Amitabh Singhal

 
Internet is changing
 
After many months of speculations, during the application process, June 13th, finally revealed that a total number of 1930 new generic top level domain names had been applied for.
 
By now we are all aware that Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) has gone ahead and invited applications for opening up unlimited number of Generic Top Level Domain Names (gTLDs) from the currently-limited 22 gTLDs. This is not counting the over 220 country code TLDs and IDNs (internationalized domain names or non- ASCII strings such as in Arabic, Hindi, Cyrillic, Chinese). After years of planning and false starts for various reasons and despite vehement opposition from business, government and other communities, in June 2011 at their Singapore Public Meeting, ICANN finally approved opening up of internet to unlimited gTLDs.
 
After many months of speculation during the application process, on June 13th ICANN finally revealed that a total number of 1930 new gTLDs were applied for. While it has left the corporation richer with over $ 350 million dollars received as application fee, controversies have been emerging thick and fast with each passing day, almost putting this massive global action into a hugely risky zone; everyone involved, with money at stake, is keeping fingers crossed.
 
But first, let’s understand the argument that went in favor of opening up the DNS system which was fairly established, stable (from an end-customer perspective, at least) and evolving on its own in many different ways.
 
It was argued—in favour—that while a few domains were added over the years, including approving .xxx in 2011, the time had come to open up the Internet to unlimited numbers because:
 
a) There was latent demand for new generic names in the market;
b) Limiting the applications for a chosen few was anti-competitive;
c) Unlimited gTLDs would foster creativity and innovation in the Internet space;
d) Entrepreneurship would get a boost at the global level, with Internet space getting larger than before; and
e) The DNS system was a tested one and could handle any up-scaling of Root Zone database.
 
Arguments against opening-up were also numerous. The opening-up process is well on its way, yet those still opposed are becoming more strident; this bunch includes governments of a majority of countries, including that of the United States. Most ‘don’t open up’ arguments point to the capacity of the current Domain Name Systems (DNS) to handle additional, multifold increase in database, i.e. Root Zone scaling, its safety, stability and security; they say the Internet itself could be put at risk.
 
Then, there have been concerns about the economic feasibility of pouring in hundreds of millions of dollars into risky business models as well as the heavy financial pressure and legal threats arising out of the requirement for businesses to not only pay for defensive registrations of their brand names, but also to protect themselves from the threat to their Intellectual Property being squatted upon by cyber-squatters. Contentions are also raised about the possible negativity as a result of cornering generic words by private operators—examples are given, say .cat, .accountant, .bank, .finance, .music, .blog, .porn, .london, .lol, .sucks and so on. Quite a few of these could be socially, legally, geographically and culturally sensitive names.
 
While the arguments run both ways, technical and process glitches in the evaluation process at ICANN seem to be assuming a life of their own, threatening to stall and delay the proceedings. This has huge ramifications. The latest problem is that the digital archery system they devised to create batches of 500 applications each, in order to decide which applications to put in line for evaluation first, has run afoul and has been cancelled, without any alternative approach in place. On top of that, governments now want to scrutinize the applications for possible land grab of legitimate government and geographic names.
 
In short, the fate of the new gTLDs—the first 100s of which were expected to be rolled out in early 2013—hangs in balance, as of now. This is one issue worth keeping a close watch on, for anyone with even a pixel of interest in the Internet space. (Views are personal and does not reflect views from any professional association)
 
Amitabh Singhal
Currently sits on the Board of .ORG, the Public Interest Registry, based in Reston, Virginia.
He is the Director of Telxess Consulting Services Pvt. Ltd. and Vcon Services Ltd.