CircleID

A cranky letter from the NTIA to ICANN [PDF], submitted in late December during ICANN's comment period for new top-level domains, has encouraged the awkward coalition of those opposed to new TLDs. The NTIA (National Telecommunications and Information Administration), a division of the Department of Commerce, is the agency tasked with being ICANN's watchdog. So a letter from them carries some weight, though not as much as some people think.

The letter basically says (read it, it's not long) that ICANN hasn't proven that new TLDs will benefit the consumer, which I suppose is true, although I wonder how anyone could prove that without actually trying it. Otherwise, the letter asks for many of the changes that others who support new TLDs (including me) have asked for, including justifying the excessive fees, come up with a way other than auctions for deciding which applications are better, come up with a better way of managing contracts, etc. etc.

ICANN's response is predictable: we received many comments, they raised some good points, our next draft will have changes based on the comments we received. Period. NTIA's letter is one of many. I'm not sure why people thought that ICANN would change direction based on a cranky comment, even from the NTIA.

There are good reasons ICANN won't change direction. When you consider these all together, it's hard to see how they could do anything except push ahead.

• New gTLDs are a core mission since ICANN's inception. No-one can be surprised this is happening, only that it took so long.
• The process for new gTLDs was originated in the GNSO (ICANN's "General Assembly") and brought forward in accordance with the procedures in place. These procedures, in turn, were brought about by the constant (and justified) harping about how ICANN needed to be more transparent and democratic. It wasn't the Board who thought this up. In other words, the new gTLD activities happened because ICANN did what the NTIA (and others) insisted that it do. If the NTIA cares at all about being consistent, they aren't left much room to object.
• The NTIA can chastise ICANN, but they have a pretty blunt instrument with which to do so. They can not renew ICANN's lease if they want to, and choose to create a new ICANN. I doubt very much that they're interested in doing that. Otherwise, they can simply voice their displeasure from time to time, as we all do.
• There's a new administration in town. Of course there is a certain level of follow-through between administrations, but it's likely that the Obama administration will have different priorities from the Bush administration. From that perspective, the letter from Acting Assistant Secretary Baker has less weight than it might have had a few years ago.
• It's not as if everyone is against new TLDs. In fact, opposition seems to be limited to trademark holders, who continue with their longtime opposition; domainers, who have suddenly discovered the allure of protecting vested interests; and ICANN detractors, who hate everything ICANN does. I wouldn't call this a united or stable coalition.

Domainers are caught in a bit of a bind. On the one hand, they bravely tout the idea that .com is king, that .com is so ingrained in people minds that nothing will ever change it, that domainers should ignore new TLDs (see for instance comment #10 here). On the other hand, their lobbying organization, the ICA, has taken on the task of stopping new TLDs with vigor, suggesting that in fact there is concern about people thinking something besides .com.

In general, the domainer press has given a lot of attention to something that, in the orthodox domainer formulation, is irrelevant. The publication of the letter on ICANN's site ignited a conflagration in the echo-chamber of the domain press.

The most colorful overamplification is Domain Name Wire's headline "U.S. Government Has Domainers' Backs." Whatever else you can say about Secretary Baker, she is definitely not in the business of protecting domainers. She gets lobbied all day by intellectual property owners, most of whom would throw an anvil to a drowning domainer. Verizon's $33M judgment against OnlineNIC is an itty-bitty clue about how trademark owners feel about domainers. (Yes, there is a valid distinction between "domaining" and "cybersquatting," but that's not how many trademark owners see it.)

There are some who want to stop new TLDs, for a variety of reasons. I'm not at all sure that the NTIA is among them; they just want to make sure ICANN doesn't hand them a headache. But there are lots more who want to see new TLDs go ahead, and they've been working at it for 10 years. For many, a TLD means having an identity on the Internet. These include regional/ethnic groups (e.g. .CAT for Catalonia, already in the root), some brand owners who would rather promote their own brand than VeriSign's .com brand, community groups who see the promotional value of all their members using an email address that promotes the organization (e.g., .AARP), and yes, some entrepreneurs with what they think is a good idea.

ICANN is following its procedures and is moving ahead. Many people filed comments (including the NTIA, but also including myself) on what we saw as flaws in their plan. ICANN is addressing these, and the new draft will tell us how well they succeeded. But I don't see this movement being stopped, or even slowed down significantly.

By Antony Van Couvering, CEO of Minds + Machines. Antony Van Couvering also contributes to the Minds + Machines weblog located here.

Related topics: Cybersquatting, DNS, Domain Names, Registry Services, ICANN, Internet Governance, Top-Level Domains