So, for example, you are looking at the DNS from the perspective of domaining. Well, domaining didn’t exist in any real form until just a few years ago. In terms of the DNS it is a very recent arrival.

Now I am assuming we can agree that the domain name system is going to continue to change significantly – we have not reached a final state here – and with every change comes advantages and disadvantages; opportunities and risks.

The Internet itself can be pretty much be defined as something that has consistently created opportunities and risks. The reason we all love it is because those opportunities have consistently massively outweighed the risks.

I believe that exactly the same will be true for new generic top-level domains. It will open up a whole world of other possibilities. Because we don’t yet know what they are (who foresaw Google, eBay or Facebook?) it is all too normal for us to look at the risks they present to the current system.

The only rule – if you can have a rule with the Internet – has been that the more space you give people to try things out on the Internet, the greater the reward. Do new generic top-level domains provide that extra space? You better believe it.

I think we are going to see some extraordinary things when the DNS is expanded further.

As to why ICANN is doing it – because the organization’s job is increase competition in the domain name system. It was recognised by the Internet’s original designers that competition – or, more accurately, the ability for people to try out new things – was what gave the Internet its life.

It is also worth noting here that ICANN doesn’t create these extensions. It simply puts the process in place – it is up everyone out there to come up with their ideas and apply.

If you start thinking about it, would having an arm of the DNS be useful to you? What about .parking? What about .domain? Can you see any possibilities in these? If you can’t, many, many people across the globe can.

Kieren

http://www.thedomains.com/2009/01/15/icann-responds-to-our-post-on-new-gtlds-were-not-in-it-for-the-money/

Reckon that this question I’m going to ask makes enough sense – Why do we or ICANN feel the need of launching more extensions?

Every day I as a domainer go through list of thousands of expiring or dropped names and I guess about 60% of domain names out there in all major extensions are just lying their unregistered or parked somewhere used for nothing. Which makes me wonder, at times, that isnt ICANN just creating mess for self & us by launching new extensions left right n center when most of the previous ones didn’t fair well?

Mess for self because they will have to do more work managing new extensions and process related to it.

Mess for us because competition will rise and value of other extensions will drop, because people will have hundred or thousands of extensions available.

If ICANN is not for profit organization then I dont think they need to focus too much on “making money” by launching new extensions every year and this issue needs to be discussed, addressed properly by seeking input from public.

We should put more effort into promoting previously launched extensions, along wit carving out a plan to get more people to register what for what is already there rather then making way for new extensions to hit the internet world frequently & disappear in no time.

Just my two bits!

-
Jay M
http://www.ParkingFirm.com

> where was the demand for these new gTLDs demonstrated?

It was demonstrated in the previous two rounds of gTLD extensions in 2000 and 2003.

In both those cases, the number of new Internet extensions was purposefully limited so that their impact on the Internet could be carefully assessed. In both cases, despite everything knowing there would be a tight limit, there were many more applications that applications approved.

The 2000 round details are here: http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/app-index.htm

The 2003 round details are here:
http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/stld-apps-19mar04/

It has always been the case that ICANN is going to expand the Internet domain space in line with its remit to promote competition on the Internet. But things were done slowly and carefully.

The difference in 2008 is that with the lessons learnt from the two previous rounds that a new system was developed in which there would be no arbitrary limit on new gTLDs.

The policy took roughly two years to develop, and then the implementation of that policy has taken around one year. It is that implementation process that is currently out for review by the whole Internet community.

> will the new gTLD’s be revenue neutral to ICANN?

The application process will be. But that leads to your next question:

> Will the fees generated by the new extension in either application fees or registration fees paid to ICANN per new gTLD registrations, not increase ICANN budget?

It depends. ICANN has estimated that there will be 500 applications. If there are fewer, ICANN will be out of pocket. If there are more ICANN will have extra money.

Will the extra fees paid for by the new gTLDs increase ICANN’s budget? Yes. But at the same time there will be greatly increased costs in administering those new registries.

If, even with the extra costs, ICANN makes more money than its budget, it will do one of two things (both of which are explicitly stated in the Applicant Guidebook for new gTLDs).

ICANN will either lower per-domain fees; or it will consult with the community on what should be done with the extra money. It may do both.

Why “consult with the community”? Because ICANN is a community and it is the community that ultimately decides what to do. If ICANN’s staff was to say “we will do this with any extra funds”, we would be asked to explain how we had come to that decision without consulting the community.

So, assuming ICANN does have more money at the end of this process – which is probable but nowhere near definite – we will have to ask people to come up with ideas on how to use the money.

One idea that I personally like – although it can be expected that parts of the community will not like – is to set up a foundation similar to that which Nominet has set up in the UK and disperse funds on community-based programs that expand Internet use.

I would also like to see extra funds going to charities that promote Internet use and I would like to see funds going to getting people online – in Africa in particular.

And I would like to see a greatly increased budget within ICANN for expanding participation in our processes – because that would make my job 1,000 times easier.

But there are personal preferences. It will be for the wider community to decide.

I hope that answers your questions.

Kieren McCarthy
General manager of public participation, ICANN

Thanks for your response, but when you say this new gTLD process was devised by the Internet community itself, where was the demand for these new gTLD’s demonstrated?

I have been to every domain conference since the first TRAFFIC show years ago, meet with large domain holders, parking companies, representatives of Google and Yahoo, and I never heard one person ask for or discuss the need for any new domains, (other than .xxx) much less hundreds or thousands of new extensions.

If ICANN is not “in it for the money” will the new gTLD’s be revenue neutral to ICANN?

Will the fees generated by the new extension in either application fees or registration fees paid to ICANN per new gTLD registrations, not increase ICANN budget?

How can money not be an issue when the proposal will raise so much of it?

ICANN is a not-for-profit organization. The whole process has been specifically and explictly set up to ensure that it is “revenue-neutral” i.e. that ICANN as an organization doesn’t make money from it.

ICANN’s budget is reviewed and agreed to by its community – and you – any of you – are entitled to comment on it each year, as well as define what ICANN should spend the money on.

When ICANN recently took in more money than was in the budget, it responded by lowering the per-domain fee it charges registrars.

It is perhaps only natural when a large chunk of the domain name market is now focussed on making profit with the product itself (the domain name) largely irrelevant beyond its value, that ICANN will be judged to be following the same pattern.

It is not the case however. The new gTLD process was devised by the Internet community itself over several years. ICANN as an organization is carrying out the wishes of a consensus policy arrived at through discussion with businesses, governments, the technical community and civil society.

In short: ICANN is demonstrably not in it for the money.

Cheers

Kieren McCarthy
General manager of public participation, ICANN

Do we even need that many .blah’s when almost 60%-70% of already released are just lying there for nothing.

Very rightly said, one of the notable reasons why ICANN doesn’t care is because we as domain investors don’t voice our opinion in front of them and in a proper manner..

Another great post MHB. I can see that you already having a great time in 2009

Best
-
Jay M
ParkingFirm.com