Door opened to favor long time new TLD supporters.
A lot of companies have been involved with shaping the new top level domain name process. They’ve spent significant funds over the past several years working through the many drafts of the applicant guidebook and some have been involved since before the first draft was published.
Technically, these early supporters don’t get a leg up in the application process, other than shaping policy to their liking.
Or do they?
During yesterday’s ICANN meeting, Constantine Roussos of the .Music initiative asked if he would get any priority given how long he’s been promoting .music. After all, anyone else can apply for the TLD when applicantions open up as well.
…I would like to discuss the outreach campaign, the communication campaign. I know I have been running with my initiative for years now. And in the DAG, there is no protection for someone like me. To Michael Palage’s point, I do have a trademark in dot music. And we’ve been working on this for years now and trying to communicate what we’re doing to the whole world, and that’s what we’ve been doing.
However, the DAG does not ensure myself and any other applicant that has been around and working on it any fairness, I might say.
I will give you an example. Let’s say the applications start. Some other dot music applicant comes in and says, “Hey, pay me $400,000 to work. We’ll do auction or we’ll do that.” These are real-life scenarios. So there’s a few things that need to be considered.
So if outreach and communication is important, maybe in the DAG you guys can add a point somewhere that says, Hey, if in your community application you’ve done sufficient outreach,” let’s say a year, “then
you get an extra point,” or something that gives a good job for doing something and reaching out.
One of the complaints about new TLDs is that many people don’t know about them, and so there needs to be a level playing field so that “insiders” don’t have an advantage.
That’s why I’m surprised by ICANN Senior Vice President Kurt Pritz’ response:
And I also — I also understand, you know, the almost frustration of you — of you all that have been here for a long time working on this process and honing it, invested your time, not only in building up your brand but also in giving your efforts as a volunteer to making sure the process is as robust as it can be and as fair as it can be.
I understand it will be for us to think about how those who have participated in the process might be rewarded….
Jean Guillon says
Reminds me the dotVinum project (for .wine domains names) will have been promoted to most institutions for one year in august 2010.
George Kirikos says
Top Level Domain Holdings (TLDH on the London AIM exchange — simply type in “TLDH” in Google Finance) is near lows for 2010 year-to-date (below 7/share). Their “insider” status isn’t helping them so far — perhaps they need to throw a few more parties…..
Giving any company an advantage is a serious breach of the public trust. As Tim Berners-Lee said in the “New Top Level Domains Considered Harmful”
http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/TLD
“The root of the domain name system is a single public resource, by design. Its control must be for and, indirectly, by the people as a whole. To give away a large chunk of this to a private group would be simply a betrayal of the public trust put in ICANN.”
David J Castello says
Yes, at the rate the process is going I can see ICANN giving favorable status to them – or their heirs.
Constantine Roussos (.music) says
Kevin Murphy from DomainIncite.com told me about this post here in Brussels, so thanks for letting me know.
I disagree with the concept of “insider.” I am far from an insider since I have no prior history with ICANN and as far as I am concerned there are serious issues that need to be addressed that affects gaming of the system and piggybacking.
ICANN does have an outreach communication program and also hired a VP of Marketing. As far as I am concerned, we at .music have exercised SERIOUS outreach efforts in the music industry, alerting for years now all the major stakeholders involved and getting the community excited about our launch, despite 3 delays in launch dates.
.music has been actively both promoting ICANN (at our expense) and .music, and this can be illustrated via our support on Twitter that approaches nearly 500,000 followers collectively as well as on myspace, the biggest music community. We have one of the largest social profiles on the Internet and the largest Myspace following with over 4.2 million, most of which are musicians. We also collected over 1.5 million signatures for our initiative.
So whoever says that .music has been hiding and that we are insiders should look at the facts and our outreach to alert the music industry. Working in the ICANN world is quite an ordeal to say the least and the learning curve is high.
