Joe Schoenmann of the Las Vegas Sun reports: "The Las Vegas City Council will debate today whether to strike a deal with an Internet entrepreneur who seeks to use the Internet suffix .vegas—over the objections of Clark County officials and one local company who say the city is jumping the gun and in the process likely shortchanging Las Vegas and county taxpayers. The council will consider endorsing a proposal by Dot Vegas Inc., to create the top-level Internet domain ".vegas"—a new suffix that could be used in addition to the familiar .com, .net, .gov or .org suffixes that end most Web addresses."
Related topics: Domain Names, Domain Registries, ICANN, Top-Level Domains
To post comments, please login or create an account.
need i write more? if lvnv and/or clarkco put out an rfp they will get bids, and it is unlikely that $1.50/domain-name/year defines the high end of municipal revenues.
Governments should not be involved in high-risk speculation with tax dollars. This is why so many governments are going bankrupt.
Russ,
Your eagerness to wield an ideological ax isn't improved by overlooking the fact that the proposals are structured so that what the municipal and/or county government is risking is having their existing resource, the name "vegas" mismanaged (underutilized, chaotic, etc.) and receiving less revenue than a competitive bid process would produce, see Barcelona, Paris, Sydney, and New York.
There are some interesting issues present: how will we (as authors of the DAGvX evaluation process) determine which application best meets the test for non-opposition or better, if applicable for a City not a capital of an ISO 3166 territory? how will we (again as authors) determine which application best meets the test for community support? how will we (again as authors) determine which applications form a "contention set" based upon "user confusion" (not limited to visual simularity) should two or more applications for Las Vegas use different strings?
Taking of the DAGvX authoring hat, by going sole-source non-competitive this early in the process, Clark County and the City of Las Vegas have made it commercially reasonable for anyone with the risk capital to apply for a string-like-vegas and market it as the better primary property or necessary secondary property, sharing no revenues with Clark County or the City of Las Vegas.
Nonsense. First of all, nobody is going to care about a .vegas extension much like nobody cared about .la. Maybe many years down the road these extensions will be used but that will certainly be well past the terms of the current elected officials.
Governments are not in a position of getting involved in commercial ventures because they are based on getting votes, not earning revenue. When there is a revenue shortfall they just raise taxes and damage businesses even more. These processes where the government gets involved almost always end up in some corrupt deal where political favors are passed around and the taxpayer is left holding the bag. Nevada, like many US government, has a tremendous fiscal problem now and they should not wasting time and resourced on high-risk commercial ventures. Now you have entrepreneurs trying to convince government officials to do something rather then seeking legitimate investors. Why? Because the only people to invest in such a scheme don’t have to put their own money on the line, they risk the taxpayer’s money. Such a system is contrary to the free market system and has lead to the high deficits in Nevada.
Revenues are created when businesses flourish and pay taxes, not by governments running commercial ventures and taking a cut. We don't want to end up like these socialist countries in places like Europe where bureaucrats run everything and take everyone's money. In that climate is to too expensive for small entrepreneurs to start businesses because of all the taxes and regulation.
Russ,
When you find out how much money the City proposes to commit, and if that amount is a number larger than zero, or even the base application fee of $185,000 (current), as the City of New York proposes, your comments may begin to appear reasoned.
They are already wasting resources debating this while they are in the midst of a financial crisis. The issue is about government control of the system which would only lead to problems of political favors. If anyone actually does want a domain under .vegas they need the right political connections, not a coherent business plan. As you can see from the story, businesses need to convince City Council to vote a certain way to get what they want.
Being from New Jersey I have watched this sort of thing where the government, in about 40 years, has taken one of the most prosperous States and has turned it into a laughing stock as far as fiscal responsibility. It is interesting that you bring up NY since it is actually worse than NJ in that respect.
I am sure you will just dismiss these comments and never provide a coherent answer. This is common of many of the people on this board who are involved in these huge bureaucratic systems such as ICANN and the like. They never have to answer to anyone, produce a business plan, or make a profit. They just go around the world pontificating and spending other people's money ... and if those "other people" actually complain they are labeled as someone who is not "reasoned" and should be ignored. Meanwhile, these elitists take one more step into driving everyone into bankruptcy.
Russ,
As you haven't yet made a coherent question, you can expect, but you're not likely to get, a coherent response.
Exactly what part of this actually interests you? The time spent by the city considering a franchise proposal thought likely to create direct revenue and jobs? The specific franchise, being that of the City's common use name? The request by the proposal author that the City not ask for competitive proposals?
Also, if you're not involved in Internet Governance, nor in registry operations, nor a resident or even occasional user of the City and the surrounding area, what is your real interest in the issue?
I brought up New York as CORE submitted a bid to the DoITT in response to that agency's RFP for a contractor to manage a .nyc gTLD, and I have the honor to be CORE's CTO, as well as the operator of a CORE member company.
You cannot answer any of the issues. You want to attack my response by claiming it is not coherent and try to attack my standing. I am a "taxpayer" for the so-called Internet governance but I assume you feel I am not entitled to an opinion because I am not a member of the chosen class of elitists involved in the process.
Governments do not create revenue or jobs. When a government hires people they tax and transfer jobs from the public sector or they transfer jobs from one part of the public sector to another. As for creating revenue, the only way they do that is to tax or print money. .vegas is likely to create a debt for the taxpayers and divert government officials from managing the City. Local governments should not even consider getting involved with these things because they fail more than often then being successful. If they are successful at some point they are propped up well past the point of being successful and become a liability to the taxpayers.
I am familiar with CORE from years ago enough to know that if you have a domain in the CORE system you should get it out as soon as possible because CORE did not answer anyone when there is a problem with one of their registrars. Some of the registrars used to lock domains and block transfers away. I remebering having to waste my time trying to call someone in Europe who could not have cared less.
The time spent by the city considering a franchise proposal thought likely to create direct revenue and jobs
Eric,
Do you seriously expect .vegas to generate sustainable revenue and jobs?
I’m wondering who is going to buy .vegas domains beyond the limited number of obvious domains like (hotels.vegas and casino.vegas) given the economy is driven by tourism, gaming and conventions and the dependent hotels, dining and retail industry + a the HQ’s of a couple of 500 companies?
Sure speculators might pile in the first round of new gTLDs and companies may have to defend their marks. But McDonalds is really unlikely to want to have to register (never mind create and maintain sites for) mcdonalds.vegas, mcdonalds.la, macdonalds.nyc etc. (On a quick check mcdonalds.la seems to be unregistered and mcdonalds.us is owned by McDonald’s Corp but is parked)
How many residents would want to register a domain? I’m not sure of the ratios of webmasters to surfers to total residents but given a population of only around 1.8 million (even if you look at the wider area) and compared with .us which has population of 308 million and 498 of the 500 companies; Plus competing with possibly 500(?) or so new gTLDs in the first round and the 25 years head start of .com the odds don’t look too good…
Do you really believe .vegas will be even sustainable beyond the sunrise and initial speculator surge periods?
Right. That is why there is a marketing campaign focused on elected officials who are not risking their personal funds. I live in a small seahore town in NJ and they spend $5K per month to have a company run a Facebook page and make sure they moderate the comments. An Internet guy in town tried to explain to them that they would never recoup the money but they did not listen and they are spending the money anyway because someone told them Facebook is important (or, more likely, one of the politicians has a relationship with the company getting the money).