6 ms·

ICANN reveals objections to proposed top level domains

38 points by microwise 14y ago

samarudge 14y ago
Actual list is available here https://gacweb.icann.org/display/gacweb/GAC+Early+Warnings https://gacweb.icann.org/display/gacweb/GAC+Early+Warnings Looking through, the first thing that I noticed is the number of domains rejected by Australia, looking through the PDFs the reasons all seem valid, it's just strange that Australia is the one rejecting them.
- archangel_one 14y ago
  As hard as it is for a Kiwi to suggest, it looks like Australia are just being a bit more perceptive and thoughtful than other countries by considering all way ways this crazy gTLD thing is going to go wrong. Personally, I'm glad some country is objecting to allocating .city to some arbitrary commercial entity.
  - vacri 14y ago
    As an Australian, don't worry, you can take it back. Our Communications Minister is dead set on online censorship - he's just had to drop his idea for online filtering in the face of heavy corporate and public opinion against it. The TLD thing is simply a case of 'right outcome, wrong underlying motivation'. I'm heavily against the new gTLDs because I don't see why private entities should own generic words. '.com' is not a generic word. '.book' is. I don't think the payoff is worth any of the multitude of problems.
- 18pfsmt 14y ago
  Interesting: -Argentina and Chile object to Patagonia Inc's attempt at .patagonia -India objects to .bible -Nigeria objects to Delta Airlines attempt at .delta -China objects to .shangrila from some hotel chain by the same name -Australia objects to most everything else including .sucks
  - paulgb 14y ago
    > Australia objects to most everything else including .sucks It's important to note that this isn't because it offends them, but because whoever holds it can basically print cash once brands start realizing they need to register (brand).sucks before anyone else does.
    - 18pfsmt 14y ago
      Fair enough. They appear to object with 1 of following 2 reasons: 1) Company X does not appear to specify sufficient mechanisms to allow communities to protect their names and reputations from misuse at the second level, except through defensive registrations. or 2) Company X is proposing to exclude any other entities, including potential competitors, from using the TLD. Restricting common generic strings for the exclusive use of a single entity could have unintended consequences, including a negative impact on competition.
    - jiggy2011 14y ago
      I would instigate a rule that to register a whatever.sucks you have to be unaffiliated with the brand/company in question.
  - vacri 14y ago
    - Greece only objects to .basketball
- caf 14y ago
  Australia has a strong competition / consumer protection watchdog - it may be that the advice of the ACCC was sought by the Department of Communications (that submitted the objections).
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
nulluk 14y ago
Can someone cross reference this to the list of gTLD that were initially submitted? To see what ones weren't objected to?
- Ogre 14y ago
  This is the rough list of domains that no one objected to: https://gist.github.com/4145536 https://gist.github.com/4145536 I didn't find a nicely formatted CSV of complaints, all I had was the page itself, which I pasted into a spreadsheet and extracted a list from that (the HTML wasn't consistently formatted either or I would've done something with that) I did find a CSV of domain proposals here: http://newgtlds.icann.org/sites/default/files/reveal/strings-1200utc-13jun12-en.csv http://newgtlds.icann.org/sites/default/files/reveal/strings... I did some processing on both to get them to all lower case, removed spaces and translations as best I could, and ran cat (both files) | sort | uniq -c over both of them, at which point, any line that starts with " 1 " is a line that only appears in one file. So, the list I gisted is "mostly" domains that no one complained about, but it may also contain domains that someone complained about that weren't actually proposed, and several steps along the way were error prone so it definitely has other mistakes. The domains with non-latin characters may not have worked properly in particular. I might've spent a little more time on it, but I'm on my way out the door. IE don't make any business decisions based on this list :) EDIT: err, wound up back in the door. And noticed I totally screwed up the one I pasted in (forgot the "sort" on the last run I did, duh.) It's better now.
Hupo 14y ago
