.Sport questions the definition of “top level”.
If the .Sport Policy Advisory Council has its way, Shaq won’t be able to get his hands on the .basketball TLD.
In a letter to ICANN Chairman Peter Dengate-Thrush and CEO Rod Beckstrom, the .Sport Policy Advisory Council suggests that a top level domain name should be the very top of a category, and anything less than that would diminish the importance of top level domain names.
The letter states:
…Thus, the international sport family fully supports ICANN’s desire to logically expand the Domain Name System in an orderly manner and looks forward to seeing .SPORT on the Internet very soon.
However, we also take this opportunity to raise a serious concern and hereby inform you that we emphatically oppose any diminution of .SPORT and will take all steps necessary to ensure that the top-level domain for our sector is properly protected. We are concerned that ICANN may be prematurely entertaining a process that will allow proliferation of names in sub-categories or individual sports, which will lead to confusion in the marketplace of users. We cannot accept ICANN approving any applications for top-level domains that could diminish the solidarity implied with .SPORT.
This rationale could be a slippery slope as everything could be a category of something else. By the council’s definition, .music may not be allowed because it is a subcategory of .entertainment. .NYC shouldn’t exist because it could be part of .newyork, which in turn could be part of .us (which already exists as a country code domain). And perhaps .Sport shouldn’t exist because it’s a subcategory of .things.
This is part of the argument that new TLDs shouldn’t be released at all, since everything can operate under .com, such as sport.com or basketball.sport.com.
Let the games begin.
This is an example of the tortuous “logic” of new gTLD lobbyists. When it comes down to it, they only are in favour of new TLDs if they themselves stand to directly profit from them.
If one introduces simple procedures like having a tender process for operation at the lowest cost for consumers, as advocated by the US Department of Commerce and Department of Justice:
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/comments/2008/ICANN_081218.pdf
then the new TLD lobbyists start to howl in protest, because that would eliminate their profit potential. the DOC and DOJ should put an end to this farce, and make more direct instructions to ICANN on how to proceed. The current circus has outlived its entertainment value.
With all due respect to Ron Andruff, who has been a pioneer, this is really, um, dumb. Under this logic, .SPORT should be eliminated because it should fall under the uber-category .ACTIVITY, and perhaps .ACTIVITY also should be suppressed because it would fall under .HUMANITY.
Or, to take it to its logical extreme absurdity, it should all fall under .COM, which means nothing at all.
Perhaps we should look outside of our bubble and ask WHY on this planet would anyone want to register any .Sport domain name. I wouldn’t even want to buy Sport.com let alone basketball.sport or some other .Sport domain name. How about we save everyone some time just agree that there is no need for a .SPORT extension.
I understand .NYC, but .SPORT????
Am I missing something?
For the sake of clarity, and to avoid further confusion with our trademark, we wish to make clear that the DotSport not-for-profit Association (Luxembourg) does not share the views of Dotsport LLC.
We think the name space is large enough for more players. Our goal is not to sell more domains by eliminating competitors, but rather to build a strong, clearly identifiable TLD, with relevant registrations, even if that means less of them.
We find quite funny that the DotSport LLC’s Policy Advisory Council wishes to prohibit competition by regulation, although fair competition is a fundamental value of sport.
There is more here than meets the eye. This issue is the tip of the iceberg. The “top level domain” system will be undermined, and the net ultimately compromised, as more and more keywords get moved to the right side of the dot. Mark my words.
Once we have .realestate, .realty, .homes, .condos, .newyorkhomes, .ohiorealestate, ad infinitum … the net will be irreversibly polluted.
From a controlled growth perspective, there are benefits to restricting tld expansion such that you don’t have too many similar addresses coming out at the same time. For example, it would be detrimental to have both .nyc and .newyork released & marketed at the same time.
The overriding logic should be “Don’t flood the market with new tld’s”. The downside of flooding the market greatly outweighs any imagined benefit. This, of course, goes against ICANN’s unyielding quest for money.
Mr. Domains: You’re not missing anything.
M Menius:
The net will be polluted, but not irreversibly. I have been working with small businesses since 1997 in the most hands on way possible – getting them to advertise. It has given me a 12 year insight into how the general public really views and utilizes the Internet and I can tell you that there is a wide chasm between theory and reality. The bottom line is that over 95% of these gTLDs will fail because few will be actually utlized by the general public (there is a big difference between registering and developing a name – ask dotMobi). Yes, there will be a “honeymoon phase” where celebrities and politicans will jump on the bandwagon along with plenty of dopey “Death of dotCom” news articles by the MSM, but after the dust settles in a couple of years few will be left standing regardless of ICANN’s rule that a new registry must have five years of funding.