Also I disagree with George Kirikos on his perception of public trust. What exactly is public trust? It is in the bylaws of ICANN to increase competition in the domain space and protect new entrants, not just the incumbent registries/registrars/true ICANN insiders. It is imperative that ICANN protects new entrants from abuse and gaming and not just protect the interests of large corporations alone. We at .music have been dragged in the ICANN process for years now on broken promises and now face issues with serious gaming.
There is a typo in the transcript in regards to the word “work”. What I said was “getting paid to walk away”. What I was referring to is “pseudo” applicants who would just enter the process with the sole intention to be paid to walk. There is no confusion in the music marketplace and industry about the .music initiative.
We do not want or expect a free lunch from ICANN. All we ask is fairness of process so that in the case of ONLY community applicants, we are awarded a point for communication outreach marketing .music and ICANN in the process. This point is to be added within the framework of the community scale system that ICANN will use for establishing community. If you are a standard TLD such as .web, then there is no question there is no community. All I was referring to was community issues and problems that are in the DAG in regards to definition and better measures to determine community. I even proposed multi-stakeholder governance and equal representation as one component of community that was not implemented in the DAG.
If there is no public outreach or reasonable communication, then it is safe to say that the applicant is not truly a community.
I think George, you should tone down on the issue of bashing ICANN consistently on everything. I do not agree on many things that they do, but I am hoping in the end, they will do what is best for the public. Being a non-for-profit .music initiative, there is no question that to prove community, there should be a “public” outreach communication effort (hence in “public” interest) in good faith.
Constantine Roussos
.music
David Bennett says
Is it just me or does it seem like we are missing the obvious here?
Why did Roussos invest time and money into building a brand that he did not control the rights to? This seems like a bad business move. Now he is asking for preferential treatment because he made foolish decisions.
Andrew Allemann says
One of the major issues with the application process is the notion of a “community” applicant. We’ve all seen from .xxx how hard it is to define a community. What exactly is the music community? Could there be rival factions within the music industry (answer: yes). Let’s say a consortium of music labels gets together and wants to create .music on behalf of artists.
I’d consider anyone who knows about new TLDs right now an “insider”. Myself included. After all, they haven’t even begun the communication process.
Declaring your intention to run .music was a big risk. Yes, you’ve been able to build momentum. But you’ve also told the world about your plans, which does make it possible for someone else to apply for .music if they want to.
Shorty says
I understand your position Constantine, but ICANN has never given anyone a reason to not bash them…..including you.
I’d say it has not been fair to you or to public really in the entire manner it has conducted itself.
ICANN is an inept, semi-secretive organization with special interests coming out of its ears. It also has a culuture of taking big expense vacations and rewarding their employees with excessive salaries.
With respect, what the heck is not to bash?
George Kirikos says
Constantine: Re-read the Tim Berners-Lee document…it spells it all out.
If they were going to introduce new TLDs, there should be regular tender processes to operate them at the lowest cost to the consumer (i.e. the registrants).
If instead there are going to be “private” TLDs, see my proposal on “Ascended TLDs”, which would use the legal concept of “easements” to ensure that issues of “confusion”, etc. are properly dealt with economically. See;
http://forum.icann.org/lists/irt-draft-report/msg00016.html
This would greatly reduce the amount of gaming going on.
ICANN has consistently shown they act in bad faith. Even yesterday, they truncated my “question” about the Tim Berners-Lee document, so that they could pretend they were giving an answer with a flippant “yes”. Public deserves much better.
Is your “not-for-profit” venture going to be “not for profit” in the same way ICANN pretends to be, with 16+ people being paid $200K+ per year? 🙂 I can make my company have zero profit year after year too, if I simply set my salary high enough (rather than retaining profits within the company to be paid as dividends). When ICANN starts acting in the public interest, I’ll stop criticizing them.
George Kirikos says
Andrew: Don’t forget dot-asia gamed the idea of a “community”, being anyone who could show at least one contact (e.g. technical contact, admin contact) in the WHOIS being in Asia. lol What a joke.
