie, and most recently, .xxx. (The thinking behind is bizarre: If you can't eliminate porn, rope it off into a red-light district. Yeah, sure! This will surely deter my teenage nephew from checking out the hoochie-coochie). Today, there are 22 gTLDs and 250 country codes.

Now, they're at it again! In their infinite wisdom, the governors at ICANN have decided to dole out arbitrary TLDs. (Thankfully, this does not include founding ICANN governor and chairperson, Esther Dyson. Like me, she understands that unleashing gTLDs will lead to waste, litigation and folly). In June 2011, the ICANN board approved of a plan to offer arbitrary top level domains. The plan goes into effect in December 2012. Want your domain to end with .IveGotAStupidIdea? Be my guest! Just pony up an application fee of US $185,000 and soon, you too will be signing up anyone who wants their domain to end in this way.
__________________________________________________________

Time for a Wild Duck rebuttal

Concerning the ICANN decision to open the TLD floodgates, some have suggested that it is a "cash grab". Perhaps that's one motive. After all, ICANN wants USD $185,000 from each applicant. (Why?!). And one ICANN officer already has quietly set up a venture to capitalize on the forthcoming milieu. But considering the nearly unanimous vote, I suspect that at least a few ICANN members think that the idea has merit, even without the allure of personal gain.

Unfortunately, the idea has no merit! Implementing choose-your-own TLD will create market chaos. It makes TLDs irrelevant. Domain and trademark owners can't possibly chase after every combination of letters in the universe. Under this scheme, we will all simply own domains with dot somewhere in the name.

More likely, it will have a "regressive" effect by making .com the only relevant TLD. In the end, that may be the silver lining. But it is still an asinine idea, because there is an easier way to achieve simplicity. In fact, .com is already akin to not requiring a TLD at all! In effect, you own the real-estate that comes before it. All other TLDs are irrelevant. (.gov is a possible exception, because it is controlled within a clearly defined venue).

Why is .com so relevant and important?

• It's the domain browsers add automatically (press "Ctrl-Enter")
  (there is even a key for it on the Android text-entry keyboard)


• Domains that end with .us resolve to .com, even without .us


• Search engines are biased to present them first

To illustrate, consider this: The CEO of Coca-Cola is Muhtar Kent. Once ICANN doles out generic and arbitrary gTLDs, which address below do you suppose Mr. Kent will use? Which would you choose?

• mkent@coca-cola.com


• mkent@coca-cola.{something else}


• mkent@{something}.coca-cola

In the last two examples, the {something} is required! Without it, the address is illegal (it fails). Why would anyone want the address mkent@ceo.coca-cola? It is preposterous!

I am in favor of throwing away TLDs altogether! Let's just agree that if you own the .com property, then you are a fortunate puppy. In effect, you own the words that precede it—the naked term. If you don't own the .com property, then you are playing 2nd fiddle. You will forever be losing mail, because many senders accidentally address the "real" McCoy and not a "wannabe" (that's you, of course!).

If you already have a domain ending in .net or .org (the semi-credible alternatives) or even .info or .tv (positively ludicrous!), then use it in good health. But only in rare situations does using a non .com TLD make sense – and only if you own both .com and another TLD of the same word. For example, Verizon differentiates its staff and users by separating them into .com and .net communities. That's kind of nifty, but it still leads to confusion and misdirected mail! FWIW: .com rules the web.

Ellery Davies clarifies law and public policy
Feedback is always invited.
- Ellery Davies