@David – “95% of these gTLD’s will fail because few will be utilized by the general public”.
You’re probably right about that.
I can’t see any legitimate argument against slow, controlled growth around staggered releases of select domains. “Flooding” will muddy the waters for quite a while as registrars pump and dump new tld’s during the initial domainer feeding frenzy.
ICANN has packaged this as “innovation”. If the need had been clearly demonstrated, then several more market-specific tld’s could be justified. It’s the scale of the releases that’s counter-intuitive leaving one to only conclude a profit motive imo.
“The bottom line is that over 95% of these gTLDs will fail”
The bottom line is that most businesses of any kind fail. Eventually, the earth will be engulfed by an expanding sun.
I’m amused by many of the arguments both “for” or “against” new TLDs. I just can’t see what’s wrong with letting people try, and then succeed or fail as circumstances should happen to turn out.
The only solid suggestion I would make, given the reference above to “further confusion with our trademark” is that any TLD applicant making a claim to a trademark in the TLD string for the service of operating a TLD registry, should be immediately disqualified. Such claims are an early indication that the applicant will claim a perpetual right in the TLD “as a mark”, preventing re-delegation according to the standard terms of ICANN-registry contracts.
A TLD does NOT operate as a mark for domain registration services, since the entire POINT of such services is to get OTHER people to use the TLD string. Those claiming such rights richly deserve special ridicule.
A TLD does NOT operate as a mark for domain registration services, since the entire POINT of such services is to get OTHER people to use the TLD string. Those claiming such rights richly deserve special ridicule.
What about people who want a whole gTLD to themselves 🙂
Why should the .search TLD company want to sell its second level to bing.search and google.search? I mean it would only lead to confusion with content delivery from competitors and .search TLD’s own content such as video.search and image.search and news.search and shopping.search
John:
95% of businesses failing is a far cry from 95% of TLDs failing. A lot of people are going to get sucked into this and, because ICANN appears to be opening the floodgates, there’s going to be collateral damage that you’ll never see when businesses brand themselves with a legacy or country code TLD.
For the record, I am not opposed to new TLDs because I believe they will eventually cement dotCom as the gold standard. Whatever the public wants they should have, but launching 400-500 new TLDs en masse is sheer lunacy. There is simply no public demand for it and the herd was already scared off once in 2000.
Regardless, it will be a fascinating chapter in the evolution of the Internet to observe and I’ll be making lots of popcorn.
Vive et vivas.
I think we are all missing the point here a little.
Let him try whatever tactic he can to reduce competition. I don’t think it is a particularly smart play on this occasion but points for trying.
It has no creedance and ICANN will ignore it. Simple as that.
I also agree with John Berryhill in his comments. Business fail all the time. The were a heap of ISP’s that went belly up back in the day and the world didn’t end. They were simply consolidated. ICANN should simply ensure they have a decent “registry failover” strategy in place to ensure continual coverage. Job done.
Wonder if .fail might be available?
@ Adrian
The GAC, NTIA, DOC, DOJ, IOC, The Holy See, many of the largest corporations in the world and now even would be applicants are all telling the GNSO their proposals for new gTLDs are seriously flawed.
The GNSO’s proposals will fundamentally change the most successful system in the history of mankind, yet even though the ICANN Board too has requested economic studies into the benefits and implications of new gTLDs nothing!
Years pass and still nothing!
Instead all there is is more wrangling this time to try and remove some of the safeguards afforded to registrants and smaller players by registry/registrar separation.
How is it possible that a handful of individuals, some representing organizations which stand to benefit enormously from the introduction of new gTLDs, are able to dismiss these real concerns so totally?
@gpmgroup – “How is it possible that a handful of individuals, some representing organizations which stand to benefit enormously from the introduction of new gTLDs, are able to dismiss these real concerns so totally?”
What you just mentioned is a highly relevant question … that ICANN and cohorts do not seem willing or able to answer. Why? It exposes how ill-prepared the organization is to launch unlimited tld’s, and to manage the forthcoming fallout. If ICANN can trivialize these concerns, or ignore them, then responsibility to rectify them can be deflected. And the money mill allowed to be launched.
