Quantcast

ICANN Domain Plan: Brands Headed for Disaster?

IAB Speaks Out Against Domain Name Expansion

Get the WebProNews Newsletter:
ICANN Domain Plan: Brands Headed for Disaster?
[ Business]

The Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB) is speaking out against ICANN’s decision to open the domain name floodgates by lifting restrictions on generic top-level domains.

Are the new domains a good idea? Tell us what you think.

ICANN is to start accepting applications for new gTLDs on January 12, 2012. The application period will run until April. They’re expected to roll out late next year.

The IAB, however, is calling on ICANN to withdraw this plan, saying it will cause “incalculable financial damage to brand owners, including the hundreds of media brands in its membership.”

The plan would allow brands to apply for domains that end in their name. Like “.webpronews” or “.pepsi” and so on. However, it would also open the door for cyber squatting, according to the IAB, as well as include what the organization calls “exorbitant fees for web publishers and brand marketers.”

The plan, the IAB says, would “come at an extremely high cost to publishers and advertisers, and would also offer ‘cyber squatters’ an opportunity to harm a brand’s integrity and/or profit greatly from their bad-faith domain registrations.”

IAB President and CEO Randall Rothenberg said, “ICANN’s potentially momentous change seems to have been made in a top-down star chamber. There appears to have been no economic impact research, no full and open stakeholder discussions, and little concern for the delicate balance of the Internet ecosystem. This could be disastrous for the media brand owners we represent and the brand owners with which they work. We hope that ICANN will reconsider both this ill-considered decision and the process by which it was reached.”

IAB – Interactive Advertising BureauThe IAB today called on ICANN to withdraw its controversial new domain-naming plan. Why their plan could be disastrous to media brand owners: http://ow.ly/63vMs

The IAB’s words follow a similar campaign from the Association of National Advertisers (ANA). Earlier this month, ANA President and CEO Robert Liodice published a letter to ICANN President Rod Beckstrom outlining the organization’s concerns. In the letter, he says the plan is economically unsupportable, and likely to cause irreparable harm and damage.”

The ANA is made up up over 400 companies, which represent over 10,000 brands.

“At the same time, the Program contravenes the legal rights of brand owners and jeopardizes the safety of consumers,” the letter continued. “By introducing confusion into the marketplace and increasing the likelihood of cybersquatting and other malicious conduct, the Program diminishes the power of trademarks to serve as strong, accurate and reliable symbols of source and quality in the marketplace. Brand confusion, dilution, and other abuse also poses risks of cyber predator harms, consumer privacy violations, identity theft, and cyber security breaches. The decision to go forward with the Program also clearly violates sound public policy and constitutes a breach of ICANN’s own Code of Conduct and its undertakings with the United States Department of Commerce as most recently embodied in the Affirmation of Commitments.”

You can read it in its entirety here. Its a 9-page document.

Are these concerns overblown?

Sean Callahan at BtoB quotes Forrester Research analyst Jeff Ernst as saying, “It is too early to tell how big the malicious threat is. $185,000 is a lot of money to spend for a cybersquatter compared to a $10 dot-com domain name at GoDaddy.”

Beckstrom responded to Liodice’s letter, saying, “The June 2011 decision to proceed with the program followed six years of inclusive policy development and implementation planning,” and “One clear directive of the consensus policy advice on which the program is built is that TLDs should not infringe the existing legal rights of others. The objection process and other safeguards eliminate the need for ‘defensive’ gTLD applications because, where an infringement of legal rights can be established using these processes, an application will not be approved.”

Liodice responded to the response, saying, “We are not surprised by ICANN’s response although disappointed that ICANN chose to defend its process and deny any doubt as to consensus. Rather, ICANN needs to respond to the real concern from the brand owner community. There is no question that this Program will increase brand owners’ costs by billions of dollars. We should not be debating if 40 or 45 comment periods were held; instead, ICANN should be justifying its economic analysis regarding the Program against the staggering costs to brands. ANA welcomes further discussions and an opportunity for further economic study to quantify the need for more TLDs and what it will mean for industry and other stakeholders, such as the public interest community who will face the same brand dilution concerns.”

ANA’s General Counsel Doug Wood of Reed Smith LLP added, “Now is not the time for either side to ‘dig in its heels’ much less defend the process, especially in a depressed economy. ANA has raised real concerns regarding economic losses, brand dilution and resultant privacy / cyber-security harms. In light of our shared goals of a safe and stable global Internet, ICANN should return to the negotiating table and work with all concerned parties, including the ANA and its members, to resolve brand owners’ legitimate concerns in a manner consistent with ICANN’s consensus obligations.”

