So IATA is playing a double game: trying to get ICANN to broaden the sponsorship criteria enough to allow IATA to co-sponsor .travel with other groups (but not to remove the preference for past applicants entirely, since to do so would be to eliminate their advantage over new applicants and other possible new gTLD's), while trying to get as many coalition partners to join on to the .travel application as possible, to create the impression of "consensus" support.

The latest move is talks between Tralliance Corp. (IATA's main "coalition" partner in the current .travel pitch to ICANN) and New.net (which is already registering .travel domain names), as reported in Travel Weekly (free registration required):

http://www.twcrossroads.com/news/newssearchwrapper .asp?ArticleID=39024

"Two companies that are promoting the use of dot-travel suffixes in Internet addresses have scheduled a meeting this week that could determine if they become friends or foes....

"The intent of the Aug. 14 meeting is "to try to work out an amicable solution so we can either peacefully coexist or coordinate in a very comprehensive way," said New.net president Dan Sheehy. He said he believes "we'll easily be able to work out an amicable solution." Tralliance president Ron Andruff similarly is optimistic. "Our mutual intention is to try to find an amicable way to bring those that have signed up for [New.net] into [our registry] in a way that will be as seamless as possible," Andruff said.""

Second, one of the knocks against IOD's .web attempt to get into the root was that there were already registrants who would probably need to be grandfathered in. New.net used to have some featured new.net names listed on their site but I've searched their current iteration in vain for any such list. It never was very long and certainly didn't contain many (if any) .travel sites anyway, so it is hard to imagine that anyone other than speculators would be put out if currently registered names aren't grandfathered in (and before new.netters start their usual wailing, I'm not advocating such a course). Still, I fail to see how such a partnership could be of benefit to the IATA unless it is to avoid potential litigation. -g

The way it worked then (I don't know about now) was that it contained all the existing legacy gTLD strings and all existing ccTLD strings. If one typed unregistered-name.travel, or even unregistered-name.foo one was served up with the new.net site. That is, it worked by a system of exclusion along the lines of:

If TLD string = ICANN TLD string
Then goto ICANN root
Else goto new.net

Interestingly the plugin included the then recently okayed but not yet functional .info, .biz etc. I find it hard to believe that if .travel was okayed by ICANN that new.net wouldn't similarily recognize it. Let's look at the possibilities.

1. new.net recognizes only it's own travel. That would make it less useful.

2. new.net recognizes only ICANN .travel. That would make its registrants howl (and perhaps, though I doubt, it even sue).

3. new.net recognizes both and where there is a collision it chooses either itself or ICANN (or even serves up a page which points to both).

It will be interesting to see where they go with this, but I can't see ICANN losing much sleep over it. -g

"Dot-travel promoters in 'productive' talks (8/18/2003), by Andrew Compart...

"Tralliance president Ron Andruff... emphasized that his company is not taking potential Icann approval for granted or as a foregone conclusion.

"But Andruff said the meeting ended with an understanding that, "when or if" Tralliance receives Icann approval, the two companies will "find a way to make sure bona-fide travel and tourism representatives, including those that have a New.net name, will find a home within the Icann-accredited dot-travel.""