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    This discussion has been archived.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.
    "If I ran .name, I'd..." | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 83 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: .name
    by Anonymous on Tuesday November 26 2002, @11:46AM (#10291)
    Stop letting violators like AP Miles run free; police the Whois database for obviously false registrations (see Ben Edelman's report) and stop trying to convince ICANN to change your Whois policy.

    If that didn't work, shut it down. .name has failed.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    • Re: .name by Anonymous Wednesday November 27 2002, @05:18PM
    Re: dot-FAILURE
    by Anonymous on Tuesday November 26 2002, @11:49AM (#10292)
    I just had a good laugh reading the projected number of .name registrations at year 4:


    It's really a hoot. These bozos (Global Name Registry) thought they'd be rolling in cash, ha ha ha! Sheeeeeeer idiocy. They predicted 14.1 million registrations by year 4, ha ha ha ha ha. Is that the dumbest prediction you ever heard? How bad is their foresight? Pretty bad, ha ha ha!

    To show you how stupid the ICANN staff can be, they actually believed it! Ha ha ha ha ha! What a bunch of zeros ....

    ICANN rode that pony right into the ground. See? No one really wants new TLDs, or they'd be buying .name, right?

    Hey, here's a hot tip: Look for .pro to tank as well.

    I find humor in the misfortune of others, so I really got a laugh seeing how GNR pissed 7.5 million into "capitalization", whatever the f-ck that means. It really means they had too much money and not enough common sense. They were so happy to be tossed a bone, now they probably don't even have more than a few thousand registrations. Ha ha ha ha!

    One could surmise ICANN staff steered .name into the crapper, after all, ICANN got it's 50 g's and Touton/Sims probably billed some hours to the "negotiations", before pushing GNR over the cliff.

    Ha ha ha.

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: .name sucks
    by Anonymous on Tuesday November 26 2002, @12:11PM (#10293)
    GNR did it to themselves. They should fold.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Once again.......
    by Anonymous on Tuesday November 26 2002, @12:17PM (#10294)
    Just another argument for ICANN to open up the root to real competition. Nobody would much care if .NAME were doing well or poorly if there were plenty of competition.

    ICANN takes $50,000 from a bunch of applicants, gives registries to their friends and allows them to fail, and then does it all over again.

    Does anyone have _ANY_ optimism that 3 new sponsored TLDs will thrive? The only benefit from that plan is revenue for ICANN in terms of application fees.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: If I Ran .name ...
    by Anonymous on Tuesday November 26 2002, @12:49PM (#10295)
    ... I'd put my head in the oven and turn the gas on.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    I would...
    by Anonymous on Tuesday November 26 2002, @02:07PM (#10299)
    ...ask ICANN to make a small change in the root zone. Change ".name" to ".web." Leave the addresses of the TLD servers the same.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    by Anonymous on Tuesday November 26 2002, @02:42PM (#10302)
    "If I were running the .name registry, I would ....."

    ...quickly - like tomorrow - do what the USG did with .US and sell at the second level where still possbile. It's funny, while the USG is figuring out ways to promote its ccTLD and create community participation, the ICANN braintrust - in the spirit of creating competition - decides upon a new TLD as a "proof of concept" following a very similar naming model that the USG was moving away from (for obvious, if not proven, reasons). Of course, all GNR can see is how to sell more than one unit per second level domain (that's how one gets to 14.1 million). Why sell to only one Smith or Jones when you can get the whole dang family tree, right?

    My suggestion to GNR would be to drop this idea real quick and sell people what they want instead of trying to force something in an attempt to take advantage of a market that has been artificially restricted. It doesn't work but of course this will just be twisted around as support for weak market demand for new TLD's (how predictable).

    Neustar can sell only one unit per second level of .US (vs. prior) but I believe total units have increased thousands of times over since the USG approved the model change. No demand, huh? It's not rocket science as much as ICANN likes to make it out to be.

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    by Anonymous on Tuesday November 26 2002, @03:13PM (#10303)
    If I had a dog called dotname, I'd shave it's butt and make it walk backwards. ;) p.s. same for .pro
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: If I Ran .name, I'd ...
    by Anonymous on Wednesday November 27 2002, @03:39AM (#10315)
    If I ran .name, I'd bite down hard the next time ICANN stuck it's pecker in my mouth.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Rewhy can't someone do something about ICANN
    by Anonymous on Wednesday November 27 2002, @04:53AM (#10317)
    now that many think ICANN is so bad why can't someone or some organization do something about it?
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: Speculators (ohmygosh!) Could Fix It ...
    by Anonymous on Wednesday November 27 2002, @06:02AM (#10320)
    Domain name shortages and public awareness go hand-in-hand.

    Keeping the namespace small will help everyone here, even those who might apply for new registries. Public awareness about .com intensified as the namespace ran out of product, when people could no longer get a decent web address. Then everyone learned quickly. Now you've got a new group of "everyone" to teach, so let the namespace get good and crowded, and the learning curve will shrink. Education (about any topic, including domain names) occurs when there is something to talk about, a hot topic. With the domain name industry, there is really nothing motivating the general public to get involved. But as soon as there is a "shortage" of anything, from domain names to Louis Vuitton handbags, everyone gets smart in a hurry. That's what happened in 1999/2000 when .com values went through the ceiling.

    An overabundance of domain name extensions does no one any good. There's no "crisis" motivating involvement.

    My advice is to drastically shrink supply of domain extensions. Let those like .name sink or swim on their own. Introduce NO NEW TLDs until there is really a demand from more than a few die-hard pre-reg suckers. When there's clamoring for new TLDs from the masses, then you can be sure the masses are educated about existing extensions. They've been motivated to learn by the got-to-have-one syndrome.

    If left to Afilias, Neulevel, and Neustar to get the word out about .info/.biz/.us, and if left to GNR to get the word out about .name, adding new extensions to the saturated namespace will make it impossible for any new extension to become important.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: What utter crap
    by Anonymous on Wednesday November 27 2002, @07:57AM (#10323)
    See http://www.icann.org/minutes/report-gnr-whois-26nov02.htm

    How can ICANN sign off on this?
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    It's the name, stupid.
    by Anonymous on Wednesday November 27 2002, @10:31AM (#10330)
    In the quest to add meaning to the TLD, "Name" is a conceptual failure. Searchers already know the names of those they want to reach; registrants have no need to communicate the fact that they are named. The addition of 'name' to someone's name is superfluous. Absurd. If the TLD signified anything helpful, or meant something applicable to the user or buyer, .name might be thriving. But as a result of this strange choice, GNR and its resellers are forced to 'educate' buyers that name really means family, or home, or person, or address, or site. Unfortunately, buyers already have words for these things.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    what about .pro
    by Anonymous on Saturday November 30 2002, @09:31AM (#10351)
    .Pro is clearly lifeless, should we pull the plug on it now?

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    .name is actually being used...
    by dtobias (dan@tobias.name) on Monday December 02 2002, @06:25PM (#10374)
    User #2967 Info | http://domains.dan.info/
    A Google search showed 29,600 indexed .name pages, including neal.young.name (not the singer). So there are people using .name. What do you expect, people to advertise their personal .name sites on the Super Bowl?
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    re DOT NAME
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Monday January 20 2003, @03:52AM (#10990)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/

    Read the rest of this comment...

    [ 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