Gotta say I have to give props to Australia for objecting to most of these. Some relevant reading: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120613/12491719310/rip-off-highlights-top-level-domain-scrum.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120613/12491719310/rip-of... http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121116/02455021073/domain-shakedown-companies-warned-about-dangers-unprotected-sx.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121116/02455021073/domain...
Evbn 14y ago
This whole gLTD thing is stupid and will cause horrible confusion and scamming. There should be .global or .world and each country should pick a translation or two of "global", and they should all be aliases for each other. Basically just make non-US-specific version .com for all uses.
- TazeTSchnitzel 14y ago
  What about just ".g"? It's a single latin letter, easy to say, and short enough that non-English speakers will be able to deal with it.
ohashi 14y ago
Interesting to see Donuts co didn't get mentioned once despite applying for 320 gTLDs.
- duskwuff 14y ago
  Wishful thinking: Perhaps they got rejected already, so any objections are moot?
- kijeda 14y ago
  That is because Donuts applied for its gTLDs through a number of LLCs with names like "Delta Mill, LLC" and "Snow Sky, LLC". You can find a great many of them objected to.
  - ohashi 14y ago
    Ah that makes more sense.
TazeTSchnitzel 14y ago
Apparently some Chinese company tried to get the chinese for ".gov" or ".government", and the Republic of China[1] and Hong Kong[2] governments are unhappy, to say the least! [1] https://gacweb.icann.org/download/attachments/22938690/GOVIDN-TW-56316.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1353452204000 https://gacweb.icann.org/download/attachments/22938690/GOVID... [2] https://gacweb.icann.org/download/attachments/22938690/GOVIDN-HK-94344.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1353451730000 https://gacweb.icann.org/download/attachments/22938690/GOVID...
smoyer 14y ago
Three cheers for Australia! I think our experience with the last set of TLDs show us that having more isn't necessarily better. Think of how many domains you'll need to capture to protect your brand (Australia's main objection). I think the other way around this is to boycott the new TLDs ... if anyone wants to collaborate on a couple browser plug-ins I'd be more than happy to help.
- Jach 14y ago
  Why would I care about owning all the (brand).(tld) pages? If I own .com, it's enough. If someone is trying to be my brand without my permission, there are already legal ways of dealing with that. If they're just another brand in a different space of the market with the same name, I don't care. Apple the tech company is quite different from Apple the apple company. If someone makes (brand).sucks, that's really no different to (brand)sucks.com.
masenf 14y ago
I thought it was interesting that Saudi Arabia was opposed to granting certain gTLDs on the grounds that they would likely be used to host content which their culture considers offensive. To me, it seems like if that government could censor all* homosexuality and "substances detrimental to public order and morals" by blocking .gay and .wine, then that would be in its interest.
lalc 14y ago
Seeing a common theme in the LLC applicants whose generic choices of profession-related words Australia has objected to... Delta Mill, LLC Snow Sky, LLC Koko Moon, LLC Atomic Pipe, LLC Corn Sunset, LLC Dog Bloom, LLC Hidden Way, LLC Knob Town, LLC Spring Frostbite, LLC Victor North, LLC Blinky Sky, LLC and so on. Did someone actually get a random name generator and then register all those shell companies?
Groxx 14y ago
I can't decide if I think the TLDs should be first-come, first-served like regular domain names are (unless someone cares to correct me? I don't know specifics), or if I'd love there to be precedence blocking people from registering generic words. If you can register banana.com, why not .banana? But then .banana would certainly be squatted for someone holding out for millions against Chiquita, and that's just crappy for everyone.
coopdog 14y ago
I actually think some TLDs like .book, .app, .movie, could be useful. Often for movies you see they've used domains like reavingzombiesmovie.com, which would be better as reavingzombies.movie, and would let someone else buy reavingzombies.app or .book, for an entirely different product that happens to share a name All of these TLDs should only be sold to companies who plan to let people buy domains from them The idea of Amazon owning .book or Apple owning .app just seems bad for the internet as a whole

