Inside ICANNWatch  
Submit Story
Lost Password
Site Messages
Top 10 Lists
Latest Comments
Search by topic

Our Mission
ICANN for Beginners
About Us
How To Use This Site
Slash Tech Info
Link to Us
Write to Us

  Useful ICANN sites  
  • ICANN itself
  • Bret Fausett's ICANN Blog
  • Internet Governance Project
  • UN Working Group on Internet Governance
  • Karl Auerbach web site
  • Müller-Maguhn home
  • UDRPinfo.com;
  • UDRPlaw.net;
  • CircleID;
  • LatinoamerICANN Project
  • ICB Tollfree News

  •   At Large Membership and Civil Society Participation in ICANN  
  • icannatlarge.com;
  • Noncommercial Users Constituency of ICANN
  • NAIS Project
  • ICANN At Large Study Committee Final Report
  • ICANN (non)Members page
  • ICANN Membership Election site

  • ICANN-Related Reading
    Browse ICANNWatch by Subject

    Ted Byfied
    - ICANN: Defending Our Precious Bodily Fluids
    - Ushering in Banality
    - ICANN! No U CANN't!
    - roving_reporter
    - DNS: A Short History and a Short Future

    David Farber
    - Overcoming ICANN (PFIR statement)

    A. Michael Froomkin
    - When We Say US™, We Mean It!
    - ICANN 2.0: Meet The New Boss
    - Habermas@ discourse.net: Toward a Critical Theory of Cyberspace
    - ICANN and Anti-Trust (with Mark Lemley)
    - Wrong Turn in Cyberspace: Using ICANN to Route Around the APA & the Constitution (html)
    - Form and Substance in Cyberspace
    - ICANN's "Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy"-- Causes and (Partial) Cures

    Milton Mueller
    - Ruling the Root
    - Success by Default: A New Profile of Domain Name Trademark Disputes under ICANN's UDRP
    - Dancing the Quango: ICANN as International Regulatory Regime
    - Goverments and Country Names: ICANN's Transformation into an Intergovernmental Regime
    - Competing DNS Roots: Creative Destruction or Just Plain Destruction?
    - Rough Justice: A Statistical Assessment of the UDRP
    - ICANN and Internet Governance

    David Post
    - Governing Cyberspace, or Where is James Madison When We Need Him?
    - The 'Unsettled Paradox': The Internet, the State, and the Consent of the Governed

    Jonathan Weinberg
    - Sitefinder and Internet Governance
    - ICANN, Internet Stability, and New Top Level Domains
    - Geeks and Greeks
    - ICANN and the Problem of Legitimacy

    Highlights of the ICANNWatch Archive
    (June 1999 - March 2001)

    This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
    Registrations in Open ccTLDs | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 41 comments | Search Discussion
    Click this button to post a comment to this story
    The options below will change how the comments display
    Check box to change your default comment view
    The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
    Re: Registrations in Open ccTLDs
    by fnord (groy2kNO@SPAMyahoo.com) on Monday July 22 2002, @10:25PM (#8019)
    User #2810 Info
    Ray, I hear what you're saying. I agree that if .biz and .info are mostly a failure in comparison to .com, either in total registrations or in used registrations, that does nothing to lessen internet stability. That is assuming of course that one or both of them (or others) don't fail entirely due to lack of funds, which conceivably could lead to problems without proper data escrow and/or a competent successor to take it over.

    Ditto for .ca or other similar ccTLDs, though I think directly comparing those to .tv, .ws, and .cc is a mistake, the latter have been marketed and used a la open gTLDs for some time now, which I think is one of Ben Edelman's points. As he also points out, they aren't entirely like gTLDs as they aren't governed by the same ICANN agreements. ccTLDs like .ca (a non-complete list would include .uk, .jp, .de, .au) are, I think, becoming more successful. I suspect their registration numbers aren't that different from .tv et al, and I suspect their actual use is considerably higher. I also think that while the so-called open gTLDs registrations are probably dropping, in ccTLDs like .ca, and an ever increasing number of others, both registration and use is growing. Perhaps Ben could next turn his attention there. :) So I don't expect .ca to go away any time soon, not due to the number of registrations or use at least.

    What I am pointing out is that Ben Edelman is doing this research on his own, if he wasn't doing it, what data would ICANN have to go by in evaluating their new gTLDs? They would have some lesser amount of data to go by, but they seem in no rush in doing the work necessary to come by more data on their own. Indeed, M. Stuart Lynn stated many months ago that it was likely any future gTLDs would be restricted, and not only did he not use any hard data, there is SFAIK also no record of the committee coming to that decision. So I am pointing to the reality that ICANN could and probably will use this data, not that they should. In general I think it should be left to market forces to decide.

