The Next Internet Revolution

In 2013 more than 1,000 new top level domain extensions are scheduled to begin rolling out. Joining the existing ranks of .com, .net and .info will be intriguing new strings like:

.web .search .game .shop .music .app .home .sport

The new gTLD list includes around 650 general dictionary words, not only English ones, and you can expect to see new websites like:

The controversy: many companies have applied to operate "closed registries" on generic words — that is, they want to commandeer dictionary words like "shop" and "book" and by owning every single domain in those extensions (like Camera.shop, Book.shop, Phone.shop, Auto.shop and Movie.shop etc) gain major monopolistic advantage.

Everyone else will be shut out from these "walled garden" private internets.

Hundreds of brand domains and dozens of city domain categories will also be released. A massive amount of money will be spent promoting these domains which will very likely lead to a major shift in public perception of the domain name system. More info follows.

Sample potential brand domains:

Sample city domains:

Domain Monopolies

There is no limit to the number of new domains which can be created in each dot category and in some cases may number in the millions. The scope of some of the new strings is gigantic, take a look at what the .news string and .store string might look like.

Hundreds and hundreds of dictionary words are being sold off. However...

There is no requirement that successful registry applicants must onsell those domains — and some applicants have already indicated that NONE OF THEIR DOMAINS WILL BE FOR SALE TO THE PUBLIC. This leads to the unintended (?) possibility that super monopolies for the lucky (read wealthiest) winners will be created. The biggest corporations in some industries will undoubtedly acquire the most relevant strings in their fields, dramatically and irrevocably reinforcing their already dominant market positions. This could have dire consequences for fair global online commerce by facilitating the build of giant super monopolies, shutting out their competitors. Fait accompli.

In a disturbing news story headlined "Amazon.com won't offer domain names to the public" (June 14, 2012) Domain Name Wire sounded an early warning:

"Amazon.com intends to only offer domain registrations to itself.

"Amazon.com has applied for 76 top level domain names. But don't expect to be able to register any second level domains underneath them...

"...I'm a bit shocked by the company's plans. It effectively removes a large swathe of the new namespace from public consumption."

("Second level" refers to the words on the left of the dot).

Read an excerpt from one of Amazon's actual applications on the dot store page.

Another story examines ICANN's closed domain registry policy and mentions that the US Department of Justice and their European Union counterparts may become concerned about the possible implications:

"With Amazon applying to operate over 75 new gTLD’s all on a closed basis, including .App, .Books, .Music , .News, .Shop meaning that no one besides Amazon would be able to register any domains under any of the extensions they get.

"Basically Amazon would own the entire right of the dot space for any of the extensions they win...

"It is not outside the realm of possibilities that the DOJ and/or their European Counterparts will take a look at this... Its going to be a problem."

The Domains: "The Top Policy Mistakes ICANN Made In The New gTLD Program" (July 24, 2012)

This Infographic displays actual excerpts from ICANN's mission statements and Bridgestone's official application for .tires as a closed gTLD. There is also a whole page about the .tires string here.

BrandShield Domain Research

BrandShield has provided an excellent online analysis of the new domains with a comprehensive chart showing which applications are open and which are closed. This research is an invaluable resource:

BrandShield domain application list.

(Some strings are defined as "restricted" — this simply means that anyone who wants to register a domain under that TLD must first be eligible. For example, one of the applications for the .inc domain extension states that only genuine incorporated companies may apply for a domain.

.INC is a hotly contested string with 11 applications. Five are for open registries, and six for restricted.)

SPECIAL NOTE — SuperMonopolies defines "restricted" as indicating a type of "open" registry, and supports the concept subject to examining each individual application. However, as you can see from a small number of objections on the ICANN closed generic forum, some people define it as indicating "closed" registries. This is confusing.

Questions

SPECIAL NOTE: See Glossary at left for explanations of terms like ICANN and TLD.

The previous separation of registries from registrars served the internet very well in the past. The lessons from more than two decades have been learnt. Thousands of domains are traded on the open market every month. Why change a proven policy that promoted reasonably fair commerce?

What right has ICANN to sell off the exclusive rights to English dictionary words? (Not to mention a few in other languages).

How will the Chinese government (and other governments like France) react if a US company for example is granted "ownership" of a Chinese or French dictionary word?

Is there any evidence that ICANN understands the long term consequences of their flawed process? Why are they ignoring the fundamental principles that have underpinned the relatively equitable, fair and open access to assets in the dot com registry to date? (Verisign operates the dot com registry responsibly. If Verisign wishes to acquire a name like SecureData.com for example, they have to pursue it on the open market, the same as everyone else. They didn't pre-own it.)

How does this impending allocation of closed gTLDs fit with the responsibilities, mission statement and aims of the US Department of Commerce, and its so-called oversight of ICANN?

Doesn't the United States government and the Department of Commerce have a commitment against global economic monopolies?

Read about ICANN's claims here.

Brand Domains

Many of the world's top corporations have applied for a brand TLD. There will be a domain name explosion. One of the first to announce their intention was Canon, for example. Others include Google, Apple and Microsoft. This means that in 2014 domains like Camera.canon, Search.google and Word.Microsoft will appear on the web.

Of course, comments on this site about "super monopolies" and "domain monopolies" do not apply to brand strings which are completely legitimate. (Except perhaps where the brand name is also a common word.)

