Funding ICANN, "Shadow TLDs" and the Next Domain Name You Really Want to Buy

While most of the world is busy chasing after little cybersquatters and trying to toughen laws against thousands of little ants around the world (most of whom control relatively little traffic), Microsoft and Google have been getting very rich from hot traffic and by 'hot' I mean illgotten. Searches for unregistered domain typos and unregistered domain trademarks, but more importantly error searches for legitimate websites.

5 years ago I started buying search engine data and was surprised by the number of times users entered domain names into the search-box.  A great many of us think we are at the address bar when we are at Google’s search box; and yes, most of those folks do not understand the difference.  So Google continues to take those users and monetize eyeballs intended for the owners of real websites. Not every name which gets entered at Google will take you to the site you intended to get to.

While that’s a huge problem, it’s not the biggest one.  The same search engine data showed a fairly large swath of users fat fingering their extension to the right of the dot!

It happened in .com with .cpm  or .xom.  It happened in every domain extension in the world: .couk rather than .co.uk; .dee rather than .de; .nett, .orf.  The most common variants garnered the most traffic (number of search occurrences).  When you type those "shadow domain extensions" in your address bar, the browser will take that traffic away by redirecting it to paid search pages of their own, in order to make money. Google got a boost in front door traffic from an arrangement with Mozilla’s Firefox and Microsoft got a huge lift to MSN/Live.com from their Internet Explorer browser.  What’s wrong with this? Everything. Firstly the browsers are stealing. They have dammed the river and add exactly NO value by impeding you from reaching what is clearly your intended destination.

When my wife types NeimanMarcus.xom, (her long nails bringing the error in extension), she is intending to go to the .com.  Neiman Marcus probably has more “right of the dot” error searches than others due to the length of their clientele’s finger nails.  It’s also thick with irony because Neiman Marcus (the company) has been vigilant in protecting its marks from cybersquatters, all while the most egregious and pernicious form of cybersquatting goes on unchecked.

What say the perpetrators?.. nothing at the moment. Partly because few understand this phenomenon. Even fewer understand the size of the problem or the amount of money at stake. Believe me when I say, the browsers would prefer you didn’t. Microsoft and Google may point out that they often display a link to the site people were hoping to get to. They make it difficult by design. Browser-search takeovers grow their branding and build mindshare by "helping" you.  They throw up their billboard, and those additional links to paid search ads cause many to take a wrong turn. The search engines (Live.com, Google.com) will not tell you how much of their traffic is really “your traffic” and they will not give this ill-gotten traffic back willingly because it would crucify their own traffic volume, lower revenues and undermine their strategic footing.  Some footing it is folks… “Your” traffic, their footing..  A large swath of Search Engine traffic originates in the browser or nested toolbar via error searches for real active websites.

So let’s look at the domain name world.. While these search engines make huge amounts of money from inactive “Shadow TLDs”,  ICANN is constantly vilified for doing nothing right. They are not doing enough to stop cybersquatters, not adding IDNs quick enough, they are hamstrung by politics, global interests and registries which keep them subservient and on an anemic budget.  They keep fooling around with adding new TLD’s; most of which ultimately flounder and fail to generate significant (consistent 100mm+)  revenues or meaningfully add to ICANN’s budget. At least part of ICANN’s problem is its inability to make enough money to attract the right people and run more efficiently, in order to serve the world better.

“The answer my friend is blowin’ in the wind”.  ICANN could serve registrants, battle the world’s biggest cybersquatters and make more money for itself; all while making the Internet a better place for users by taking those Shadow TLD’s back!  If you think of a shadow domain name as an obvious mis-spelling of an existing domain extension .xom, .cpm and you accept (as I know) that a significant swath of “your traffic” is trapped in assorted browser-error shenanigans to the right of the dot, then you will absolutely pay to buy this domain extension if it was offered. I can tell you I would buy hundreds of thousands on behalf of myself and clients. This has nothing to do with allowing ‘other’ registrants the ability to take these shadows and nefariously point them to their site, it is purely an On-Off switch..  Pay your 6 or 8 dollars and get misspelled .xom flowing to the obviously intended .com..  Don’t pay it and continue to loose your error search to browser-thieves.

