ICANN Update: The Polarizing Issue of New gTLDs
Cross-posted with permission from The WHIR
Adam Eisner, Director, Domain Services for OpenSRS is in Sydney, Australia attending ICANN’s 35th International Meeting. While he’s there, Adam will be writing regular reports for The Web Hosting Industry Review (The WHIR). Thanks to The WHIR for letting us cross-post Adam’s entries here.
In my last post I discussed some of the planned proposals for new domain name extensions that had emerged here in Sydney. Although on the surface new domain name extensions are very exciting, the notion of potentially introducing hundreds of new gTLDs has created some polarizing issues. Many of these are being fervently discussed here at the conference.
At one session, a very animated discussion took place around the separation of registries and registrars. Domain name extensions are operated by organizations typically referred to as “registries”. VeriSign, for example, is the registry behind the operation of .COM and .NET. Per their agreements with ICANN, registries cannot sell domain names to the public directly; instead, they are required to use registrars (of which Tucows is one).
But what would happen if a registrar participated in a bid for one (or more) of these new gTLDs? Would registries and registrars really need to be fully separated? Is it a conflict of interest to operate as both? Although no decisions were ultimately made at the conference, the topic was hotly debated, and heated discussions on the issue are sure to continue.
Another issue discussed at length was the interests of trademark holders versus those of the larger Internet as it pertained to registrations of names under these new extensions. While new gTLDs will likely mean more choice, it could also open the window for exponentially more abuse by cybersquatters and other nefarious entities. Securing your company name in the popular .COM, .NET and .ORG forms can be difficult as it is. Now imagine potentially trying to secure it in dozens, or even hundreds, of new extensions. The notion has many in the community concerned, and a team was put together to recommend an approach. The team’s ultimate recommendation was a sort of centralized “clearinghouse” concept: a universal database containing trademark information for registries and registrars to consult. The recommendation was scrutinized and discussed at length during the conference, and it became immediately clear there were many both for and against the solution. This is another issue which is sure to be discussed and reviewed at length in the coming months.
Neither these nor many other issues related to gTLDs will be resolved at this meeting. In fact, ICANN doesn’t yet have a fully definitive timeline for they will be introduced to the market (best guesses at this point is late 2010). However, the purpose of these meetings isn’t to always come up with ultimate conclusions; rather, they’re for the Internet community to come together to discuss major issues at hand and collaborate on solutions.