    I happen to think that 100 new TLDs a year or whatever would not likely lessen internet stability, though there might be some vanishing point where the numbers become unsustainable through non-use. In that case one could either leave them static (as long as someone competent was keeping an eye on them) or do the equivalent of a remove group message on Usenet and delete the TLD, one doesn't see Usenet crashing despite a massive database and numerous rmgroups. As well, the decision to take such an action is handled differently depending on where one is in the hierarchy. Further, that holds true for which groups are created, there is no central ICANN like authority and yet Usenet is generally stable. Of course that is not to say that it is particularily useful.

    So I do question why we should add TLDs if they are essentially useless. I don't think ccTLDs like .ca are useless, they are based on geopolitical realities, I also don't think restricted gTLDs like .aero are useless, they are based on subject. While .tv is ostensibly based on subject (with .ws and .cc to a lesser extent), they have not been used in that fashion. I don't think it is particularily useful to have comnetorgbizinfotvwscc as essentially indistinguishable, one might as well have TLDs numbered one to a hundred, while we could do that, I question if we should. comnetorg were originally intended to differentiate based on subject, if we are going to create new gTLDs we should get back to that model. However I don't think we should compel ccTLDs back to a geopolitical model, that is their business. The market seems to be saying that that business model largely depends on speculation and defensive registrations, I don't think that is particularily useful to internet users in general, nor is it likely to be a sustainable business model.

    Lou Kerner, then CEO of dottv said a couple of years ago that .tv will be bigger than .com. This was a corporation that had fancy digs and over 75 employees and was supposed to pay $50 million to Tuvalu. Even with their bid model (they finally got about 3/4 of a $million for sex.tv after a supposedly minimum bid of one $million, it wasn't successful and wasn't re-registered and is now available again for $1 million, no bid necessary. SFAIK its previous registration is also tied up in court). Part of the reason for some advocating hundreds or thousands of new open gTLDs dates back to the time when many believed the hype. If one takes the hype out of the equation, what rationale is there for creating new open gTLDs? So the speculators and defensive registrators can fight it out again and again? Ben's research seems to show that even that business model isn't sustainable. Both speculators and defensive registrants seem to finally be turning their backs on the hype. Where then will the demand come from for more open essentially undifferentiated TLDs? -g

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: Registrations in Open ccTLDs by fnord
    Re: Registrations in Open ccTLDs
    by RFassett on Tuesday July 23 2002, @04:29AM (#8021)
    User #3226 Info | http://www.enum.info
    "Where then will the demand come from for more open essentially undifferentiated TLDs?"

    if there is no demand, no one will invest the required resources (no small amount) to launch them. Why does it need to be any harder than this?

    Are not business owners and private industry fully capable of performing their own market research, maybe even better than what Ben is able to, given the size of the investment they would be considering to make?

    Do we need ICANN to do this for the market place? Are there any for-profit industry players spending $ on performing this market research now, as exist every day in other industries? Why not? Because ICANN has closed the gate on any new TLD's?

    This is the same ICANN that is whining about needing more private industry participation? They want for-profit industry to invest it's money and resources to achieve cooperative and common goals?...other than trademark interests, for what reason does private industry have to do so? Why should it do any market research or plan any new addressing initiatives? Because it benefits from ICANN's maintaining a stable Internet? Does private industry really believe that ICANN is centrally responsible for the stability of the Internet as it exists today? Is ICANN doing anything to encourage private industry innovation?Does the fact that no new private industry $ are being funnelled into technology or market research specific to Internet top level addressing say anything about where ICANN has led things to be over the past 2 years? I think it says a lot. Private industry $ are not being invested - even for just plain old market research - because the gate is closed. Innovation (or any hope of) stops in ICANN's Internet addressing arena. If there is no demand, no one will invest the required resources to launch a new TLD. Private industry is not even bothering to look at it. Is Ben an expert on Top Level Internet addressing architecture and innovation? Are you? Am I? Is ICANN? Where does this usually come from...or where is it NOT coming from and what single entity is mostly responsible for this?
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]

    Search ICANNWatch.org:

    Privacy Policy: We will not knowingly give out your personal data -- other than identifying your postings in the way you direct by setting your configuration options -- without a court order. All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 by ICANNWatch.Org. This web site was made with Slashcode, a web portal system written in perl. Slashcode is Free Software released under the GNU/GPL license.
    You can syndicate our headlines in .rdf, .rss, or .xml. Domain registration services donated by DomainRegistry.com