King of my own (Internet) domain!
Column: The liberalization of Internet domain names will help companies, but it will also make the Web way more complicated.
By Tom Regan | Columnist for The Christian Science Monitor/ June 10, 2009 edition
Maureen Fan/San Jose Mercury News/Knight Ridder/FILE
I have a dream. I dream of a place on the Internet that is all mine. A place – OK, it is a virtual place, but that doesn’t make it any less real these days – where I get to decide who gets called what, and I can make up as many names as I like without needing to worry about stepping on someone’s digital toes.
Yes, I dream of owning my own global top-level Internet domain.
In case you’ve never heard of such a thing, a top-level domain is everything that comes after the final dot in an Internet address, such as .com, .biz, .org, etc. And starting next year I can buy .regan. But only if a rich relative leaves me a big chunk of change in a will.
OK, it’s a foolish dream. But the reality is that in early 2010, companies will be able to stick their own names in place of the all too common .com. So don’t be surprised if you start seeing Internet address that end in, perhaps, .walmart or .wendys or .winnebago.
But the price is not cheap. The California-based Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), which oversees domain names, will most likely start taking applications for these new top-level domains for $185,000 per application. That means my chances of getting .regan are probably zero (unless the Monitor starts to pay me a lot more money for this column).
But there’s a reason behind the enormous application fees: cybersquatters.
Cybersquatting is when someone tries to register URLs that use a trademark or celebrity’s name with the intent of unfairly profiting from that name recognition. For instance, squatters might buy iPhone4G.com for a cheap price, anticipating an upcoming phone, and then try to sell that Web address to Apple at a great profit. Or they will try to piggyback on a celebrity or sports event, such as WorldSeries2010.com, to sell their own products. (Those were the first two made-up names that came to my head, but it turns out both of those URLs have been snatched up, but not by Apple or the MLB).
In some cases, squatters will start to write really negative things about a company on the domain in question in an attempt to force the company to buy it in order to silence them.
Cybersquatting hit new levels in 2008. The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) handled 2,329 cases under its dispute procedure for Internet addresses, according to a recent report in Reuters. The BBC, Google, eBay, RIM Blackberry, Yale University, Arsenal Football Club, and Scarlett Johansson are among those who registered complaints last year.
But cybersquatting is not always a cut-and-dry situation, particularly among American business people who see cybersquatting as simply a legitimate way to make money on the Internet. (Which, it must be noted, is also the argument made by e-mail spammers.) So allowing companies to buy and control their own top-level domains is one way to deal with the cybersquatting problem – only big companies or rich individuals can afford the price tag.
Not everyone is crazy about ICANN’s plan to greatly increase the number of available domains.
“The creation of an unknowable and potentially vast number of new [top-level domains] raises significant issues for rights holders, as well as Internet users generally,” WIPO Director-General Francis Gurry said in a statement to Reuters.
Meanwhile, Tim Berners-Lee, one of the major forces behind creating the World Wide Web, said on Friday that the names system had become “mired in politics and commercial games.”
“It would have been interesting to look at systems that didn’t involve domains,” Mr. Berners-Lee said.
And you have to think that even buying a top-level domain isn’t going to stop cybersquatting. The reality is that most people can’t tell the difference between a real Internet address and a complete fake one. Folks see coke.com or the old tagline ItsTheRealThing.com and think Coke. And for most people, remembering .com is a lot easier than remembering something like .GlaxoSmithKline, for instance.
I can imagine that there will still be a lot of complaints to the WIPO.
Still, .regan would be cool. I can see URLs like BestColumnistEver.regan or TheVeryHandsomeTom.regan or ElectTom.regan.
Maybe if my kids get summer jobs.
For more on the business of buying and selling domain names, check out: What’s in a (domain) name? Some serious cash.
( More stories )
Comments
2. Scott Thompson | 06.11.09
While there are many cyber squatters that do buy names like drinkcoke.com there are also a large number of Internet investors who buy domain names as an investment like any other. It’s no different than buying real estate. A good argument can be made that real estate investors are bad people too because they are buying land with the intent to sell it to someone that will clear cut the land and build another retail store, when instead that person should be buying the land and turning it into a public park.
I’m not for squatting on someone else’s name but there is a side to this that is very legitimate and no different from any other speculative investment.
3. James Lewis | 06.11.09
Scott, if you are buying a domain and not using it, hoping that someone will buy it for a profit, you are CYBERSQUATING plain and simple.
4. Bill | 06.11.09
As commented previously by Scott, most domain investors are not cybersquatters.
You might write a follow up article on this, but first talk to someone who knows domains. I would suggest David and Michael Costello of Associated Cities, Skip Hoagland of Portland.com, or Rick Schwartz, the domain king.