John Berryhill wrote:
“that any TLD applicant making a claim to a trademark in the TLD string for the service of operating a TLD registry, should be immediately disqualified.”
Let me elaborate on that: DotSport is the name of the NFP that will apply for .sport. We do not claim to own the TLD space. Rather, we protect our business name, just like any responsible organization would do.
There is nothing new under the sun. The European trademark office database already has entries for DotName, DotBerlin,DotKöln, DotMusic, DotGMBH, DotCar, Dot Eco, DotHotel, our own DotSport, and many others to mention. The USPTO has similar database entries.
@ Anne – you are correct, lots of TLD applicants are doing this. John is saying it’s wrong, and under current trademark policy you can’t U.S. trademark a top level domain. Furthermore, since an applicant is only a steward for the domain, it would create problems if the applicant ever lost its contract with ICANN. You can read my article about this here.
Just wanted to announce that, convinced by the logic of .Sport’s letter, I am putting together an investor group to apply for .everythingandeveryoneunderthesunandmoon, the ultimate preemptive new gTLD.
All other prospective gTLD applicants can move on to other non-DNS plans as this gTLD will be the ultimate top level subsumes them all.
😉
@ Philip –
I’ve got you beat – .everythingandeveryoneunderthesunandmoonANDstars
LOL Phil.
It does end up demonstrating that ICANN has strayed far from its “technical” mandate, and entered the realm of entertainment and politics:
https://domainnamewire.com/2009/09/02/mindsmachines-sues-wolfgang-puck-over-food-tld/
We’ll know by the end of the month where the US government stands on all this, so hopefully they’ll put an end to the circus and give ICANN proper directions with less “discretion” to do bad things in the future.
Andrews:
I’ll see you and raise you. We shall amend our application to be for .everythingandeveryoneunderthesunandmoonandstarsin thissolarsystemandallothergalaxiesinthisand allparalleluniverses
That would seem to be the ultimate preemptive gTLD — although it probably won’t get a lot of type-in traffic 😉
Philip, I think I’ll stick with .com
🙂
We wish to give notice* that we intend to apply to Trademark
.
For sole use in Internet commerce
We hereby give notice that should our application to trademark . be successful we intend to enforce** all usage to both the left and the right of our mark.
We hereby give further notice that we have existing common law rights to our . mark. All of our clients will confirm we have used our mark extensively in all of communications since incorporation.
* Including Andrew, John & Philip
** license [cough]
Sorry Phil that surpasses the 63-character limit 😉
With regard to trademarks, we’d welcome a pronouncement from ICANN saying that trademarks on top-level domains (e.g. on “dotsomething”) will not be considered. We’ve filed for trademarks like that because our competitors have done so and we don’t feel we have much of a choice *in case* ICANN gives these things some credence.
We’ve filed for trademarks like that because our competitors have done so and we don’t feel we have much of a choice *in case* ICANN gives these things some credence.
This is the problem with formulating policy around trademark rights. All it does is create a race to acquire the “best” or “most” trademarks.
Policy should be driven by a desire to protect the underlying goods and services not the trademark itself.
Whilst it’s easy to formulate policy around trademark rights genuine mark holders will be the losers in the long run because those looking to game the system will simply acquire trademarks in the least onerous jurisdiction.
@Anne,
Adrian Kinderis appears to state above [post 12#] in reference to dotsport’s letter
“It has no creedance[sic] and ICANN will ignore it. Simple as that.”
So if ICANN chooses to ignore your advice do you think on balance it would be better to abandon all sport related TLDs including .sport rather than allow a proliferation of .football .fussball .soccer .nfl .fifa .olympics etc?.
@gpmgroup Please see post #4 above. DotSport ASBL Luxembourg has no connection with the US-based dotSport LLC, other than we are both competing for the same TLD string. We do not support the position that our American competitor has submitted to ICANN.
@andrew re: your blog post. Please note that John Berryhill’s comments are only relevant in the US trademark law context. Further, as previously mentioned, the goal is not to claim an exclusive right to a piece of the TLD space, but to protect our organization name.
As Anthony Van Couvering mentioned in your post, one of the goals is to be able to react in case some other applicant would deny our right to submit an application for .sport to ICANN by invoking trademark rights.
We have been working on our proposal since 2006. Ever since, we have heard of two other proposals for the same string, one being the subject of the original discussion. I guess it is easier to copy some else’s idea than to come up with something original. The last thing we would want is to see our application being challenged by some late comer with trademark claims to the string.