A development in web addressing that occurred last year hasn’t
received a great amount of trade press coverage, but the implication for
web-based marketing— B2B and B2C both— may be quite significant. A series of
articles in the Washington Post have covered this well.
The
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names
and Numbers (ICANN), the organization that regulates the naming of Web
addresses, has opened up the generic top level domain name string (gTLD)— what
appears to the right of the dot in an URL (e.g., .com, .net, .edu)— to include
hundreds of new endings which may relate directly to what a company does or
brand represents.
ICANN
has expanded domain names before, but, as Brian Winterfeldt (an attorney for
Steptoe & Johnson in Washington, DC) notes in a Washington Post
article by Catherine Ho, this is the first time there is a large-scale
opportunity for companies to apply for whatever they wanted. (Winterfeldt has
helped companies apply for gTLDs like .coach for the handbag manufacturer and
.hbo for the cable channel.)
As
the article notes:
Having
exclusive control of a domain would give a company an edge over competitors by
claiming a space to market products or services that their competitors cannot
enter. If the parties can’t agree amongst themselves, it will go to an auction
process before ICANN, and the highest bidder will win.
The proceeds of the auction go to
ICANN, which has already made $350 million from the applications that cost
$185,000 each to submit. According to Winterfeldt, who is also a member of
ICANN’s Intellectual Property Constituency, a group within the organization that
advocates for brand owners, there is no limit to how much a company can bid.
Fallout from the development is being
seen on multiple fronts.
One area is in brand protection, where
companies are moving to protect their brands as they new domain names become
available. As Ho points out in a subsequent Post article: “The race to snap up a fresh batch of
Internet addresses is spawning a new round of disputes as businesses scramble
to secure exclusive rights to words that represent their brand — or at least
prevent their competitors from doing so.”
A good example of this is Dish
Network’s (Dish) attempt to claim .direct as a gTLD. DirectTV challenged that
bid, claiming that its use by Dish would confuse consumers seeking their
services. Their challenge was upheld by the Geneva-based World Intellectual
Property Organization (WIPO), which rejected Dish’s attempt to claim the tag.
Among Internet industry officials, many
are raising a red flag at this expansion of domains, contending that it could
cause widespread disruptions. Craig Timberg has addressed this on the Post’s Technology
section:
Particularly
troubling is the possibility of widespread “name collisions” that could happen
when domains used by internal corporate computer systems — such as “.corp” or
“.home” — get assigned to the Web more broadly. This could cause systems to
fail, blocking access to e-mail or other internal programs, and also could open
sensitive information to theft, some experts say.
Timberg notes that ICANN and its supporters
dispute this, saying that the potential problems have been long understood and
will be resolved before new domains are approved. He quotes ICANN’s chief security
officer, who says that as the new domains will be released gradually, over the
course of months, there is ample time to manage problems if they arise.
For
businesses of all sizes, it behooves consideration of what is coming. Web
marketing continues to become increasingly strategic, and the possibility of
promoting one’s brand— or having it attacked— via web domain will give many
pause.
“What’s in a name?” The Bard would perhaps be
astonished at how many dollars and hours are being thrown at that question in
today’s digital age. Some are going to come out of this smelling sweet; others
not so much.