http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20001116/wr/tech_icann_dc_4.html
> Thursday November 16 9:56 PM ET
> ICANN Approves 7 New Web Domain Names
>
> By Eric Lai
>
> MARINA DEL REY, Calif. (Reuters) - Soon there will be even more
> dots to remember, adding to the Internet's already mind-boggling
> array of addresses.
>
> The Internet's governing body on Thursday made a big change to
> the landscape of the World Wide Web, approving seven new Web site
> domain names to complement the existing list topped by .com .net,
> .org and .gov.
>
> Out of 44 applications, the board of the Internet Corporation for
> Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) chose .biz, .info, .name,
> .pro, .museum, .aero. and .coop -- and rejected a slew of other
> options hotly debated by industry players.
Huh? .pro? .museum? .aero? .coop!?
> The choice of the new domain names, which are expected to become
> available to businesses and consumers by the middle of next year,
> culminates a drawn-out process for setting the next stage of
> growth on the Internet.
>
> ``This is a first giant step for domain-kind,'' said Esther
> Dyson, chairman of ICANN.
>
> Major companies involved in winning bids to operate the huge
> databases holding Web site addresses, also called registries,
> included VeriSign Inc. (NasdaqNM:VRSN - news) , which currently
> enjoys a near-monopoly as the sole registry operator for all
> domain names not ending in a country suffix, International
> Business Machines Corp. (NYSE:IBM - news) and Register.com
> (NasdaqNM:RCOM - news) , a fast-growing U.S. reseller of Web site
> addresses.
>
> Some of the new domain names, like .info and .name, will be open
> to almost anyone to register starting by the middle of next year.
> Others, such as .museum, and .biz, will be restricted to members
> of companies or relevant fields.
>
> No Dot Web, For Now
>
> One of the most vied-for domain names, .web, was at the last
> moment taken out of the ``approved'' basket because of a
> controversy over the ownership. Affilias, a consortium of big
> companies including VeriSign, was wrangling with a small
> California company, Image Online Design Inc., which said it
> registered tens of thousands of users for .web in the past
> several years due to what it claims was a prior agreement.
>
> An impassioned speech by Vint Cerf, an ICANN board member who was
> later elected new board chairman, on behalf of Image Online,
> helped sway the board at the last moment, which granted Affilias
> the .info domain name, considered to be a less popular domain
> name, instead.
>
> For observers, the climb-down symbolized a small victory for the
> original spirit of the Internet, represented here by the
> ponytailed techies and entrepreneurs, over the encroachment of
> big businesses.
>
> The new domains will likely lead to a price reduction. Domain
> names typically cost $35 per year. companies who won the new
> domains will compete head-on with VeriSign Inc., which via its
> $20 billion acquisition earlier this year of Network Solutions,
> Inc., owns a near-monopoly on the registration of domain names.
>
> There are more than an estimated 25 million top-level domain
> names, nearly all of them ending in .com or .net. There is a much
> smaller list of country-level domain names, which end in country
> suffixes like .cn for China or .uk for Britain.
>
> Critics say that the fact that only seven top-level domain name
> suffixes now exist has directly led to trademark disputes between
> similar-sounding companies, and rampant speculation by
> cybersquatters hoping to cash in on valuable names. The new
> domain names should give alternatives to companies victimized by
> cybersquatters, said Ken Hansen, an executive with NeuStar Inc.,
> which will introduce the .biz domain name next year.
Well, I'm glad they finally solved that problem. Not.
> Embroiled In Controversy
>
> ICANN has been embroiled in controversy since it was created in
> 1998 by the United States government to oversee the domain name
> system. About half of the board members were chosen on ICANN's
> inception, with the other half chosen by constituencies within
> ICANN.
>
> That has led to accusations of nepotism, and over-representation
> by corporate and big business interests instead of regular
> Internet users, especially outside of the United States, and
> calls for ICANN's abolishment.
>
> To assuage critics, ICANN earlier this year held a direct
> election via the Internet for five new board members, who did not
> start their terms until after the board meeting. But it is also
> considering limiting further direct elections of board members,
> which prompted some ICANN attendees to wear buttons saying ``Help
> Stamp Out ICANN Board Squatting''.
>
> The board also tried to become more transparent. The final
> decisions were made in front of a non-participating but packed
> audience in a hotel meeting room here, and were also broadcast
> over the Internet, where viewers could immediately post their
> vociferous reactions on the ICANN Web site or even e-mail the
> board members as they agonized.
>
> In choosing new domains to add and the companies to run them, the
> board said it was looking for diversity in company size, and
> region, strength of their business plan, and their technical
> proficiency to handle this.
>
> ``Competing with .com requires technical ability. You need to
> emphasize this, or competition can't exist,'' said Jun Murai, a
> member of ICANN's board.
>
> But some complained that with the emphasis on the financial
> fitness of the applicants, ICANN was looking more like a venture
> capitalist rather than a non-profit corporation.
>
> ``ICANN has become a large gatekeeper deciding who has the right
> to print money on the Internet,'' said Karl Auerbach, a long-time
> critic of ICANN who favors adding up to 10,000 new domain name
> suffixes per year. Auerbach is an incoming ICANN board member who
> did not participate in the selection process.
>
> Among the domain names not approved by the board Thursday were
> .iii, which would've granted permanent domain names to
> individuals to make e-mail forwarding easier,
Huh?
> and .kids, as it
> said it could lead to Web sites with content harmful rather than
> beneficial for children. The most surprising omission from the
> Board's group was the .geo domain name, which would've created a
> huge Web-accessible database of businesses and monuments based on
> location.
How's that? How would this database suddenly spring into existence
just because of a new top-level name?
--
Gerald Oskoboiny <
[email protected]>
http://impressive.net/people/gerald/