The risks of releasing hundreds of new TLDs at once outweigh the benefits.
It’s no secret that I’m generally opposed to introducing new top level domain names. And I’m not alone. Even before people started talking about a mass introduction of new TLDs, most of the domain name industry was opposed to new TLDs. I’ve asked the question on every Domain Name Wire survey for the past four years, and the no’s always beat the yes’.
But I think it’s important to explain my reasoning, and that I put everything on the table.
Every person and entity that is making a case in favor or against new TLDs has something to gain or lose if they are introduced. The registries and registrars will make money (at least in the short term), the consulting companies will make money, the outside trademark attorneys will make money, ICANN will make money and expand, and the large trademark holders think they will lose money. Other people think they will get rich registering and reselling new domains. .Com domain owners will likely not see any adverse effect (they may actually get more traffic), but domain investors in other extensions may be hurt.
I personally stand to reap a windfall in the early years if new domains are introduced. Registries will clamor to promote their TLDs and rise above the noise, and that means they’ll come to sites like Domain Name Wire to advertise.
But after a few years I, and the internet community, will be in a worse position. That’s why I’m opposed to new TLDs.
1. Consumer confusion will lead to an unsafe internet. New TLDs will make it easier to carry out scams and phishing attacks. Don’t think about your internet skill level; think about your grandparents’. Will they recognize that BankName.web isn’t really their bank?
2. ICANN will lose its path. Even though it will get a lot of money from the introduction of new TLDs, managing the ensuing headaches will be challenging. It will take its eye off the ball of what it was set up to do, especially when it has to defend against multiple lawsuits.
3. Politics will play a bigger role in the Net. The process of introducing new TLDs has already shown how politics rears its ugly head. Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) is using this as an opportunity to add new restrictions to geographical names. Various countries and politicians are using this as an excuse to add or change regulation.
4. Registries will fail, leaving customers in a lurch. Even when a registrar fails, such as Parava, people can lose access to their web sites and lots of money. The same thing will happen with new TLD operators. The draft guidebook includes very limited protection to keep registries going after failure.
5. Large registrars will become too powerful, harming competition. Registries need the support of registrars to push their domains, as they control the “shelf space” for selling domain names. The big registrars will be able to negotiate sweetheart deals, thus hurting small registrars. Big registrars will also be able to create their own TLDs and push them. (There’s an ongoing battle over separation between registry and registrar.) This will ultimately decrease registrar competition.
6. Fundamental changes to domain name regulation will be pushed through without proper controls. We’re already seeing a rush job on changing how trademarks and domain arbitration works.
This isn’t all-inclusive, but is an overview of my rationale. Why not start with a few IDNs or a limited release of new TLDs? Why open up the floodgates at a cost of over ten million dollars? It doesn’t seem like a rational business or policy decision.
Roger Collins says
Some very good points here. I want to editorialize on your editorial.
#1 is weak. BankName.biz or BankName.secureweb.biz or some variation is already available to scammers. Too many other ways to spoof addresses without meaningful domain names anyway. They have not been held back by lack of new gTLDs.
On #5 you need to make up your mind. If demand for new gTLDs is weak then there cannot be much advantage in offering them with sweetheart deals or not.
You might add weak demand as another reason to be against gTLDs. You probably omitted this one because you just posted a whole post about it.
Still nice work though. A rare principaled position given your expected short term gain from gTLDs being introduced.
Andrew Allemann says
@ Roger – I guess I shouldn’t have made the weakest one #1. It kinda came to mind first.
For #5 I think even with weak demand these sweetheart deals can hurt the smaller registrars. Registrars will make money in the first couple years from these new domains, even if total registrations only equal 500,000 or so per TLD. A couple years of this sort of advantage could do damage.
Reece Berg says
Excellent post Andrew — I can certainly see like you said there being possibly money to be made by those with sites related to the domain name industry through more viewers and hence more / better paying advertisers.
One thing which I have wondered about as well is how many people might accidentally type .com at the end of these new extensions thinking there’s no such thing as a .blog, .eco, etc — might end up getting a whole lot of free traffic to the owners of blog.com, eco.com, etc if they have wildcards set up.
I have to agree with you that I see no logic behind releasing all the extensions at once — if anything, that’ll destroy what little hope any of them have of being mass adopted.
Just seems like a moneygrab to me to be honest — a whole lot of people are going to make a windfall and not many people are going to be worse off except all the dumb domainers who buy up this fool’s gold.
I might as well stand on the side and sell them a shovel like everyone else seems happy to do.
bernard says
If the street guy could understand subdomain (e.g. news.google.com), he won’t have to struggle to much with new top level domains.
I guess domainer are the only looser of expanding the domain space, before they feel they dominate a fake rarety.
Rob Sequin says
Well thought out and I agree but just to play the other side and look for a positive here…
Say .disney and .ebay get approved.
Both companies might roll out multi-million dollar ad campaigns promoting these new “opportunities” for people to get a great domain name.
So, that would put domains in general on peoples’ minds which would be a great thing for all of us.
Many people will say why would I want mysmallbusiness.ebay? Why don’t I try to buy mysmallbusiness.com?
Never know. Something good might come out of it.
D says
I believe one day will be technically possible to register *.* so I do not think *.ext is something I should care about
trey says
“Why do people believe in imaginary returns, frauds and fakes?… Do we believe things because it is in our self-interest? Or is it because we can be manipulated by others?”
John Berard says
I suspect most of the potential confusion that might be caused by an explosion of new names will be settled by an increased reliance on search.
Ultimately, their success will require CMOs from well-known companies to change their minds.
Rather than defend the value of a single site at dot com, if they come to see the value of many sites at a TLD of their own, the new extensions will take off.
T says
I think the real damage that would be done would be the crowding and confusion of search results. MyBusinessName.com, that previously would be at the top of the page when searching “My Business” could potentially be lost in a sea of MyBusinessName.whatevers