38 points by microwise 14y ago

Actual list is available here https://gacweb.icann.org/display/gacweb/GAC+Early+Warnings https://gacweb.icann.org/display/gacweb/GAC+Early+Warnings Looking through, the first thing that I noticed is the number of domains rejected by Australia, looking through the PDFs the reasons all seem valid, it's just strange that Australia is the one rejecting them.

archangel_one 14y ago
As hard as it is for a Kiwi to suggest, it looks like Australia are just being a bit more perceptive and thoughtful than other countries by considering all way ways this crazy gTLD thing is going to go wrong. Personally, I'm glad some country is objecting to allocating .city to some arbitrary commercial entity.
- vacri 14y ago
  As an Australian, don't worry, you can take it back. Our Communications Minister is dead set on online censorship - he's just had to drop his idea for online filtering in the face of heavy corporate and public opinion against it. The TLD thing is simply a case of 'right outcome, wrong underlying motivation'. I'm heavily against the new gTLDs because I don't see why private entities should own generic words. '.com' is not a generic word. '.book' is. I don't think the payoff is worth any of the multitude of problems.
18pfsmt 14y ago
Interesting: -Argentina and Chile object to Patagonia Inc's attempt at .patagonia -India objects to .bible -Nigeria objects to Delta Airlines attempt at .delta -China objects to .shangrila from some hotel chain by the same name -Australia objects to most everything else including .sucks
- paulgb 14y ago
  > Australia objects to most everything else including .sucks It's important to note that this isn't because it offends them, but because whoever holds it can basically print cash once brands start realizing they need to register (brand).sucks before anyone else does.
  - 18pfsmt 14y ago
    Fair enough. They appear to object with 1 of following 2 reasons: 1) Company X does not appear to specify sufficient mechanisms to allow communities to protect their names and reputations from misuse at the second level, except through defensive registrations. or 2) Company X is proposing to exclude any other entities, including potential competitors, from using the TLD. Restricting common generic strings for the exclusive use of a single entity could have unintended consequences, including a negative impact on competition.
  - jiggy2011 14y ago
    I would instigate a rule that to register a whatever.sucks you have to be unaffiliated with the brand/company in question.
- vacri 14y ago
  - Greece only objects to .basketball
caf 14y ago
Australia has a strong competition / consumer protection watchdog - it may be that the advice of the ACCC was sought by the Department of Communications (that submitted the objections).

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

nulluk 14y ago

Can someone cross reference this to the list of gTLD that were initially submitted? To see what ones weren't objected to?

Ogre 14y ago
This is the rough list of domains that no one objected to: https://gist.github.com/4145536 https://gist.github.com/4145536 I didn't find a nicely formatted CSV of complaints, all I had was the page itself, which I pasted into a spreadsheet and extracted a list from that (the HTML wasn't consistently formatted either or I would've done something with that) I did find a CSV of domain proposals here: http://newgtlds.icann.org/sites/default/files/reveal/strings-1200utc-13jun12-en.csv http://newgtlds.icann.org/sites/default/files/reveal/strings... I did some processing on both to get them to all lower case, removed spaces and translations as best I could, and ran cat (both files) | sort | uniq -c over both of them, at which point, any line that starts with " 1 " is a line that only appears in one file. So, the list I gisted is "mostly" domains that no one complained about, but it may also contain domains that someone complained about that weren't actually proposed, and several steps along the way were error prone so it definitely has other mistakes. The domains with non-latin characters may not have worked properly in particular. I might've spent a little more time on it, but I'm on my way out the door. IE don't make any business decisions based on this list :) EDIT: err, wound up back in the door. And noticed I totally screwed up the one I pasted in (forgot the "sort" on the last run I did, duh.) It's better now.

