“In a dramatic change of internet policy, ICANN has proposed to approve and implement the roll out of more than 400 new top-level domains within the next few months. Top-level domains are what you see to the right of the dot, such as “com” or “org.”””
OK other than his use of the term, RIGHT OF THE DOT (I like that) this is not a dramatic change, its a change that ICANN has been working on vigorously for over three years.
“Right now, there are 21 top-level domains. If ICANN’s new policy is implemented, we will see top-level domains such as .car, .newyorkcity, .hotels and hundreds more”
Well actually its going to be .nyc not .newyorkcity.
“Those in the business of making money by selling domain names agree, and, unfortunately, they have inserted themselves into ICANN’s policy-making process. For example, the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) in ICANN’s multistakeholder operational model is responsible for introducing and developing the top-level domain policy at hand. The GNSO, however, is largely composed of the same registries and registrars that stand to gain financially by the proposed massive introduction of new top-level domains.”
The GNSO hasn’t inserted themselves into ICANN policy making decisions they are a stakeholder group like any other entitled to there opinion. You could say the IP trademark group inserted themselves into the discussion but I guess the author is OK with that group influencing policy
“This new policy will have great social, economic and security costs. If these new top-level domains are introduced, opportunities for cybercrime and fraud would be increased substantially.”
Where is the proof of that?
There are hundreds of ccTLD’s that carry the same risks.
“If you are a consumer attempting to set up a checking account online, and you have to decide which website to give your personal information to – citi.bank, bank.citi, citi.com, citi.bankaccount or even citichecking.bankaccount – how would you determine which are trusted sites providing accurate information? How would you determine which are fraudulent sites actively misinforming the public?”
Same way you do now, carefully. Like you can bank at citibank.com you can bank at .citibank.
“A massive introduction of top-level domains will overwhelm the existing framework for combating cybercrime, putting millions of internet users at unnecessary risk.”
Another unsupported statement.
“”In addition, consumers will be forced to take extensive measures to protect themselves from fraud and other malicious activities on the internet.”
Again what facts back this up?
“And companies will have to pay more to protect their trademarks.”
No were getting to the motivation for the story, its all about trademarks and the cost of defensive registration that in IP group’s eye’s should lock the Internet down in its current form forever.
Perhaps most dangerously, our national security might be further compromised as a vastly expanded internet increases places for terrorists and criminals to hide in cyberspace.
“At the time of ICANN’s conception in the late 1990s, few anticipated the economic value of domain names or imagined a company, like today’s ubiquitous GoDaddy, that would capitalize on that value.”
“”ICANN’s original mission – as a domain name regulator with a policy-making process inclusive of all internet users – was well-intentioned, but it has been polluted by constituents primarily concerned with financial gain, leaving the rest of us bearing the cost.””
You mean like the IP groups which have clearly not only polluted the process but single handy stalled it and almost killed it.
Wisely CNN has the disclaimer at the bottom:
“The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of Nao Matsukata.”
Your not kidding