What do you think? Do you have concerns over ICANN’s plan or are these organizations overreacting? Share your thoughts.

ICANN Domain Plan: Brands Headed for Disaster?
Top Rated White Papers and Resources
  • http://www.LAokay.com Adsense Publisher

    I think they should allow applications to be reviewed for serious people interesting in having custom domain extensions or for people to sell the TLD’s off in the example of a registrar buying up a TLD. I can see there being a problem if GoDaddy was selling .coke domains and I wanted to purchase drink.coke, but what if I wanted to buy everythingis.good and somebody went and created .good as a TLD? So I don’t see the harm in allowing applications unless ICANN is that incompetent that it can’t do due diligence on trademarked brand names, or that a trademarked owner can’t file a request to ban a TLD with their trademark, either before or after such TLD has been created. I completely understand why they are allowing the applications. Money.

    • http://www.england-pellegrino.co.uk Rolando Dolando

      Domain names are a money raising piece of fiction. I can think of lots of domain names that sound impressive and are effectively useless – I own some. Boycott, don’t pay. If you cannot find a domain name that works with the existing system, you have an imagination deficit. England-Pellegrino for quality Italian handbags, fashion accessories and pre-used Swiss watches.

  • http://dot-nxt.com Kieren McCarthy

    If you’re interested in a in-depth discussion of this issue – and the surrounding issues – we are running a special session at the .Nxt conference on it next week (24-26 August, San Francisco).

    Our Brands session in particular should be interesting. But check out the whole schedule here.

  • http://thewebsensesolution.com Jon

    If domain registries queried trademark databases during the registration process it may resolve the issue. Heck for $185,000 a human could review each application. There also needs to be a copyright/trademark infringement reporting and resolution process.

  • http://www.newgtldsite.com TAG

    The issue of IP and trademark protections was debated, discussed and commented on for over 5 years during development of the New gTLD Applicant Guidebook. Governments and IP interests participated to great degrees. Many new protections were put in place for brand owners, more than exist in current gTLDs. Large brand owners are just pissed they didn’t get everything they want, which is, status quo.

    New gTLDs will make it possible for new businesses coming online to buy a decent domain name that fits their online identity at a reasonable price. That is not the case today, where it can cost hundreds, or thousands of dollars to buy a decent domain name in the current market.

    The new domains will allow for innovation and growth, job creation new businesses to emerge.

    Trademark abuse today exists almost exclusively in the dot .com namespace. Companies already ignore other domain extensions in their brand protection domain approach.

    The damages and risks are massively overstated, the possibilities are limited by imagination only.

  • http://dashworlds.com Dashworlds

    But what does the future really hold for ICANN’s new Domains and TLDs?

    Especially as ICANN won’t allow applications from any individual or sole proprietorship, effectively ignoring the interests and needs of the vast majority of Internet users worldwide. Add to the equation non-refundable deposits of $185,000 PER extension, $500,000 for “integration” plus potentially unlimited annual costs and expenses etc, and how many new TLDs will actually see the light of day? Is this a commercial venture or simply a loss making exercise in vanity?

    ICANN’s main aim has always been to convince Internet users that they’re the only game in town and then try to herd everyone into a tiny part of an otherwise infinite universe….but that’s like telling people the only place they can shop anywhere on the planet is a “convenient” Kroger’s store in Cincinnati. Yes, the current ICANN Internet set-up may be “convenient” right now, but then some years ago sending a telegram was convenient and sending an email meant inventing the computer (and World Wide Web). So whether or not ICANN’s TLD program seems like a good idea, it’s worth considering if instead of bringing organisations to the forefront, ICANN’s new TLDs will actually isolate you. It’s also worth considering that the Internet is evolving and more fitting and less expensive options are coming on-stream.

    Increasingly ICANN finds itself under pressure to modify. The rules have changed and Alternatives are now available (eg: as well as Dotcoms, there are now Dashcoms). As ICANN realises that competition is finally at hand, the true value (or the true cost) of these TLD “opportunities” will become all too apparent. Still, look on the bright side at least ICANN and their associates will have made money from your efforts.

    Disclaimer: Author provides dashcom (not dotcom) domain names.

  • http://www.millettech.com 3d design

    This is a very helpful post, thnks. I’m still trying to understand best way to use twitter for business. I know that some of my clients who don’t use twitter would find personal exchanges on the business account a little odd and may be put off.

