[menog] .asia landrush
jim.mercer at viszo.com
Wed Mar 26 07:53:54 GMT 2008
Fahad AlShirawi wrote:
> Actually I know this stream is old but... Well I have a comment...
> Introduction of new gTLDs will actually in effect remove the land-rush and
> crap... Nor right now but... With more choices... you don't have to jump to
> protect a potential name...
> Of course this is only one side of the argument and a simplistic view as
> well but... well, I truly adhere to basic economics... increase supply and
> price drops... Landrush crap can only go so far when supply is limited.
> Since there is no technical reason not to introduce more gTLDs, this would
> actually help in the long run...
With every new gTLD there is a new landrush, so more supply doesn't
really change anything.
In fact, with each new gTLD, there are more opportunities for the domain
hoarders to exploit the perceived value of the domains.
I am not totally against new gTLDs, but I think there needs to be better
methods to prevent the squatters from snapping up the namespace and
holding it ransom.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: menog-bounces at menog.net [mailto:menog-bounces at menog.net] On Behalf Of
> Baher Esmat
> Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 4:38 PM
> To: jim.mercer at viszo.com; menog at menog.net
> Subject: RE: [menog] .asia landrush
> The points you raised could be valid from one perspective but there is also
> a counter argument that the introduction of new gTLDs is about choice and
> competition - choice for the end user (registrant) and competition among
> businesses (registries and registrars). By the way, I'm not the best one to
> defend this argument, probably because I'm an engineer :), but there are
> voices within ICANN that have been criticizing ICANN not only for the delay
> in introducing new gTLDs but also for the restrictions that this process may
> And just to give a quick snapshot on how this works in ICANN, and since some
> of the subscribers to this list are not acquainted with ICANN, I'll try to
> make it simple. Policies developed within ICANN are developed by those who
> participate in the various ICANN Supporting Organizations and Advisory
> Committee. One of these organizations is called GNSO (Generic Names
> Supporting Organization), which spent more than 2 years to develop policy
> for introducing new gTLDs, and summarized its recommendations in this report
> t07.pdf. The report highlighted 5 main reasons why ICANN should introduce
> new gTLDs:
> 1. It is consistent with the reasons articulated in 1999 when the first
> proof-of concept round for new gTLDs was initiated;
> 2. There are no technical impediments to the introduction of new gTLDs, as
> evidenced by the two previous rounds and as confirmed by technical experts
> 3. Expanding the domain name space to accommodate the introduction of both
> new ASCII and internationalised domain name (IDN) TLDs will give end users
> more choice about the nature of their presence on the Internet. In addition,
> users may be able to use domain names in their language of choice;
> 4. There is demand for additional top-level domains as a business
> opportunity, which can stimulate competition at the registry service level;
> 5. No compelling reason has been articulated not to proceed with a new
> gTLD round.
> These were the reasons GNSO has come up with and I'm sure that many would
> argue against them!!
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: menog-bounces at menog.net [mailto:menog-bounces at menog.net] On Behalf
>> Of jim.mercer at viszo.com
>> Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 11:24 AM
>> To: menog at menog.net
>> Subject: RE: [menog] .asia landrush
>>> From: Baher Esmat <baher.esmat at icann.org>
>>> Bill, I personally couldn't agree more with you. The monetizing of
>> domain names has gone much farther than what people had envisaged 20 years
>> ago! It is perhaps something that engineers can't absorb :) and it is
>> going to grow more and more with the opening of new gTLD applications!
>> if ICANN had the balls to stand up to the lobbyists, and only create new
>> TLD's where they were absolutely necessary, it wouldn't be such a
>> playground for the speculators, and alot of the growth would die off.
>> normally, i'm in favour of having a body like ICANN in control of the
>> chief mechanisms that make the internet go, but i am starting to think
>> that shifting it to the UN or (ick!) the ITU might mean that there will be
>> less senseless commercial exploitation.
>> i mean, who really benefits from the introduction of .mobi?
>> did it create a whole new set of applications that would not have been
>> there had they not created .mobi?
>> what is the real benefit of .asia? will it miraculously create a new
>> economic zone where all of the internet entities in the asia demographic
>> will cooperate to dominate those in the .info namespace?
>> really, it is strictly a game to be played by those who a) "own" the
>> registry and b) those who will exploit it to trick people into thinking
>> they are losing something if they don't get their own .asia domain.
>> also, why are all the new TLD's based on english, which albeit the
>> dominant language of business, when english is no where near the dominant
>> language of the actual users of the internet?
>> things like IDN are more practical. although, its introduction will create
>> a whole new atmosphere of exploitation, not only from the speculation
>> front, but from the phishing fronts as well.
>> i'd be happy to see a moritorium on the creation of new TLD's until IDN
>> has been properly and widely integrated.
>> but, what do i know? i've only been dabbling on the internet since the
>> Jim Mercer
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Menog