Hupo 14y ago

Gotta say I have to give props to Australia for objecting to most of these. Some relevant reading: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120613/12491719310/rip-off-highlights-top-level-domain-scrum.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120613/12491719310/rip-of... http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121116/02455021073/domain-shakedown-companies-warned-about-dangers-unprotected-sx.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121116/02455021073/domain...

Evbn 14y ago

This whole gLTD thing is stupid and will cause horrible confusion and scamming. There should be .global or .world and each country should pick a translation or two of "global", and they should all be aliases for each other. Basically just make non-US-specific version .com for all uses.

TazeTSchnitzel 14y ago
What about just ".g"? It's a single latin letter, easy to say, and short enough that non-English speakers will be able to deal with it.

ohashi 14y ago

Interesting to see Donuts co didn't get mentioned once despite applying for 320 gTLDs.

duskwuff 14y ago
Wishful thinking: Perhaps they got rejected already, so any objections are moot?
kijeda 14y ago
That is because Donuts applied for its gTLDs through a number of LLCs with names like "Delta Mill, LLC" and "Snow Sky, LLC". You can find a great many of them objected to.
- ohashi 14y ago
  Ah that makes more sense.

TazeTSchnitzel 14y ago

Apparently some Chinese company tried to get the chinese for ".gov" or ".government", and the Republic of China[1] and Hong Kong[2] governments are unhappy, to say the least! [1] https://gacweb.icann.org/download/attachments/22938690/GOVIDN-TW-56316.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1353452204000 https://gacweb.icann.org/download/attachments/22938690/GOVID... [2] https://gacweb.icann.org/download/attachments/22938690/GOVIDN-HK-94344.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1353451730000 https://gacweb.icann.org/download/attachments/22938690/GOVID...

smoyer 14y ago

Three cheers for Australia! I think our experience with the last set of TLDs show us that having more isn't necessarily better. Think of how many domains you'll need to capture to protect your brand (Australia's main objection). I think the other way around this is to boycott the new TLDs ... if anyone wants to collaborate on a couple browser plug-ins I'd be more than happy to help.

Jach 14y ago
Why would I care about owning all the (brand).(tld) pages? If I own .com, it's enough. If someone is trying to be my brand without my permission, there are already legal ways of dealing with that. If they're just another brand in a different space of the market with the same name, I don't care. Apple the tech company is quite different from Apple the apple company. If someone makes (brand).sucks, that's really no different to (brand)sucks.com.

masenf 14y ago

I thought it was interesting that Saudi Arabia was opposed to granting certain gTLDs on the grounds that they would likely be used to host content which their culture considers offensive. To me, it seems like if that government could censor all* homosexuality and "substances detrimental to public order and morals" by blocking .gay and .wine, then that would be in its interest.

lalc 14y ago

Seeing a common theme in the LLC applicants whose generic choices of profession-related words Australia has objected to... Delta Mill, LLC Snow Sky, LLC Koko Moon, LLC Atomic Pipe, LLC Corn Sunset, LLC Dog Bloom, LLC Hidden Way, LLC Knob Town, LLC Spring Frostbite, LLC Victor North, LLC Blinky Sky, LLC and so on. Did someone actually get a random name generator and then register all those shell companies?

Groxx 14y ago

I can't decide if I think the TLDs should be first-come, first-served like regular domain names are (unless someone cares to correct me? I don't know specifics), or if I'd love there to be precedence blocking people from registering generic words. If you can register banana.com, why not .banana? But then .banana would certainly be squatted for someone holding out for millions against Chiquita, and that's just crappy for everyone.

coopdog 14y ago

I actually think some TLDs like .book, .app, .movie, could be useful. Often for movies you see they've used domains like reavingzombiesmovie.com, which would be better as reavingzombies.movie, and would let someone else buy reavingzombies.app or .book, for an entirely different product that happens to share a name All of these TLDs should only be sold to companies who plan to let people buy domains from them The idea of Amazon owning .book or Apple owning .app just seems bad for the internet as a whole