  • Insider Deals

    Its an INSIDER job, ICANN and ex ICANN employees working together to put themselves in a position so they can KEEP, SELL or AUCTION the domains for tens of thousands of dollars.

    In short, its a rip off that will benefit a few insiders and ICANN

  • Gordon Sands

    Brands will have a first shot at buying their TLD. If they pass up on that opportunity, they can’t complain.

    If anyone can afford to pay $185,000 and $25,000 a year or whatever the annual hosting cost is for .webpronews TLD, they can do whatever the hell they want with it!

    So, I see no reasons for complaining about this!!!

  • http://brainspace.me Aleron

    Ah… what’s in a name? Where it becomes sticky is when you start linking the extension to Trademarks. eg .app or .iphone or perhaps .apple that is one company you can rely on to fight for every patent and abuse of the english language it can. Pretty soon you wouldn’t be ale to use the term apple without paying the mega corp first.

  • http://www.brighternaming.com Athol Foden

    Oh come on big US brands… stop crying over nothing. I notice most of you have not yet even claimed your own big brand name in all 256 domain extensions that currently exist. And how has the introduction of .tv, .cat, .info, .biz impacted you? And how as support for foreign character sets affected you? ICANN is doing a superb international job… the internet is for all the world.. not just big US advertisers.
    In addition, your hotel brand may even benefit greatly from getting a .hotel domain… so you are not lost in the .coms. Same for a .drinks domain or similar. Trademark law allows 45 international classes.. and even duplicates at times within categories. Half the world (or maybe a lot more) don’t have a domain name yet.. they have to go somewhere…so stop trying to use bully power of US ad groups with nothing better to do.

  • guest

    this is a move to benefit the big name brands as only they and groups like them will be able to afford the entry fee – they even have lawyers on staff that can handle any issues with squatters and other issues that arise – it is us – the small guys who really built most the websites on the web today that get screwed and pushed out – typical big media move here to take over the SERP and main stream markets away from the little guys – think old days when TV went from 1000′s of small local stations to just the big 3! They did a good job on smoke screening this and making it look like they do not want it huh ….

  • http://1uptechnologies.com Chris Lewis

    I think the solution is pretty simple. Just develop a different process for anyone trying to register one of these trademark names. In the process add two new steps. First would be an affidavit of sorts that will hold the person registering legally responsible for registering a name in which they have no rights to. The second is require some verifiable document proving they are who they say they are such as a trademark registration document.

    • http://www.cartwalla.com Oz Merchant

      That’s a good solution Chris. I don’t see anyone losing in this. ICAAN gets to make more than my measly quarter per domain. Big brands get to further brand themselves and capture a vertical already associated to them (or any vertical they are willing to pay for). And small businesses can keep using dot coms as usual. As it stands now, the small guy isn’t getting screwed. Could this initial step lead to that? Time will tell.

  • http://www.epalmspringsrealestate.com Abraham Baghbodorian

    This just another blow to small business. I heard that these extensions could start at $100K. What were these people thinking, or better yet how much did they pocket???????

  • http://www.practicalsports.com Camping Dude

    Nothing like a billion more spam sites!

  • http://www.chrishurdvt.com Jeremy Ryan

    I think the fears of the IAB are overblown. $185,000 makes it quite price prohibitive for most cyber squatters, especially to run the risk of losing the domain. I think the .com will still be the preferred domain of choice for some time or perhaps some other other widely used tlds, such as .co or .cc but I don’t really see brand specific gtlds taking off.

  • http://www.AspenShopsOnline.com Ron Lee

    Follow the money! $185,000 per name?
    ICANN is corrupt.

  • http://www.technicolorgoldfish.net Suzanne

    It just seems confusing to me as a consumer to add unlimited more extensions … right now, off the top of my head, I just need to remember the name of the brand, or store, or whatever it is, and stick a dot com at the end … it does get confusing in Canada wondering whether it should be a .ca or not. I can’t imagine how confusing it would be if I had to remember whether it was storename.com or storename.ca or storename.store or storename.widgets and so on to infinity. Plus, existing domain holders/brands will be forced to pay for the additional domain extensions when they come up, just to protect their brands.

  • Kate

    Sounds like scaremongering by big corps with big money who are afraid of the little guys getting a fair go.

    Chris, can you shave that thing off your face? It makes me want to vomit.

  • http://www.liveambitions.com Steve

    I think it’s a bad idea. It’s sickening to see how companies will overlook principles in order to make more money.