Basically, Afilias came to them and said “at no cost/risk to you, we’ll do the application, and give your ‘community’ a guaranteed can’t-lose deal”. Essentially, dot-asia is the “face”, but Afilias makes all the real money on the backend, by having a contract to do all the registrations at a certain price to dot-asia, and dot-asia keeps a tiny surplus.
To serve the public, there would be a regular tender process, whereby Neustar, VeriSign, Afilias, and any other contenders (DENIC, CIRA, Nominet, AusRegistry, etc.) could bid to see who could run it at lowest cost to the consumer for a given service-level agreement (SLA). So, a $2/yr per domain proposal would beat a $3/yr per domain alternative proposal. This maximizes the benefits to the public.
It’s pretty obvious, and it’s a sign of how bad things are at ICANN that one has to consistently repeat the obvious.
M. Menius says
@Kirikos – “Giving any company an advantage is a serious breach of the public trust.”
This one comment (above) trumps every other consideration in regard to the “new tld’s”. Well put, George.
What is actually occurring in unison with this whole tld saga is a quiet, stealth-like observation of ICANN. ICANN have a damaged reputation (which they earned), and which they need to remake in order to move forward as a renovated, credible organization.
The perception of giving preference will be seen as indefensible, and would undermine the public trust even further. Not good!
As representatives of all internet stakeholders (and not some corp throwing around the most money), ICANN are serving a hugely important role. Bluntly, they cannot afford to fail. And actually do not have to if they proceed carefully with key decisions.
Ed Muller says
What priority would an applicant like .web have since they started the process in 1997 and were already approved at least once?
The answer would generally be zilch. And the dotweb registry begged and pleaded for years. Best of luck to you .music
Jim Fleming says
Can anyone explain what ICANN plans to sell for $185,000 ?
Have you looked at what .JOBS will now have to pay to be “resolved” by major DNS platforms ?
When a consumer clicks on a link in their PC, have you traced the DNS thru DNSMASQ2 -> DNSMASQ1 -> OpenDNS -> ??
If you like N@T you will really like C@T.
Jim Fleming says
DNSMASQ1 == DNSMASQ
http://www.thekelleys.org.uk/dnsmasq/doc.html
Nearly 100% market share in the $50 CPE WIFI-Router market and all other Linux-based consumer products.
Is .MUSIC a player (pun intended) in DNS development ?
Constantine Roussos (.music) says
I have read the Tim-Berners Lee and his opposition to .mobi and .xxx. I disagree entirely with the notion that .com is the only king and any other TLD are useless and could have no value to their appropriate constituencies and communities. So Tim-Berners should have a little talk with the 1.3+ million that have signed the .music initiative and tell them that they wanting their .music is not in the public interest or in their interest, even though they want it.
Also it depends on the strategic plan and how two unseemingly unrelated industries can create innovation in the space as well as competition. I think we are all intelligent enough to make our own opinions. Taking Tim-Berners Lee or Steve Jobs or Bill Gates word is not always a slam dunk. If musicians want their .music, why tell them that they can not have it? What was said 5 years ago on the Internet does not apply today. We all live in 2010 not in the late 90s. Adapt or just cling on to the past.
My public interest mantra revolves around what is in the best interests of music constituents, whether they are commercial or non-commercial, as well as the protection of trademarks/copyrights.
The .music initiative is a restrictive community with tight rules for qualification. We will not be auctioning domains or following the .mobi, .asia route of monetizing from premium domains. Those will be used in the best interest of .music registrants and constituents, hence music public interest.
I think .web or .site or .internet brings nothing of value, except another addition of overly-generic extensions. Another example is .co which together with .cm or .om I see as a typosquatting heaven for bad actors, that takes advantage of .com. But who cares. They are ccTLDs right?
I think there is a great misconception about what is public interest. ICANN has broadcasted the new TLDs and IDNs worldwide and was covered by CNN, BBC and all the top news sources.
