“We never recommend sensitive souls new extensions creation”. This lapidary phrase ends a so waited report in charge of made the analyze at least- the introduction consequences of “new” extensions 2000, .Biz, .Aero, .Info, .Coop, .Museum, .Pro, .Name. Assiduous people to our columns know very well these extensions were more a less successful and Registers in charge evolved in their policy (see after for .info ) to invert the tendency. But at the time of “real new” extensions, it is mentioned persistently (see our previous editions), this large report with 150 pages is rich on teachings.

First lesson, there isn’t a good method for the “sunrise period” that must permit the mark protection from the avalanche and the new extensions like victims. The report remembers a 43% of the first registers of .info had to be cancelled or transferred because of the abuse, in relation with .name. The defensive process in the inscription is considered “too complex” by the ones who understand in this matter- to remember,  this is Sébastien Bachollet’s report , the new president of ISOC France.
Still more important, the report says gTLDs, like .name, for example, were limited supposedly by a certain register type (last or family names) or .biz for commercial societies, but in the same way they leave place for deviations: 18´6% inscriptions in .name are inevitable with no answer to these criterions! In terms of competition, one of the objectives pointed by this experience, is the balance is so opposite economically, the evolution is less sensitive, the extension is sensitive in relation with the price of each one. Instead of this, the new extensions permitted the access to name domains belong to new users; since the 20% of the total about registering names doesn’t correspond to previous names, and between 40% and 60% were “new using”.

This work done in several months was necessary for sure: if new gTLDs today are part of the whole world landscape of Internet, it was a revolution in 2000 since the previous extensions existed for more than 20 years! The report conclusions are, in a good sense, to demand to ICANN a most flexible and less expensive process for proceedings exam, understanding people insist in the necessity of an adapted procedure for “Sunrise period”, put on UDRP that proved its utility. It is responsible and it wants the new extensions can be also registered by Registrars doesn’t accredit by ICANN to make easier and with more flexibility the registering. A document must be meditated carefully for whoever wants to throw into the adventure of “the future news” gTLDs!

Consult: http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2004/Jun/1046634.htm

S.B.