To hear people talk, the arrival of domain dot-sucks (.sucks)
signals the End of Days with the Internet as we know it. Recently
departing US Senator Jay Rockefeller had this to say about the new
domain extension: "... little or no public interest value..little more
than a predatory shakedown scheme." US Representative Bob Goodlatte from
Virginia says that trademark holders are "being shaken down." And then
there is sky-is-falling commentary in newspapers as far apart as New
Zealand and Vancouver, Canada and on multiple blog posts.
Why? Because some entrepreneurial spirit realized there was a big market for the domain extension dot-sucks and has the nerve to demand a price that is that dream of all hard-working capitalists-- what the traffic may bear! And what is even worse, these miscreants are charging the big companies that want to protect their names more than the individuals that want to shame them! For example, if Apple or Microsoft want to protect their brands they have to dish out $2,500 a year; whereas poor Joe Shmoo can get a dot-sucks for $250! Oh, the injustice!
How could this travesty have occurred? Where were the regulators when they were needed? ICANN (International Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers), a non-profit corporation which supposedly controls the Internet with the consent of 111 nations, says it had no authority to stop it because nobody protested the name when it was proposed and the required $185,000 up-front fee was tendered ($185,000 is the starting price for a new extension; rumor has it this one brought ICANN closer to 3 million).
A cynic might conclude that nobody complained because anyone else with that kind of money to throw around wanted to own the right to distribute the domain extension themselves; as for ICANN, it took the money and ran until it realized it had a public relations disaster on its hands--at which time it ran complaining to the FTC and Congress. Alas too late, as it had sundered any meaningful relationship with those entities six years earlier in an attempt to free itself from a perceived pernicious American control of the Internet-- and the company with the license to mint dot-sucks is Canadian. Ironic, eh?
But is dot-sucks really the Internet's Satan? After all, the domain game is no stranger to predators and shakedown artists. To hear some people tell it, anyone who owns a domain and holds it for sale at a price higher than they paid for it is an evil troll bent on denying someone else access to their ultimate success on the web. As for selling brand protection, what successful register hasn't tried to peddle the dot-net and dot-org for every dot-com registered? How about the companies that bought "theirbrandsucks dot-com" out of an excess of caution? And all this even before the arrival of the new GTLDS (Generic Top-Level Domains) like our dot-sucks that cry out for attention from any commercial endeavor that values its brand name's exclusivity.
Regardless of what one might think of the this extension, it has its proponents, and if the number of big corporations like Apple registering them is any indication, it is here to stay. As long ago as 2000 no less a consumer advocate than Ralph Nader advanced the idea of a dot-sucks domain as well as dot-itsnotfair (.itsnotfair), and dot-complaints (.complaints) as possible Internet consumer weapons against big corporations; although instead of advocating that they pay extra for "theirbrand dot-sucks" he called on the regulators to bar corporations from registering the domains to defend themselves.
Dot-sucks doesn't signal the End of Days, folks! It's simply more of the same and we'd better get used to it!
Why? Because some entrepreneurial spirit realized there was a big market for the domain extension dot-sucks and has the nerve to demand a price that is that dream of all hard-working capitalists-- what the traffic may bear! And what is even worse, these miscreants are charging the big companies that want to protect their names more than the individuals that want to shame them! For example, if Apple or Microsoft want to protect their brands they have to dish out $2,500 a year; whereas poor Joe Shmoo can get a dot-sucks for $250! Oh, the injustice!
How could this travesty have occurred? Where were the regulators when they were needed? ICANN (International Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers), a non-profit corporation which supposedly controls the Internet with the consent of 111 nations, says it had no authority to stop it because nobody protested the name when it was proposed and the required $185,000 up-front fee was tendered ($185,000 is the starting price for a new extension; rumor has it this one brought ICANN closer to 3 million).
A cynic might conclude that nobody complained because anyone else with that kind of money to throw around wanted to own the right to distribute the domain extension themselves; as for ICANN, it took the money and ran until it realized it had a public relations disaster on its hands--at which time it ran complaining to the FTC and Congress. Alas too late, as it had sundered any meaningful relationship with those entities six years earlier in an attempt to free itself from a perceived pernicious American control of the Internet-- and the company with the license to mint dot-sucks is Canadian. Ironic, eh?
But is dot-sucks really the Internet's Satan? After all, the domain game is no stranger to predators and shakedown artists. To hear some people tell it, anyone who owns a domain and holds it for sale at a price higher than they paid for it is an evil troll bent on denying someone else access to their ultimate success on the web. As for selling brand protection, what successful register hasn't tried to peddle the dot-net and dot-org for every dot-com registered? How about the companies that bought "theirbrandsucks dot-com" out of an excess of caution? And all this even before the arrival of the new GTLDS (Generic Top-Level Domains) like our dot-sucks that cry out for attention from any commercial endeavor that values its brand name's exclusivity.
Regardless of what one might think of the this extension, it has its proponents, and if the number of big corporations like Apple registering them is any indication, it is here to stay. As long ago as 2000 no less a consumer advocate than Ralph Nader advanced the idea of a dot-sucks domain as well as dot-itsnotfair (.itsnotfair), and dot-complaints (.complaints) as possible Internet consumer weapons against big corporations; although instead of advocating that they pay extra for "theirbrand dot-sucks" he called on the regulators to bar corporations from registering the domains to defend themselves.
Dot-sucks doesn't signal the End of Days, folks! It's simply more of the same and we'd better get used to it!
Mike Nardine owns Cheap Mikes Domains where you benefit from cheap domains
and affordable, reliable hosting along with friendly, individualized
attention and free advice. Give us a try. You will never be just another
number at Cheap Mike's!