So let us say Armani went for .fashion. Will Armani change its business model from fashion house to domain seller? These are 2 entirely different industries. I have been involved in this ICANN process for a few years and as a new entrant I am still learning and trying to figure out ICANN. So it is safe to say, that whether we like it or not, there will not be many non-domain business applicants (non-insiders) who will enter the market paying $500k minimum to run and market a new registry, especially with so much competition and new strings. Whether you are a fashion designer, a furniture manufacturer, a restaurant etc the risks are higher to enter this market alone (without what you call insiders) and you are asking these professionals to enter a new industry called domains and ICANN and not something that they excel in eg making clothes.
ICANN will be setting these kind of individuals for failure, especially if they do not specialize in the industry or understand how things work. Look at Wolfgang Puck and .food. That is an indication of what to expect when you combine 2 unrelated industries together and assume that it is the same industry. It is a dangerous proposition. Hence this is why I think 80% of new TLDs will be a bust.
We all seem to agree that public outreach and communication is essential. There is no way a new specialized TLD can be successful without putting all this effort to consolidating and helping the community reach its goals beyond just the domain.
In the case of .music, my motivation is not money. I have no problems with making money. I am more than content with everything that I have accomplished and very comfortable financial wise. My objective is more on innovation and the fulfilling what Maslow calls “self-actualization” and making a difference that matters in the music community.
Being a musicians, composer, producer and engineer, I am very vested in music and it is a passion that I do for free. And I always love the challenge of proving all the critics wrong. If it is one thing I learned in business is that it is not about a feature or benefit or a solution or an alternative. It is all about helping someone each their goals, in this case musicians. And I agree, the .music TLD can not accomplish this alone and merely as a TLD. The objective is always to help your constituency, your clients or whoever you work for, reach their goals not just solve a problem.
I guess I did not know what I was getting into with ICANN but I am a firm believer in the process and that things will work out. Whether new TLDs will be a success is another question. I believe that perhaps 1 in 5 will succeed.
In regards to what constitutes community in the music industry, it is safe to assert that the legal marketplace is pretty much covered. You have the major labels, who are international companies and representing over 80% of legal sales. Then you have the performance rights organizations. Again, 3 of these represent 80% of the industry. In reality the music community is not that large when you are referring to corporate music. The indies and global music industry is to me the most challenging. That was why I pursued Myspace to tap into the indies and unsigned bands. Given the 1.3+ million signatures we received, it is safe to say we have done a great job there.
I am not sure what else one can do to prove community. Music is cultural and connects us all. Musicians are a community that you can clearly define. Setting a price to a domain, creates a small enough barrier to entry in regards to weeding out the musicians that are not really serious musicians or have recorded enough songs. Look at Myspace. They have 15 million bands. How many of those are quality or serious about their music? How many have original material or music worth public consumption. We all want to listen to great, new music. There lies one of the challenges.
I am treating .music as the first component of three that would help the music industry. In short, these are: home, discovery, reaching goals. 3 companies not involved in the music business dominate these 3 areas. These are .com (home), Google (discovery), Apple iTunes (selling music). One is a generic domain that means nothing, the other is the search giant and the other is the cool electronics giant.
Lots of work still left to be done. I welcome as many competitors as possible. That is the least of my worries. My only issue is being taken advantage of because of ICANN loopholes. I reiterate: community is all about communication, fair representation and fairness: all of these are of public interest.
If you have any input on how we can accomplish what is in the public interest in regards to .music please let me know. Merely bashing the whole ICANN movement is not what I call resourceful or useful. It is easy to point fingers and pose philosophical discussions about what is public interest. How does ICANN better fulfill their goals and would should those action plans be and why? The discussion of public interest is nearly as debatable as the “morality” and what constitutes “advice” debate. I think we all need sound action plans that are realistic with what is happening on the Internet.
Constantine Roussos
.music
George Kirikos says
Constantine: It wasn’t just opposition to .xxx and .mobi, it was addressed at new TLDs in general, with those two as specific examples.
