ICANN says ‘no’ to wildcards.
Registries that are awarded new top level domain names will be prohibited from wildcarding unregistered domains, based on the latest version of ICANN’s applicant guidebook.
The new registration agreement reads:
For domain names which are either not registered by a registrant, or the registrant has not supplied valid records such as NS records for listing in the DNS zone file, or their status does not allow them to be published in the DNS, the use of DNS wildcard Resource Records as described in RFC 4592 or any other method or technology for synthesizing DNS Resources Records or using redirection within the DNS by the Registry is prohibited. When queried for such domain names the authoritative name servers must return a “Name Error†response (also known as NXDOMAIN), RCODE 3 as described in RFC 1035 and related RFCs. This provision applies for all DNS zone files at all levels in the DNS tree for which the Registry Operator (or an affiliate engaged in providing Registration Services) maintains data, arranges for such maintenance, or derives revenue from such maintenance.
.Com registry VeriSign created a wildcard several years ago, dubbed SiteFinder, that automatically showed ads to internet users who typed in non-existent domain names.
Although registries will be prohibited from wildcarding, they can register domains in their TLD and do with them as they please. All that’s required is that they register the domains through an ICANN-accredited registrar (which they may own) and pay the associated ICANN fees for each registration.
Domain Investor says
Quote –
“Although registries will be prohibited from wildcarding, they can register domains in their TLD and do with them as they please.”
We all know that is what Enom plans to do.
Jeffrey Reberry says
Domain Investor – care to elaborate on eNom’s plans?
Frank Michlick (Domain Name News) says
There’s still the issue of separation of registries and registrars, or did I miss that one falling off the table?
Andrew Allemann says
@ Frank – the new guidebook doesn’t make progress on registry/registrar separation. It basically says all options are still on the table. Seems most likely they’ll be allowed to have ownership if they cap the TLD they ‘own’ at 100k registrations or so for their registrar.
Lee H. says
I agree with Frank. This just allows for more collusion to occur. Registries and registrars have no business being in bed with one another other then to take advantage of registrants.
Dan says
I was under the impression that the wall that separates registrars and registries is set to be knocked down at the next icann in korea.
AR says
I understand the rationale for existing public registries but considering that many private companies may wish to register their own brand as a TLD, the use of wildcarding in those cases actually presents the best possible end-user experience, i.e., if the end-user ‘fat fingers’ the 2nd level name (http://promoo.brand instead of http://promo.brand), the name should resolve to the correct and intended landing page.
Lee H. says
There would be more bad then good from allowing wildcarding. Furthermore, how many brands are really going to make the investment to have their own TLD? I can see it for a myspace, facebook, ebay and/or google, but for coca-cola or a pepsi its worthless. Im pretty sure theyll stick with .com and ccTLDs. That said the list of practical uses are far shorter then the list of profiteering that will go on with this change.
Stock Watch says
@ Lee, on the contrary, it won’t be long before .cocacola and .pepsi will be deshackled from the .com once the process is permitted to begin. It’s a matter of prestige for these brands and it’s likely there will be a domino effect that follows for other brands as well.
gpmgroup says
@ Stock Watch
That’s idealist thinking and raises fundamental issues
1) If there is a .dell and .ibm why should HP be disadvantaged?
2) Why should the economically advantaged be awarded this implicit branding advantage?
At the moment anyone wishing to set up a software company to compete with Microsoft the cost is $10 a year + hosting then its all down to skill and innovation.
If brands to the right of the dot enjoy implicit branding advantage then the level playing field of the Internet is destroyed forever.
John Berryhill says
“Furthermore, how many brands are really going to make the investment to have their own TLD?”
I wouldn’t hazard a guess. Usually, the best way to predict the future is to listen to me, and then choose the opposite of whatever I say. However, the best “elevator talk” I ever heard on this subject went something like this:
At one point in time, there was a subtle distinction in perception of businesses whose email addresses were [email protected] and [email protected]. As the story goes, why should your business be “promoting” aol.com, YourIsp.com, etc., when your email address can itself promote your brand. The “branded TLD” case takes the same argument to the right of the dot, and suggests that using a gTLD like “.com” may come to be seen as dated, in the same way that leading-alphabetic telephone numbers did.
Does anyone remember telephone numbers like that – my number is JOhn5-5601 – or am I simply getting too old?
Andrew Allemann says
I think we’ll see only a handful of companies use a TLD for themselves at first. More will do it when prices drop. Let’s face it, application fees won’t stay $185k forever.
One benefit to a company is that it could snuff out cybersquatters. A drawback is they’ll have to alias everything with a .com, such as us.ibm.com, since so many people will still type in .com after the address.
John Berryhill says
But, back on point, at least Verizon, Comcast and Time Warner will be able to monetize all of the non-existent domain traffic.
AR says
@ Lee … I understand your “more bad than good” rationale were we discussing a large existing zone, but we’re not. If I were running marcomm for a large brand (where $185,000 would be a rounding error in my budget), I could see many advantages to using a .brand to consolidate my marcomm at the benefit of my consumers. In this case, a wildcard (in my .brand zone only) is a navigational aid, nothing more.
Having said that, it’s safe to say that none of us on this board are managing multi-hundred million $$ budgets for any large brand companies. Ultimately the folks that do that for a living need to tell us if the concept makes sense. But, if they do, I believe the use of a wildcard in their new TLD zone would be a valuable addition.
AR says
@ John B … yes, thank God … we wouldn’t want to intrude on VZ, Comcast, et al’s ability to provide those really useful response pages 🙂
Lee H. says
@AR $185,000 is an inaccurate assessment. That’s just to get everything setup. That doesnt include operational costs or the huge sum it would take it to market the extension. You’d have to get folks to type not only the keyword(s), but then get them to type something other then then .com.
I see the value to a wildcard for this instance; however, it goes back to the original reason, IMO, that gTLDs should be allowed on a more limited basis. Confusion, that’s all the typical consumer stands to gain from this.
Andrew Allemann says
I’ll laugh if Verizon gets .verizon, and then Comcast starts showing ads on anything.verizon.
AR says
@ Andrew … I have to admit the thought of that scenario is compelling/amusing