Today Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) called .Sucks “little more than a predatory shakedown scheme designed to force large corporations, small businesses, non-profits, and even individuals, to pay ongoing fees to prevent seeing the phrase ‘sucks’ appended to their names on the Internet.”
The story has been picked up by Politico.com and Adweek.com and I’m sure by another 100 publications over the next few days.
I believe we were the first to raise the issue, but certainly not the last.
We also took issue with some of the terms of the application of the .Sucks applicant in question based on their announced pricing in another post a day later.
At the time we said this was going to be an issue for ICANN and the new gTLD program.
Now it is.
Our original post had 72 comments including from another .Sucks applicant.
Today none of the applicants could be reached by the mainstream press for comment.
Maybe they should be reading TheDomains.com
I am glad this issue is getting some mainstream attention. This is exactly what the new gTLD program should not be about.
The response by the applicant John Berard (CEO of voxpopuliregistry) @ Domain Incite is worth a read.
I hope there is a Congressional hearing about this. I would love to see John Berard called to testify in defense of his application and pricing structure.
If ICANN allows this extension to exist they are going to severely damage their credibility as well as the credibility of the new gTLD program.
Brad
Another one
http://www.businessinsider.com.au/senator-decries-sucks-website-names-2014-3
though they didn’t spell donuts rights
I think the Senator’s time would be better spent improving upon why Congress.SUCKS
I’m not wholly opposed to the new extensions and do see some positive opportunities being introduced — alongside extra costs and problems.
But this must be the understatement of the year:
“If ICANN allows this extension to exist they are going to severely damage their credibility as well as the credibility of the new gTLD program.”
Yes. But at this point, how much credibility is left to bruise?
.SUCKS is only the most flagrant example of motives that have steered many other — NOT ALL — applications for new extensions. The premise has been that a massive expansion of gTLD choices is something that will enhance our online experience and that consumers were clamoring for such a change.
How plausible is that? Given that ICANN has received a massive cash injection as a result of this program … and given that standards are low enough that .SUCKS might become a reality? .SUCKS is not the only shake down underway, by any stretch of the imagination.
Some applicant registries do have motives that are relatively pure. There may be genuine added value for registrants of a .WIKI or a شبكة. And even when the motive is entirely monetary, that’s no shame. Blogs built on .TIPS will probably become popular, no doubt in part due to the visual shortening of the domain. But what are we to make of .COMPANY, which is so similar to .COM and which companies seem to be buying for defensive purposes at significant cost? Obviously, the position of that extension is somewhat more nuanced; but is it wholly dissimilar to .SUCKS? Revenue must be anticipated, and it stands to reason that income from defensive registrations has formed a major part of the business model in many cases.
When it comes to this new gTLD program, it seems clear that improving the world’s internet experience has not been the sole (possibly not even the primary) aim.
most new gtld registrants are made up of 2 main groups
fear and dreams
the fear, domainers worried about being left behind, if gltds take off and they don’t have any, seeing other domainers buy, etc
companies worried about how these gtlds will effect their online presence, worried about ‘squatters’, etc
the dreams, people from all walks of life who heard about these new domains thinking its 1994 all over again and somehow the .com domain have-nots will become the haves if they buy these ‘new and innovative descriptive awesome futuristic’ domains.
The whole .whatever system is a shakedown pyramid scheme. Once they get to the core of that issue I’m sure they will start asking questions about other extensions. The government has seemed to get involved with this real fast, which is also interesting… maybe this is the beginning of a federally regulated internet. This is how things like that start. They know how much money is being made online and will want to get their foot in somewhere, the only money we make is the money they let us make.
It’s not really a black-and-white situation.
Every day, I speak with domain investors who like or hate the nTLDs. There is a fishy odor emanating from the ICANN initiative, but the extensions are here regardless. Overall I’m skeptical of their value as investments meant for resale, but I’m happy to experiment with them on a small scale to see whether and how they can be profitable.
I also speak with people from outside the domain industry who have chosen to register vanity extensions for their own use — not just defensively. Frankly, I see nothing wrong with that whatsoever, provided they protect themselves (if necessary) with the corresponding .COM. And I plan on recommending vanity extensions as options for my clients when that is appropriate. They will have their place, although for most of them that place will be small in comparison with .COM, .NET, .ORG, or established ccTLDs.
Best to steer a middle course between Scylla and Charybdis …
I don’t get it… these are $25,000 reg fees? Why would any company need to worry. Just leave it available to register. Nobody else will spend $25,000 to buy your .sucks domain. Sounds like a publicity stunt to me… just kidding, get yours for $34.99
@companynamesideas You appear to be a voice of reason in a vast sea of insanity with regards to what’s currently happening to the internet. It is my hope and dream that ICANN will be supremely knocked out of place for the ridiculous direction it has taken the naming system and, in effect, the entire internet. A serious-minded, visionary, non-greed-oriented governance needs to be put into place and soon.
More stories overnight
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/03/senator-sucks-web-domain-lives-up-to-its-name.html
http://www.businessinsider.com/senator-decries-sucks-website-names-2014-3
http://www.charlestondailymail.com/Business/JaredHunt/201403120213?page=2&build=cache
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-senator-not-a-fan-of-sucks-web-sites-2014-03-12
http://www.thewire.com/technology/2014/03/senator-jay-rockefeller-opposes-sucks-domain/359118/
http://www.slashgear.com/senator-rockefeller-opposes-sucks-domains-13320500/