    I don’t see any good coming out of this idea. It’ll just add more confusion to an already heavily saturated domain market.

  • http://www.CaptainCyberzone.com CaptainCyberzone

    I agree, “Follow the Money”. This is an ICANN action with terrible consequences waiting to happen. It’s saying, “If you’re an established brand with deep pockets or just someone or entity with deep pockets … here’s a present. The little people be damned!”
    Say me, being a George Soros or Buffet or the like, I could turn this into a very lucrative business. I could see a garage start-up, a struggling Google, or the like with potential and purchase their brand and just wait … I’ve got the deep pockets to buy-off, to out lawyer, to make a deal (say for future considerations) with them for their brand.
    This whole idea/scheme needs to be vetted by the general public before it’s implemented. Unless this is by design … “the little people be damned”.

  • http://www.meanseo.com Chris Hibbard

    Bet the new TLDs will get a huge boost in SERPs based upon they will be viewed by the SE’s as legit “big boys”, not fly by night sites.

  • http://www.gasta.com Francis Higgins

    I could go online to 123-reg now and buy www.ilovecoke.com or www.pepsifizzbomb.com so I don’t see the relevance of it, who in their right minds would pay so much money to protect (not a brand) but a domain, a tributary path. long live SEO.
    (buy the way if you own any of my example domains you can pay me for the free publicity later!

  • Chris Stone

    Cybersquatting should be illegal, period. Then there would be no debate. Read that, Godaddy? Just my 2c.

  • http://www.LoftLivingLA.com Ted Trent

    Since I continue to see all this expansion of domain names, i’ve found that I am investing LESS in Domain Name over all. Currently I own 650 domain names. Since all this news about DOMAIN NAMES shifting, I’ve let go of over 150 domain names. It’s just not as great of an investment the more and more domains endings that become available.

  • http://www.tden.com King Ralph

    Instead of ICANN it should be called ICONN.

  • http://www.webmarketingtips4u.com/ TPJaveton

    Hey Chris, Great article!

    In view of the fact that so many businesses (brands) will be affected, this is not a step that should be taken by ICANN without thorough research and consensus of those very entities, so I come down on the side of ANA’s General Counsel Doug Wood of Reed Smith LLP, who stated in part that:

    “…ICANN should return to the negotiating table and work with all concerned parties, including the ANA and its members, to resolve brand owners’ legitimate concerns in a manner consistent with ICANN’s consensus obligations.” The key phrase being “consensus obligations.” Thanks.

    TPJ

  • Fozzy

    A) I don’t like the idea. It’s just confusing.
    B) I don’t think it is “wrong” (morally speaking).

    All that will happen is Search Engines will become the defacto place to find a website and it will start a new “space race” of SEO and along with that more black hat SEO practices.

    This would be because the average person won’t remember if it’s “coke.com” or “my.coke” or whatever.

    And for that matter, there will become a defacto “domain” for these branded TLD’s. “My” might be a good one. “My.Coke”, “My.Nike”, “My.Ford”, etc. Shorter and easier to remember than something like “Index.Coke” or “Home.Nike”, etc.

    Plus, the cost of branded TLD’s is way out there. You’ll only see major corporations using it or possible someone with a business model; “.mail” could become a new web email service, etc.

  • http://www.inalienablerights.org John Melchinger

    The basis of commerce is competition, which creates better creativity and innovation. Brands are protected by much law, and violations are dealt with strongly and expensively for the brand and copyright volator. If you do not want the competition of market expansion, turtle shell your brand and withdraw from competition and growth. Protect your brand and let the innovators develop new brands and identities for the improved products and services they create. Change does not always mean progress, but progress always means change.

    The idea will fail the marketing test anyway. Who will buy in at that price? The Chinese? They already own us. Arab oil? Why? This is just an extension of the global economy attempting to go worldwide. The innovators, mostly individuals and proprietorships, cannot buy in anyway. What’s the fuss?

  • http://www.listinstantly.com Allen Farrell

    In addition to the impact to brands, this move will severely impact every owner of a good domain name. All of the domain owners pay a ICAAN fee. Now for a mere $185,000 major corporations can monopolize search in their category of business.
    This move will cause major problems on many fronts and quite frankly, gives ICAAN a major black eye. This isn’t about revenue – its about monopolizing search and leaving it only to the people who can afford a $185,000 domain name.