In my opinion, the next name you want to buy are variants of your own.  That's where the traffic is. The biggest, most revolutionary TLD’s which have not yet been introduced are the misspellings of .com, .net .org and the CCTLD of the country you reside in. All domain registrants buy domain names “hoping for traffic”, hoping for people to visit their websites. ICANN could instantly double, perhaps triple the number of paid registrations globally by repossessing shadow TLD’s from those free-rider browser manufacturers and giving people an opportunity to purchase "their" traffic back. Would you pay $6-8 per name to get up to 8% more traffic?  Tens of millions globally would vote yes with their wallets and the Internet would be less shadowy.

Comments

[Edwin]

It would be something of a can of worms deciding exactly which typos made the cut (they have to be "unambiguous" for a start i.e. something that's one letter away from two different TLDs/ccTLDs can't be used for typo resolution), but couldn't the .xom etc. simply be caught and seamlessly mapped to .com at the root nameservers?

So the extension is never "launched" in a commercial sense (i.e. ".xom" names will never be made available for sale), it's just activated as a public service and bingo every domain owner gets (some of? most of?) this type of typo traffic back.

If the .com domain doesn't exist, then typing nonexistentname.xom won't matter since the remap will happen first then the mechanisms for handling a non-existent .com lookup attempt take over.

Do that, and ICANN and their registry partners get to look like real heroes for a change...

***FS*** Could but never 'would' happen imo Edwin.. ICANN needs money.. this product is like selling water in the desert... too many politics to get traction without a registry of some kind profiting and pushing the concept. What an easy registry to run though.. no whois.. just on-off switches

[Tia Wood]

Just seems like both parties are doing the same thing and pointing fingers at each other. I hate it how Microsoft goes after the cybersquatters yet, Microsoft is the biggest cybersquatter of them all!!!

[Christopher Ambler]

Okay, Frank, you're getting a blogged response to this today :-)

***FS*** .webb :))

[David Wrixon (aka Rubber Duck)]

>

This could easily be done as an extension of DNAME mapping, if and when DNAME ever gets here!

***FS*** Agree totally.. wish it would happen.. But think political-strife and think money.. ICANN needs less of the former and more of the latter. Most would gladly pay to ensure this "found traffic." hmmm think of all the IDN variants they could correct to help surfers.

[Christopher Ambler]

.Webb? Isn't he a congresscritter now? :-)

I've blogged you a response - http://www.ambler.net

[fd]

You forget that those that type in shodow domains correct their mistake and ultimately go to their intended site. Are you blind?

***FS*** yes.. MSFT / GOOG are making nothing on this and redirecting everything perfectly out of the goodness of their heart.. nothing to see here.. move along .. "NOT"..not in most browsers" ..

[David Wrixon (aka Rubber Duck)]

Oh! On DNAME, I came across these overlooked statements today:

Transcript - SSAC Open Meeting

28 March 2007

>>BILL MANNING: Okay. So all of my Web audience...

The answer to the question is that the -- all of the root name servers are running software which supports DNAME without trouble today. If we were asked to support DNAME for whatever reason, that would not be an issue.

>>BILL MANNING: Okay. The IANA general manager asked the question: You mean NSD supports DNAME, and he's referring to a specific DNS software implementation. The answer is: We have been told yes.

[Gary]

Well I'm calling first dibs on xe.xom

i've lost count the number of times i've mistyped that one.

***FS*** funny!

[Charley]

--- 5 years ago I started buying search engine data ----

How did you acquire that ?

***FS*** I actually bought some from wordtracker.com in 1999 so I guess that's 8 years ago

[jj]

"Qhoute: When you type those "shadow domain extensions" in your address bar, the browser will take that traffic away by redirecting it to paid search pages of their own,"

YOU probably have a tool bar installed in your browser. Its called BHO - Browser "helper" Object -- I cannot replicate your problem in browsers IE7 and Moz for a clean installed system.

***FS*** I set up my browser the way 88% of the surfing public does so I can share their experience.. ie7 with no change from default settings.. 88% of global internet traffic will see what I do within a year.. ie6 was the same.

[Paul anderson]

CM domains is no longer active. The .CM domains do not redirect to a Hitfarm parking page anymore.
http://www.sony-conferencing.com

***FS*** But the traffic still exists.. so now it fails over to your ISP or Browser where it ultimately winds up in the same ad market Kevin sold it to. Better for somebody to create the domain .cm and plumb that traffci to it's rightful owner.. Owner happy to pay, ICANN needs the money.