ICANN's Take On New TLDs

Developing new top-level domains holds the promise of alleviating over crowded .com space on the Web. There are many theories regarding possible solutions—here's another one.

by Julie Wheeler [January 24, 2002]

It wasn't so long ago that the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) started making noise about new TLDs. Industry experts have spent the last several years hemming and hawing about what should be done to expand available .com domain space.

In November 2000 the international organization announced the selection of seven new TLDs slated to hit the market throughout 2001—four unsponsored extensions and three sponsored TLDs

The response to the new extensions has been, for the most part, positive. Clearly, early registration enthusiasm of the newly operational TLDs indicates that the need for added Web space remains strong.

Illusive success
Now that businesses have their .biz addresses, and individuals have there .name domains, and .info has been introduced, will the domain name craze caused by the dot-com boom and .com deficiency cool down?

Tell me this: as Web hosting companies and service providers that are all tangled up in the same naming system, are your customers asking for more dot-space? And if so, what are they asking for?

Nobody freak out and tell me that domain name space is on a course for implosion or send me hate mail about ICANN. I want to know if the market really needs another .com clone? I expect that the answer is probably no, but I'd like to know for certain.

Chances are that the next TLDs scheduled to be added to the dot-com mix will receive little fanfare and even less take-up. This is not to say that these new TLDs will not find footholds within the niche markets they were intended to fill. Like the way .aero, .coop and .museum satisfy bits and pieces of dot-interests. But let's face it, even with the grandiose debuts of the unsponsored test bed TLDs (.biz, .info and .name, so far), you don't exactly see billboards screaming out Web destinations with these new extensions en mass, do you?

Weights and measures
Before ICANN adds any more new TLDs, we need to know how the first seven new domains have performed. There were some, how shall we say, hiccups in the systems several of the new registries used.

Problems ranged from confusing boundaries in intellectual property claim periods and questionable land rush policies—like NeuLevel's .biz deployment, to bogus sunrise registrations—like Afilias .info program, and finally to questionable second-level e-mail forwarding practices—like those of Global Name Registry.

Of course, there are also people out there who wanted hundreds of new domain options dumped into the market immediately. These are the same people that will tout the overwhelming successes achieved by the new TLDs and push for more. After all, none of the new registries have brought the Internet to a screeching halt so far. That's at least something—isn't it?

Survey says
To divine this information in a slightly more scientific and exhaustively detailed manner than could be duplicated here, the ICANN board of directors authorized the President, M. Stuart Lynn, to deploy and chair a task force on the matter.

The group, called the New TLD Evaluation Process Planning Task Force (NTEPPTF), released a statement in December 2001 that requested public as to defining its charter. The NTEPPTF proposed questions designed to evaluate the performance of the new TLDs and as usual, admitted it could not perform its required duties in the time frame allowed. The task force did, however, state that:

"The ICANN Board may find that it needs to move forward faster than can be accommodated by a serial and somewhat lengthy process. There may be a need to move forward in parallel."

This alignment for action makes sense, since the earliest stages of application and selection were completed well over a year ago and have already been discussed at length.

The question that remains is; what kind of new TLDs the board should consider? Most of the applicants (a.k.a. the $50,000 donors) from the first round of TLDs are understandably anxious to have another whack at it.

However, in the same document as noted, the task force advises that:

"The Board may (or may not) wish to move forward faster in initiating processes to launch new sponsored TLDs if it assesses the risks are significantly less than those associated with launching new unsponsored TLDs."

What does all this mean? Rather than adding more highly commercial names now, the organization might focus on domains that are sponsored and require less direct management by ICANN. At least, this was the buzz circulating at the annual meeting in Marina del Rey, California in November. Naturally, these rumblings upset many of the former applicants backing unsponsored TLDs.

Until ICANN makes an additional selection of TLDs, no one has any idea which direction the group will favor. As to what direction it should go? Probably everyone—and every one of your customers—have your own thoughts about all this. I recommend that you voice your ideas to ICANN if you want a piece of the action.

—End