  • http://www.JtuckIndustries.com Jeff Tucker

    Can’t we all learn about over expansion of monopolies from our government? FREDDIE AND FANNIE MAC….IT JUST DOESN’T WORK! As a web developer and hosting provider I will tell you that this concept of buying your own TLD (. com extensions) will not only ruin the internet but create a programming nightmare for everyone. Me personally would consider buying a $185,000 domain extension for my business but big corporations WILL ruin this concept buy flooding the market.

    K-I-S-S KEEP IT SIMPLE STUPID :)

    Secondly there are so many TLDs as it is and people have a hard time with that.

    Just a few so far:
    .aero
    .asia
    .biz
    .cat
    .com
    .coop
    .edu
    .gov
    .info
    .jobs
    .mil
    .mobi
    .museum
    .net
    .org
    .pro
    and my favorite .xxx

    Just kidding but really ICANN is just trying to say in a nice way that there broke or the greedy and will sell out for the right price.
    ICANN step up and have some integrity, maybe opening this market may create a price warfare for domains creating competition but I also see it creating higher security regulations and bureaucracy’s for the internet.

    So far I see no good from this, if your looking for a regular web site with great hosting with good rates come see me.

    www.JtuckIndustries.com

    Mention this WebPro post and I’ll give you first month free. That’s what we call capitalism :)

    Btw anyone watch the stock market today?

  • Richard Kuechle DDS

    This may help the return of Phone Book Advertising?

  • http://www.buytestosteroneonline.com Lance Chambers

    So there’s another group of people who like the status quo – surprise.

    It is understandable that an environment is developed within which a group of people get comfortable working and seek to make sure that the environment they now are comfortable with remains unchanged forever. It means they don’t have to think very much any more.

    But these people are a small minority when it comes to the 100′s of millions of those who want new ways of expressing themselves and their sites, products, feeling, hopes, etc.

    Why should a small group of encumbents, who are happily making money, prevent others from benefiting?

    Seems like simple greed and laziness to me.

  • http://www.aboutus.org Kristina

    People can apply for a new TLD, but that doesn’t mean they will get it, and it’s not cheap or easy. Most bad eggs on the Web are cheap and lazy.

  • http://www.4rx-pharmacy.com My1Rx

    This is going to make all major keywords on the internet available to the ultra rich at $180,000 a pop leaving the little guy with nothing else to do on the internet but buy stuff from the ultra rich. JP.

  • http://www.4rx-pharmacy.com My1Rx

    ICANN needs to find another way to make money. JP.

  • http://www.imachination.com joop teernstra

    ICANN’s biggest shot at empire building. Money for itself and for it’s most listened-to stakeholders, the domain registration industry.
    Parasites all!
    Individual Domain Name Owners are kept outside the decision making process.

  • http://www.ecotour.com.np ecotour

    tours in Nepal, Toure, include sight seeing tours, visit to Panoramic site, Heritage site, and Pilgrim site, countryside etc. It is also to be noted that the cost of any tour depends on your group size, intercity transport and transfers, star category of hotels, and the type of service rendered. You can choose airplane, private vehicles, tourist buses, public buses, etc.

  • http://www.sebastyne.com Sebastyn

    I am not exactly a fan of this, but there’s a silver lining in it. Someone will quite surely develop a search engine that either removes the “creative domain extensions” completely, or allow the searcher to turn them on/off, or allow searching by domain extensions, possibly making the traditional .com even stronger what it is now.

    I would actually find that quite helpful in searches, because as it is, the big companies are dominating the search results, and sometimes I just want to weed them out. In a lot of cases, the most interesting content is delivered by the little guy, and this would offer a chance to actually bypass the big guy.

    • http://www.norele.com Richard Hance

      Heqe’s a little guy. www.norele.com (pronounced No”rel*e\, n.) for nonmonetized search results. And the results are scrollable. No paid listings, ever. Research your keywords outside the box.

  • Transatlante

    I think as IAB, ICANN has to withdraw the plan because it will cause untold financial losses to brand owners.

  • http://www.incatrailexpeditions.com/ Shomara

    UHMM
    ometimes I just want to weed them out. In a lot of cases, the most interesting content is delivered by the little guy,

  • http://www.heyportugal.com Wendy Manning

    As owner of a number of brand named top level domains in various formats (.com , .co.uk , .mobi) I would be mortified if ICANN opened the floodgates on this. If would mean anyone could get a domain with my brand names in it in some way. My business is my website and if other opened websites with similar names I could be ruined as my customers would be confused about where to go.
    Definately needs more discussion and thought.