All three of those men know more than almost anyone else.
Bill
5. Jason | 06.11.09
Domain names are becoming more and more of a branding/real estate issue than anything else.
Think Again, you say that Tom has missed the point, but I would say you have. being able to type in walmart, rather than walmart.com is already possible, and done by many a common person. Google’s Chrome, and Mozilla’s Firefox allow you to do this quite easily. Also, with the domination of Google’s search engine and the new web 2.0 in development, domain names are becoming more and more obsolute, no matter what ICANN or WIPO do.
From ICANN’s perspective, this is mainly a way to drive new markets and gain a profit. I agree with Tom in that this new development will cause a new complexity from both a marketing and consumer perspective. Yet, you must expect this twists and turns in such a young industry as the Internet.
As for cybersquatting, I still do not understand the negative association with such tactics. this is plain and simple virtual-real estate by any definition, and these investors should be commended for developing a new, strong market within a young and still growing industry. I also do not understand the difference between cybersquatting and domain investing. is investing in a domian not “squatting” and betting that it will be desired by a projected future buyer?
6. Think Again | 06.12.09
Jason,
Good point about domain names becoming a little less important recently because of search engines.
But, they still matter or people would not be paying for them. Example Del.icio.us bought delicious.com for 15 million last year. Simplicity of name is important in a competitive marketplace. Its probably true that if walmart is able to let consumers type ‘walmart’ and get there, while the local store you have to type localstore.com to get there, you might have several more percent who tend to just remember and type walmart. Thats why this high price system puts smaller and medium size companies at a disadvantage to say nothing of individuals.
Also, registering domain names you dont use, but appropriates someone elses identity is not real estate investment - its theft of the goodwill and recognition built up by that party, and not the domain owner. This is because the brand owner loses value of their identity to the domain owner while gaining nothing, and the domain owner gains value created by the brand owner without the domain owner paying for it.
7. Jeremy | 06.12.09
“Domain investors” are by definition cybersquatters. They aren’t investing in a concept, the idea that someone or other will want to buy what they have, they have bought a name, expecting to squeeze whatever they can out of the company or person who shares that name. They have nothing whatsoever in common with real estate speculators. What cybersquatters do is targeted to a specific company or individual, usually a celebrity. Shut them down.
8. Dhamon | 06.17.09
Jeremy, settle down a bit on this. I have found anytime someone talks in absolutes about the evil of anything (particularly industry), it *usually* indicates a truncated argument lacking any partiality. There is a difference between cyber real estate investors and cybersquatters (imo).
To me, a cybersquatter is a person who purchases a domain seeking to target existing entities with already established/copyrighted names. This would include will.smith.com or coke.soda.com. This group also includes those who target mistypes (like goggle.com). These are people who go in with a “target” in mind and attempt to force these companies to invest in something they otherwise wouldn’t have through redirection and defamation (imagine coke.soda.com redirecting traffic to pepsi.com, or goggle.com putting anti Google messages up). These people are trying to profit off of someone else’s work.
Cyber real estate investor on the other hand are those who purchase domain names that may be useful to someone in the future. For instance, can you argue that there is something wrong with buying several gardening related site names? You are purchasing anything copyrighted and you are targeting a specific company or attacking someone trying to force them to pay. This is a long-term investment, and by most standards, not guaranteed a big payout.
In cases of cybersquatting it is pretty much equivalent to extortion. Whereas in cyber real estate you are offering to sell someone (anyone) the capability of reaching a more expansive market. However, they are not forced to do so without the risk of having their name defamed or having existing customers not be able to find them or be redirected to a competitor.
Dhamon A
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
Leave a Comment
We do not publish all comments, and we do not publish comments immediately. The comments feature is a forum to discuss the ideas in our stories. Constructive debate - even pointed disagreement - is welcome, but personal attacks on other commenters are not, and will not be published.
Tip: Do not write a novel. Keep it short. We will not publish lengthy comments. Come up with your own statements. This is not a place to cut and paste an email you received. If we recognize it as such, we won't post it.
Please do not post any comments that are commercial in nature or that violate copyrights.
Finally, we will not publish any comments that we regard as obscene, defamatory, or intended to incite violence.
1. Think Again | 06.11.09
You’ve somewhat missed the point!
When Walmart for example buys the top level domain walmart, you can just type walmart in you browser and be at their site. You don’t have to type walmart.com.
Too bad its so expensive that smaller businesses cant afford it. Its like an elite bufet for the big-wigs, where the 185k cost will be like a dime to them. Shows what can be done if you pack the ICANN board!
Guess the meaning of .com is about to change from meaning ‘commercial’ to meaning ‘common’ for the common man. Are we becoming like England with rigid classes?