If your motivation for .music is truly not “money”, then I welcome you making a public statement in support of hard caps in pricing, and also for regular tender processes for whoever can supply .music to consumers (registrants) at the lowest price for a given SLA.
Most so-called “community” applications will be gamed, either from the beginning or through changes after they obtain the domain, just as was .asia. Take a look at how .pro is being managed (how almost anyone can get one), or .travel or .jobs.
gpmgroup says
Constantine,
Different types of TLDs cause different issues and concerns this is why ICANN should introduce categories to the DAG.
Taking your .fashion example. – Armani should not be allowed to apply for .fashion.
Not because Armani will suddenly start selling second level .fashion domains but because if new gTLDs give advantage then allowing a single private entity to purchase a private monopoly in perpetuity over its competitors in an industry it competes in should be an absolute no no.
How do you think Dolce and Gabanna, Ralph Lauren or Karl Lagerfeld will feel when they realize Aramani controls dresses.fashion shoes.fashion handbags.fashion etc.etc.
Trademark Law doesn’t allow such advantage to be awarded for generic terms and neither should ICANN.
Constantine Roussos (.music) says
@gpmgroup
I agree 100% with your views. I felt the same way with Wolfgang Puck running .food. The same applies if a company like Universal runs for .music. What happens to Sony, Warner, EMI? How about ASCAP, BMI, SESAC? How about the Grammys, the NMPA, SoundExchange, Rightsflow etc. And those are examples of US-based music industry organizations. WHat about the rest of the world.
This is why I was calling for multi-stakeholder governance with fair representation and transparency as a pre-requisite in the community section of the DAG. That is why I am pressing that it is of public interest and “music public interest” that a global outreach campaign has been performed. This includes all the major social networks where musicians hang out, music festivals and the important music conferences.
In regards to pricing, it seems that many have the misconception that “free” is what is in the best interest of consumers and musicians. So let us say you lower prices to the ultimate minimum. I have debated the pricing model and how it will be incorporated. I believe the goal for any quality network is to validate that their members are at minimum qualified. This means it is imperative that in this case, musicians, are members of a trusted organization, which ultimately they pay to be members of. Whether it is ASCAP or the Grammys or SoundExchange. This will ensure better quality music and discovery.
The other side of the equation is the amateur musicians, who do not receive compensation from performance rights organizations or get any mechanical royalties and their position in .music. Is .music better suited to allow everyone that owns an instrument or should it be restricted and dedicated to improve quality and search? How many times have you searched Myspace Music and had difficulties discovering music through the noise. There lies the challenge.
We all want quality music and something to enjoy. My objective is to create the system to assist musicians reach their goals (serious musicians) and for music lovers to discover and enjoy music. Does free accomplish that? Pricing is perception and creates a small barrier to entry for the ones who have no appetite to market and go the extra mile to show that they are serious about what they are creating. Consumers would agree that those “pseudo-musicians” are in 99% of the cases not worth listening too. This is a .music restricted community initiative.
Pricing is attached to value and helping others reach their goals. It is not about features or benefits. Answering the question on how you help others achieve their goals is better than talking about problems and solutions.
Again, I reiterate. The .music initiative is not about the domain name alone. This is where many fail to recognize that thinking about a TLD on its own as a business model is not the greatest value proposition for the music industry to accomplish their goals. Our goal at .music is to connect the remaining 2 areas that expand the value proposition: discovery and achieving goals (whether it is selling products/services or self-actualization). Before you can discuss pricing, you have to discuss the value and the willingness to pay. The market will sort itself out. The .music initiative is not for domainers and will have strict policies on content, piracy and community unity.
I can not disclose the full range of the model, but it will be the most innovative TLD that ICANN will probably have. The TLD alone does not cut it. Those with the goldrush mentality will be disappointed if they have not done their homework or done significant outreach to their constituents. I will be pressing for ICANN to incorporate public outreach as a component of community. It is in the public interest for the public or the constituents of a community to know what is going on.
Constantine Roussos
.music