  • Stupidscript

    Lots and lots of posters here don’t understand what this is about, or what ICANN does. It’s hard to believe that there are only like … one, maybe two posts here in support of the proposal.

    This isn’t about typical domain names, and the $185k is not “per domain” or for anything resembling domain registration. And ICANN is NOT a domain registrar.

    ICANN, as the official caretaker of the Internet’s Domain Name System framework, has, after 6 years (and more) of public and expert technical discussion, arrived at a proposal to offer the ability to initiate and manage new, custom top-level domains, in the same class as “.com”, “.net”, etc.

    This DOES NOT MEAN that YOU can hand over $185k and start your new website at “www.you.whateveryouwant”! It also does not mean that others can do that.

    If you, or your corporation, decide they see value in a custom gTLD, AND you have both the technical ability AND the physical ability to requisition and manage a gTLD system, AND you prove to the DNS caretakers that you are capable of responsibly managing such gTLD services FOR THE LONG HAUL, AND you clear all trademark and other IP issues … THEN your APPLICATION ($185k) will be CONSIDERED.

    So, if Pepsico decides they want to be able to use “.pepsi”, then they prepare their gTLD application, provision their DNS servers and get them ready to serve the entire world, ramp up their tech people to include full-time gTLD managers and support staff, including financial, security and technical experts, and send everything off to ICANN along with a big check in the hopes that their application will be considered … and possibly even granted.

    If their application is granted, THEN they would need to pony up the same registrar fees any registrar ponies up to be able to play in that world. It ain’t cheap, and not everyone is competent to do it.

    If a cyber-squatter wanted to squat on “.pepsi” … do you think they would be able to git ‘er done? Not likely, given that they must prove their authority for request administrative control of that gTLD.

    Okay … how about if GoDaddy wanted to administer “.pepsi”. Are you worried that they would then sell domain names to anyone who wanted “yadda.pepsi”? Seriously? They would lose their accreditation, and their business because they violated the terms of their registrar agreement, in particular the rules about these new trademarked gTLDs.

    The IAB and ANA represent brand owners who may be irritated that they would need to pay so much and to establish such a high-level set of people and resources to be considered for a position as a world-class registrar, but they are the same costs any registrar must bear. If you want to be a registrar, you play by registrar rules. If you don’t, then maybe you’ll just have to live with “pepsi.com”

    In the mean time, before y’all start complaining about ICANN’s motives and about their handling of this issue … learn a bit more about the issue and about ICANN. It’s quite different from what you think it is, and ICANN have done a stellar job of including both stakeholders and technologists in crafting this proposal.

    • Stupidscript

      Oh my goodness … in my previous post, the censored word is “c l a s s”. Amazing censoring tech, WPN!! :)

  • Chris Stone

    On further thought about my Cybersquatting rant (which still should be illegal), yes, aside from somebody scooping up “.pepsi” in hopes that Pepsi will pay them quadruple what they paid for it, and all the legal mumbo jumbo.. what would stop, say, Coca Cola, with their deep pockets, buying “.pepsi” (from an undisclosed, unnamed source, of course)?

    The only thing I see that would benefit Joe Nobody buying a .pepsi then would be an affiliate marketer. There again, they might want to read the fine print in the affiliate tos to see if they can even use it for affiliate purposes.

    In the end, I really dont know and really dont care. In all honesty, .pepsi looks no better, perhaps even worse, than a subdomain. I mean, “pepsi.pepsi.pepsi”? “Why.why.why”?

  • James

    This sounds like the start of the end to me, what’s saying that the .coms etc wont be scrapped in time, leaving anyone who wants a website needing to fork up crazy amounts, there will probably be rental fees for them

    The ‘neutral ground’ and free enterprise of the internet is slowly being taken away from us

  • http://www.azucofix.com Registry Cleaner

    I think IAB and ICANN should sit on a round table to find an amicable solution to their grievances. As for me I will support any move that will benefit the general public. The internet is not for anybody, it is for as all.

  • http://dreamspublicity.com Curtis

    This will be beneficial for the elite which is the plan of the NWO and will unfortunately be the inevitable fate of the internet.

    That does not go without saying that it is WRONG and not a good move. It will most definitely affect the small business and free market. But what is their intentions? Seek the truth!

  • http://www.DomainOH.com Bill

    I still do not understand yet why this is happening. My findings have produced no clear results other than the ICANN board is benefiting financially for this fiasco that is about to be brought upon business owner large and small.