Last week, ICANN's Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) presented to the ICANN Board its policy recommendations for the next phase of the New gTLD Program. Most of them were approved, but some were rejected. Among the latter is a recommendation regarding the possibility of coexistence of gTLDs whose names are the singular and plural forms of the same word. Previously, the simultaneous presence of such domains in the DNS root zone was not allowed, and GNSO recommendations reinforced this state of affairs with certain reservations.
The GNSO proposed to allow delegation of such domains provided that applicants commit to using them in a variety of ways. The word spring is given as an example in the recommendations. In English it is extremely polysemantic and can be translated, for example, as “spring”. According to representatives of the GNSO, the .SPRING and .SPRINGS domains may well coexist - but only if the applicant for the first of them undertakes to address the domain to sites about spring, and the applicant for the second - to sites about springs (well, or about metal springs, if such a thing).
The ICANN Board found this proposal unacceptable. The Board resolution states that such a model, by definition, requires control over content and the possibility of intervention in it after delegation. An applicant for a domain can indicate in the application any scheme for using the domain, and later change it. And in this case, ICANN will have to decide, based on the content of sites in the domain zone, whether the continued coexistence of domains whose names are the singular and plural of the same word is acceptable. And the fundamental rejection of the functions of the “Internet content police” is one of the cornerstones of ICANN’s entire ideology.
The Domain Incite, reporting this news, notes that the current decision of the corporation's Board may lead to ICANN approving the possibility of delegating such domains at the next stage. The logic of the corporation is clear and deserves all respect. But it is also clear that if the coexistence of domains of this kind is allowed, a tempting loophole will open for unscrupulous individuals. And the domain industry will likely face attempts to create “clones” of successful domain zones, the names of which will differ from the original by one single letter, misleading registrants and creating a field for phishing attacks and other illegal activities.