I support the legitimacy of the proposed new brand TLDs with a few exceptions. (For example, brands that have usurped pre-existing geographic names for their own marketing such as .patagonia and .amazon which should not be allowed).

Under ICANN's plans, people such as the residents of Brazil will be blocked from owning domains such as Santarem.amazon (a city on the Amazon River) and countless other towns and regions whose precious history goes back thousands of years.

Similarly, the rollout of exclusive domain strings comprised of generic, dictionary words like .apple should at least be debated. Don't apple farmers have any rights?

At the very least, ICANN needs an independent tribunal to grant rights to a group of apple farmers, for example, to own a relevant .apple domain subject to certain conditions to protect the computer company called Apple.

City Domains

Many major world cities have applied for their own strings. These will operate in the same way as ccTLDs with responsibility and administration handled by the city authorities themselves. So cities such as London, Paris and Sydney will have their own city domain systems. These cities will own names like Hotel.london, Perfume.paris and Police.sydney and will be able to utilize or sell them as they please.

These city domains will form part of the commercial infrastructure of the cities.

Again, comments on this site about "monopolies" do not apply to city TLDs. Each city can legitimately decide how to allocate these types of names to local residents, organizations and businesses in the fairest way possible. Let's hope the city authorities strive hard to allocate their domains fairly.

It will be fascinating to see how the City of London awards the domain Hotel.london to one of the numerous applicants. The City has the right to determine this dilemma. It's also a big responsibility for the City.

This is a small problem compared to the governance of the .hotel domain string. There will be many, many applicants for the London.hotel domain. Who will be the registry for the .hotel string? Will the London.hotel domain be available for sale, or will the .hotel registry own every one of the tens of thousands of relevant .hotel domains in existence, thus potentially becoming a global hotel giant almost overnight?

This is the crux of the problem that the world is just waking up to. If a single entity is allowed to own a valuable string like .hotel in exclusivity — massive, sometimes insurmountable advantages will accrue over its competitors.

Here is an edited excerpt from the objection to closed .hotel and .hotels strings by Accor:

"...Among the applicants seeking to obtain a monopoly on a generic term representing or closely linked to their own economic sector, the online travel agencies Booking.com B.V. and Despegar Online SRL applied for the generic terms HOTELS (and) HOTEL...

"They do not plan to allow the public or members of the hotel community to register domains using the extension.

"This would surely have serious anticompetitive consequences and limit consumer choice across the Internet...

(This will allow) "...Booking.com B.V. and/or Despegar Online SRL to choose which hotels will be offered a domain name under their TLDs and to dictate their commercial conditions to partners and hotel stakeholders."

(See more about Accor's objection on the ICANN Forum 5 page.)

The question is, will ICANN take action over the looming crisis while there is still time?

TERMS, CONDITIONS, DISCLAIMER AND COPYRIGHT NOTICE. No part of this website may be reproduced or transmitted in any form whatsoever without the express written permission of the copyright holder. The right of David Tyrer to be identified as the author of this work is asserted in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. The Super Monopolies site (www.supermonopolies.com) site shall not be re-transmitted, repurposed, printed, lent or otherwise circulated in any printed or electronic form without the written permission of the copyright holder, and shall not under any circumstances have these conditions waived for any recipient. The artistic integrity of the work contained herein may not be altered or repurposed in any way, shape or form without the express written permission of the copyright holder. This site contains links to other sites outside our control or ownership. No responsibility is taken for any action or advice you may take from these sites or from any of the information presented by these pages. Super Monopolies bears no relationship with some third party advertisers displayed on this site. Display of those advertisements does not constitute endorsement, recommendation or association with them. Any references to any trademarks or service marks are not our responsibility and not under our control. Information on this site is presented on an "as is" basis in good faith only and as such Click as a Flash makes no warranties regarding the accuracy, adequacy or completeness of any of the material provided. We cannot be held liable for any errors, inaccuracies or omissions in the material presented on this site or its links, nor for the consequences of acting on any information that may be presented, which may have changed or be out of date. We cannot be held liable for any financial or any other damages that may occur from accessing, relying upon or using any hypotheses, opinions, investment advice, commercial advice, ideas or concepts presented here. No information presented here should be construed as legal advice. Content of this site is well-intended opinion and hypothetical speculation only and should not be construed as legal or expert advice. No warranty is given regarding the accuracy of this site and any information used is at your sole risk. No liability whatsoever is accepted with the exception of any that may be required under Australian law. Any brand names mentioned on this site are trademarks or registered marks of their respective owners. Any use of these marks on these pages is purely speculative and hypothetical and does not represent actual use of those marks by those trademark owners. No claim is intended that any of the companies mentioned on this site are intending to create monopolies, this site is merely presenting speculative information to show that competition to such companies may be challenged in the light of the power of the internet. Terms and conditions are subject to change without notice. Copyright in some images resides with istockphoto® and these photos are used under licence. All data, images, text, videos and audio are presented for viewing purposes only. No part of the data, images, text, photos, art, audio, logos, movies or trademarks or any other content may be repurposed, copied, saved, resold or reproduced in any way without written permission. Click as a Flash's registered Australian Business Number is ABN 62 188 088 529. © David Tyrer 2012-13 All Rights Reserved.