Lynn Proposes Three New TLDs
Date: Thursday October 31 2002, @11:33AM
Topic: New gTLDs

PeterBarron writes "In an associated press story, it is reported,

Also Thursday, Lynn said he would recommend creating three new Internet domain names, though he said there were no plans yet on when to create them or what they would be called.

Why just three?"

Isn't this just ICANN playing market regulator? Isn't this just ICANN keeping the market artificially restricted? There are 40 applicants from the first round with applications that ICANN went to great lengths to call "not turned down, just not approved yet." They deserve to be completed.

Why not implement the "parallel processing" suggestion and start processing those still waiting applications? Unless I miss my guess, many of them don't even want a new TLD anymore, if Lynn is believed,

Lynn said the slowing global economy had reduced calls for large numbers of new domain names.

Even if all 40 still want in, 40 is not a large number by any count. To restrict even one of those 40 is to admit that ICANN took their $50000 US knowing that there would not be a fair chance for all applicants. Even if Lynn is correct, and there isn't the demand that there was, who is ICANN to deny a registry the opportunity to compete, if they pose no instability to the Internet? People smarter than I have been saying for quite some time that this is a market issue, not a regulatory one. It is fundamentally wrong for ICANN to give market opportunity to Afilias, Neulevel, and the other inside players, yet restrict, for no valid technical reason, those other applicants who played by the rules.

Then again, nobody honestly believes that ICANN won't use this as an opportunity to collect new "application fees" and have yet another inside player pre determined result selection process. The first round went to insiders. The .ORG reassignment went to an insider. Why should anyone think that this will be different?

It seems to me that the only fair way for ICANN to proceed is to address each still-pending application before doing anything else, including opening the procedure to new applicants and taking new fees.

I'm not holding my breath.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Lynn Proposes Three New TLDs | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 71 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.
Guesses for the three new ones...
by isquat on Friday November 01 2002, @06:15PM (#9936)
User #3363 Info |
.aqua (for Kent and his Yacht Club, so they can get a domain after all: Potters.AQUA; also transport over water is less unfriendly for the environment than .AERO!);
.telco (for Hans Kraaijenbrink; only for good old telco's, not all the newcomers on the market);
.god (for Joe Baptista, so that he won't attack ICANN anymore; for all sorts of religions; IANA is not in the business of deciding who is a religion and who not!)
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
Re: Lynn Proposes Three New TLDs
by yggdrazil on Sunday November 03 2002, @03:15AM (#9956)
User #3293 Info
I propose three less gTLDs.

Remove .gov, .edu and .mil (over a couple of years, of course), and replace them with, and
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re: Lynn Proposes Three New TLDs
by dahamsta on Friday November 01 2002, @01:03AM (#9910)
User #3294 Info |
One would expect greater reporting accuracy from

It's not Salon reporting, it's AP. See words three, four and five in the original post.

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
Re: ICANN doesn't give a crap about
by simon on Friday November 01 2002, @03:35AM (#9912)
User #2982 Info |
Yes it could, but ICANN will never do it! is no such alt root thing like ARNI or Name.Space. is within the USG root (.net TLD).
About 150 million user can view domain names. About a half of them have access to domain names via the Plug-in. Most of the Plug-ins are distibuted in the US and UK (e.g. download Kazaa and you get the Plug-in). This Plug-in sits ON TOP! of the DNS. If a plug-in users types in e.g. in his browser bar, this command will be routed to the domain name

If ICANN would introduce a .shop TLD, Plug-in user would nevertheless routed to a domain name with the ending!
At least 75 million users would see the .shop domains of! even if ICANN would introduce a .shop TLD itself.

But if ICANN nevertheless decides to intoduce their own .shop TLD, domain name holders would profit from it: The .shop TLD would be more well-known. This would lead to more traffic (e.g. more type-ins for for .shop domain holders.nic.PRO will be back online soon with FREE sub-domains. Dowload the FREE plug-in at
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re: Keep holding your breath
by PeterBarron ( on Friday November 01 2002, @06:29AM (#9920)
User #3240 Info |
I do so love the unsubstantiated and anonymous dismissals of valid points.

They are the trolling posts that prove the point.

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re: Keep holding your breath
by PeterBarron ( on Friday November 01 2002, @06:31AM (#9921)
User #3240 Info |
So you advocate the artificial closing of a market to applicants who already paid their fees? How antitrustful of you.

In a way, I somewhat hope that ICANN listens to people like you, Herr Anonymous, and closes the market, simply because the antitrust case brought against them will be their downfall. In a way, that might be a better end than any.

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re: And the winners are ...
by PeterBarron ( on Sunday November 03 2002, @09:12AM (#9965)
User #3240 Info |
It is telling that Image Online Design's financial model predicted all of this. That's the financial model that ICANN called unrealistic after they had AA do a hatchet job on it.

If I were IOD, I'd be taking out a full page ad in the Financial Times that said "I Told You So".

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • 14 replies beneath your current threshold.

  • This article comes from ICANNWatch

    The URL for this story is: