The Guy Behind the .music TLD says why he did it

[adinfinite]

The same guy bought music.mobi for more tha 600K

http://mixergy.com/constantine-roussos/

 

[DomainTalker]

Think of the gTLD as more than just an extension (and the cost he says is $1,000,000+).

Think of it as a Noomle, or a Wordpress.org ONLY you can control and people will sign the RIGHTS for you to control some of the Merchandising?

Think Noomle COMBINED with LiveNation COMBINED with CafePress.

I've stated in other forums (.TV) that the Internet is changing. We're moving AWAY from address and to a world of BRANDS. In the DotCom space think Amazon. It's so big it's more or less it's own Shopping portal....

I know this guy. His name is Costa Roussos.....And, trust me, this play is NOT remotely a play about simply owning a TLD registry, and selling registrations.


(Disclosure: I have no personal interest in the .music concept).


The way I see it, this is a bold paradigm shift move - right at the centre of one of the world's most dynamic & lucrative markets...ie Music.


Its a play to use the internet to merge all the overlapping elements of the music business (producer, distributor, promoter, & consumer) into one cohesive concept/portal.


The great challenge for music-makers (bands, individuals, songwriters) is to find a way to reach & connect with an audience. Get your music out there. Get it heard, and played - get branded - and, get people to pay to hear it.

The key channels, now, are the recording companies (and their distribution/promotion systems), online music d/l's (eg iTunes etc), and, independent bands trying to go it alone via the internet, or any other way they can.....Its fragmented. And, they all overlap.


The right .Music concept has the potential to grab and unify this global platform....become an online Mega-Mall for every aspect of the music business....The place you get your music branded, promoted, heard, discussed, d/l & sold, and exposed, to a global market....The go-to place that music lovers go to hear, see, discover, and download, emerging music, and established music.....But, much more....Dot Music could manage relationships...part-own copyright, manage & coordinate merchandise, drive the discovery of new bands/music, control distribution, interact with the global market in a hundred ways etc etc....All branded as '.Music'....And, .Music takes a clip from every aspect of it on the way through.

This .Music concept could (& will) forge partnerships with the EMI's, and the Sony's etc....It will build a massive following of millions of music lovers (they already have 1.3 million supporters - and, they haven't even got the .Music extension yet!) ....And, it will be a core channel for emerging bands to brand themselves, and get global distribution...


If iTunes can make hundreds of millions of dollars by offering simple downloads of music clips, imagine what a concept could do if music clips were only 10% of what .Music could be....


Oh, yes....This is much more than an 'extension' registry play. This is a play for the future of how music is found, sold, distributed, and managed.


This is a billion dollar play.

.

 

[Archangel]

I like your thoughts but one thing puzzles me: Why could this not be done with a .com (or any other extension)? When it's all boiled down, the .music idea is really just another extension. I can't think of one way that .music would be a better or even a smarter choice than a .com. More or less, it's just a .name for music. It's novelty and IMO, nothing more.

I know this guy. His name is Costa Roussos.....And, trust me, this play is NOT remotely a play about simply owning a TLD registry, and selling registrations.


(Disclosure: I have no personal interest in the .music concept).


The way I see it, this is a bold paradigm shift move - right at the centre of one of the world's most dynamic & lucrative markets...ie Music.


Its a play to use the internet to merge all the overlapping elements of the music business (producer, distributor, promoter, & consumer) into one cohesive concept/portal.


The great challenge for music-makers (bands, individuals, songwriters) is to find a way to reach & connect with an audience. Get your music out there. Get it heard, and played - get branded - and, get people to pay to hear it.

The key channels, now, are the recording companies (and their distribution/promotion systems), online music d/l's (eg iTunes etc), and, independent bands trying to go it alone via the internet, or any other way they can.....Its fragmented. And, they all overlap.


The right .Music concept has the potential to grab and unify this global platform....become an online Mega-Mall for every aspect of the music business....The place you get your music branded, promoted, heard, discussed, d/l & sold, and exposed, to a global market....The go-to place that music lovers go to hear, see, discover, and download, emerging music, and established music.....But, much more....Dot Music could manage relationships...part-own copyright, manage & coordinate merchandise, drive the discovery of new bands/music, control distribution, interact with the global market in a hundred ways etc etc....All branded as '.Music'....And, .Music takes a clip from every aspect of it on the way through.

This .Music concept could (& will) forge partnerships with the EMI's, and the Sony's etc....It will build a massive following of millions of music lovers (they already have 1.3 million supporters - and, they haven't even got the .Music extension yet!) ....And, it will be a core channel for emerging bands to brand themselves, and get global distribution...


If iTunes can make hundreds of millions of dollars by offering simple downloads of music clips, imagine what a concept could do if music clips were only 10% of what .Music could be....


Oh, yes....This is much more than an 'extension' registry play. This is a play for the future of how music is found, sold, distributed, and managed.


This is a billion dollar play.

.

 

[DU]

I like your thoughts but one thing puzzles me: Why could this not be done with a .com (or any other extension)? When it's all boiled down, the .music idea is really just another extension. I can't think of one way that .music would be a better or even a smarter choice than a .com. More or less, it's just a .name for music. It's novelty and IMO, nothing more.

In a word. Control.
In two words. Absolute Control.

 

[Spade]

In a word. Control.
In two words. Absolute Control.

Control? Of what?

When you go to buy music, where do you go? iTunes, Amazon...

You dont go to Music.com. In fact, I hadnt ever been to the site until just now (not even .mobi). Whats the difference for a .music? Who is going to buy or use the domains?

Lets look at Music.mobi. How good of an investment was it? Currently, its "lobbying" for .music. He made a $600,000 investment to advertise on a 3rd class TLD for a completely different TLD.

Bottom line, Music.mobi is a bust and .music without any kind of MAJOR backing from labels, will never really get off the ground. Also, consider the cost of operating your own TLD, how much will .music domains cost? Are there enough Artists who will pay the costs in order to break even (let alone make a profit)

 

[DU]

Control? Of what?

When you go to buy music, where do you go? iTunes, Amazon...

You dont go to Music.com. In fact, I hadnt ever been to the site until just now (not even .mobi). Whats the difference for a .music? Who is going to buy or use the domains?

You're thinking of it like a domainer. It's not about sites anymore it's about platforms.

I've said it and I will say it again. There are events unfolding RIGHT NOW that are changing the landscape of the internet. The notion behind this is "separating the masses from the masses for the masses" and it will render the whole current domaining industry almost non-existent from a monetary standpoint. The money will be in the platforms. The sites/names will be as valuable as one can make a brand... but it won't be tied to a domain. It won't need to be.

By 2020 I hope your portfolios are either empty or of little value.

I'm not going to say much more. Think about WHAT makes a DOMAIN valuable. Now ask how that VALUE is tied to the domain. Now redefine everything into privately held platforms and ask the same question. If you still don't get it... come find me in about 2015 when I think it will be clearer.

Basically though:

I think he's onto the right idea. I think he's onto the future.

I do; however, think he's miscalculated a few things but I won't get into that.

 

[liquidcherry]

Read.what.I.wrote.

I.did.read.it, yes.i.did.will.i.am lol....

Interesting development of this thread.....everyone here has valid points of view but i still have to root for Randy since i believe he has it broken it down correctly....

Sure, a great idea combined with a great concept could yield a very successful outcome but again

1.) go with the .com, buy music.com

2.)mobi failed unfortunately

3.) the new .music could take off, no doubt...but still, the perception of millions of user is..... DOT COM, nobody needs(or know) the recently introduction of hundreds of new tld's what are diluting everything, besides that it would take millions of billions in advertising.....did i mention buy a music related .com?? (and this guy has a fair music reletated .com anyway)

4.) domaintalker has valid points too but still, why waste a buck load of money(including the "reg fee" of an extension lol) when u can do it with an existing one, make's no sense...and to have all the bands/producers/music buffs under one umbrella...SONY or EMC didn't accomplished that from the get go so you think a new internet extension will just do that?? lol

I could go on and on about the not so well established extensions(very hard to have them ranking well in the SE's anyway)but let us just congratz to the boldness of this dude,good luck

Cheers,

Liquid

---------- Post added at 11:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:45 PM ----------

ok, i just saw your reply defaultuser and i have to agree...it is all about the platform...but what u are not realizing is one thing what Randy(and me) stated through this whole thread......it is true that it depends on the domain name...oh, i just caught you!!!!!...why?? because you just admitted your conversation is about the "domain name"...not extension !!!!!!!!!!!!


Cheers

Liquid

 

[Spade]

You're thinking of it like a domainer. It's not about sites anymore it's about platforms.
.

Actually, I was thinking of it as a Consumer and as a Business.

This is a bad move, just like paying $600,000 for .mobi

 

[cache]

I think his move is quite risky. However his alternative (not using .music) will be expensive, i.e. I don't think he can buy music.com with $600k and effectively lobbying music industry without heavy capitol. Who in the music industry would listen to him if he does not bring anything new to the table?

 

[DU]

I.did.read.it, yes.i.did.will.i.am lol....

Interesting development of this thread.....everyone here has valid points of view but i still have to root for Randy since i believe he has it broken it down correctly....

Sure, a great idea combined with a great concept could yield a very successful outcome but again

1.) go with the .com, buy music.com

2.)mobi failed unfortunately

3.) the new .music could take off, no doubt...but still, the perception of millions of user is..... DOT COM, nobody needs(or know) the recently introduction of hundreds of new tld's what are diluting everything, besides that it would take millions of billions in advertising.....did i mention buy a music related .com?? (and this guy has a fair music reletated .com anyway)

4.) domaintalker has valid points too but still, why waste a buck load of money(including the "reg fee" of an extension lol) when u can do it with an existing one, make's no sense...and to have all the bands/producers/music buffs under one umbrella...SONY or EMC didn't accomplished that from the get go so you think a new internet extension will just do that?? lol

I could go on and on about the not so well established extensions(very hard to have them ranking well in the SE's anyway)but let us just congratz to the boldness of this dude,good luck

Cheers,

Liquid

---------- Post added at 11:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:45 PM ----------

ok, i just saw your reply defaultuser and i have to agree...it is all about the platform...but what u are not realizing is one thing what Randy(and me) stated through this whole thread......it is true that it depends on the domain name...oh, i just caught you!!!!!...why?? because you just admitted your conversation is about the "domain name"...not extension !!!!!!!!!!!!


Cheers

Liquid

Not sure I follow? In this conversation I will make the mistake of using domain/extension interchangeably because domain = name + ext and in the context of what I am saying... it's irrelevant.

I am failing to make you understand what I am saying when I say platform. It's not about controlling a bunch of subdirectories on a domain with loose links managed by google.

It's about controlling an entire platform, an entire namespace and the connectivity in and out of that namespace. You have to think beyond internet and think about BRANDS and CHANNELS and CLOUDS.

Separating the masses from the masses for the masses

I think only domaintalker understands that this is not about FITTING IN to the internet as it exists. This is about shifting the very nature of what we think is the INTERNET.

Trust me when I say it WILL happen. I don't think it will be this guy to accomplish it = for reasons I won't mention but you can see through his site and interview.


I don't get 600k for a mobi. This is one of the things that makes me a doubter that he is the one. My guess on that front is that it will come out of a small group in a major telco/provider/govt.

 

[Archangel]

And this would be control over... what? lol
Oh yeah, he'd control the .music. And your point there would be...?

In a word. Control.
In two words. Absolute Control.

---------- Post added at 02:29 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:27 AM ----------

It is a website. Are you saying that having a site on a .music would in some way be better than having it on a .com? You aren't being realistic.

You're thinking of it like a domainer. It's not about sites anymore it's about platforms.

---------- Post added at 02:31 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:29 AM ----------

And finally: Yes, by 2020, .coms will be worthless an you could get sex.com for reg fee. Smart thinking!

By 2020 I hope your portfolios are either empty or of little value.

---------- Post added at 02:40 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:31 AM ----------

Wait a second... WHAT WOULD THE LOGICAL DIFFERENCE BE FROM A SUBDIRECTORY?! I appreciate your input in this thread but ugh..

Okay, I'll rephrase the .name thing.

.music would be like a domain itself, in a regard. Using Ozzy again, the owner of the .music extension could set up a www.ozzy.music. I get that. But is there a difference, in a realistic mindset or basis of reality, between that and just setting up http://ozzy.music.com? Which would be better? The .com. Why? Because everyone and their grandparents know the .com. It needs no marketing or ANYTHING. He should have just got music.com and offered subdomains. The idea that .music will do anything whatsoever is a flawed idea.

Not sure I follow? In this conversation I will make the mistake of using domain/extension interchangeably because domain = name + ext and in the context of what I am saying... it's irrelevant.

I am failing to make you understand what I am saying when I say platform. It's not about controlling a bunch of subdirectories on a domain with loose links managed by google.

It's about controlling an entire platform, an entire namespace and the connectivity in and out of that namespace. You have to think beyond internet and think about BRANDS and CHANNELS and CLOUDS.

Separating the masses from the masses for the masses

I think only domaintalker understands that this is not about FITTING IN to the internet as it exists. This is about shifting the very nature of what we think is the INTERNET.

Trust me when I say it WILL happen. I don't think it will be this guy to accomplish it = for reasons I won't mention but you can see through his site and interview.


I don't get 600k for a mobi. This is one of the things that makes me a doubter that he is the one. My guess on that front is that it will come out of a small group in a major telco/provider/govt.

 

[samh]

I messaged Costa and asked him to check out the thread.

 

[dotmusic]

Constantine Roussos from .music (dotMusic)

Hey guys,

Kudos to Sam Howley for reaching out and contacting me about this post. Seems that a lot of interesting discussions have been made here and I am glad that there is so much support here.

I would like to say that I have been working on .music for nearly half a decade now and has been part of a innovation idea that i had to combine 2 seemingly unrelated industries together. The domain industry and the music industry.

However, little did I know about the ICANN process and what I was getting into. I have decided from day 1 of the ICANN announcement in Paris 2 years ago to pursue a community-based multi-stakeholder governance .music initiative, restricted for only members of a clearly defined music community. The structure is quite complicated.

My goals were to do exactly the opposite of other TLD registries have done. In other words, forget about open registrations that encourages cybersquatting and parking of domains with no relevant content and forget about the quick money grab of auctioning premium domains like .asia, .mobi, and .me has done. I can share with you guys that those premium domains will be used for the best benefit of the .music registrants. For example, you are a band from "Tanzania", the capital city of "Dodoma", and your style of music is "reggae". So if someone is looking for music from Tanzania they would go to the Tanzania.music site that will power all the content and music from registrants from Tanzania. This will carry on over reggae.music and dodoma.music. I can not disclose exact specifics of the platform but it is safe to say that it is marketplace meets music content used in the best benefit of the .music multi-stakeholder community.

Anyways, back to ICANN. I have been fighting the attacks from the big corporations, including IBM, Microsoft, Yahoo, Time Warner who from the start have been against the whole notion of new extensions. ICANN promised 3 set dates for launch and all 3 times they have broken their word. Their excuse was always that the overarching issues of trademark, economic demand, internet stability and security had not been resolved. It has been a huge success of the big corporations, which include representatives that represent the RIAA, ASCAP, MPAA (Coalition of Online Accountability - Home) and other lobbying groups. The interesting thing is I have raised awareness across the whole music industry and have received tremendous support including over 1.3 million signatures supporting the .music 23-point initiative and nearly 4 million bands on Myspace to prove to ICANN the economic demand issue.

Then we proposed to do an Expression of Interest at ICANN to solve the issue of security/stability of the root. It was shot down by the ICANN board a few weeks. So did my proposal of vertical integration to better serve the music community and enable bundling and more innovative services. The lobbying power of Verisign, Afilias and Neustar has been huge. What do I know? How on earth could I think I could take them on?

I am also pressing on the issue of monopoly power and fighting to introduce a clause of multiple-stakeholder governance of equal representation within the .music community. In other words, market leaders within the music industry can not exercise their oligopoly power to benefit themselves. My fight with ICANN has been to consider other stakeholders of music which include non-commercial stakeholders. Music is cultural and usage is not limited to just profit. Equal representation of stakeholders is the bottom line for me. Authenticity and an extension operated by the music community for the global music community. Unfortunately for domainers, this extension will be exclusively for the music community and we have incorporated some mechanisms and registrant agreements to address this issue.

By the way, I did try to buy music.com but the price was not worth it. We are talking world record here if it did happen. In the end it is all about execution. My approach has been more than just development of a website. My goal is to built a music ecosystem and expand the pie for the music industry and music community and providing tools and the marketplace/platform to enable this. I have been building this for half a decade now. However, since I believe in options, the music community (musicians, bands, industry pros and music companies/organizations) will be given the opportunity to choose their platform or decide to create their own website. The goal however was to offer beyond a domain and go further and beyond what a music entity would require to have on their website so they do not spend more resources and monies on developers, hosting and every other complication. The goal is to integrate all those steps and then combine all registrants within an ecosystem that feeds each other and everyone is working for the best benefit of everyone. Picture Wikipedia but translate that into music and the .music TLD.

I have been quite disappointed with ICANN and their delays, which has cost me an enormous amount of money and time as well as the opposition from the big corporations and their attorneys that have been drinking champagne at each ICANN meeting and getting their way with implementing trademark protection mechanisms such as IP clearinghouses, uniform rapid suspension of domains and other new intellectual property mechanisms for new TLDs which will ultimately raise costs for myself. So whatever they saw was wrong with he current UDRP and existing TLDs in regards to trademark and cybersquatting, the big corporate attorneys have succeeded in forcing ICANN into adopting these measures. Another interesting thing was I tried to join the Business Constituency of ICANN and I was rejected. This is run by less than 10 people who claim to represent the interests of business. I was recommended by one of the members to join it but was rejected based on the notion of being a registry, even though I have not even launched yet. They keep the same people in their group and they pass their agenda, without allowing others inside their clique.

I have won some Music Innovations awards for .music and the ecosystem and have put together some really innovative ideas on how a TLD can be run. I do share a lot of opinions that not all TLDs are equal or will be a success. It all comes down to execution and strategy. Most are just thinking landrush and premium auctions. I assure you that most of those will fail and the returns will not be as high as they think. One thing they fail to realize is that a TLD on its own means nothing much in my opinion. It is just a name. How do you create value and make a difference that matters to the registrant? That was my challenge and what I wanted to address with .music.

What I failed to realize was how extreme the red tape is with ICANN, how slow the process is, how many lobbyists there are, how many governments are involved with GAC and how many "big" players love the status quo and want to stifle innovation. Note that it is in ICANN's bylaws to increase competition and it is becoming ridiculous with Afilias running .org, .mobi, info and Verisign running .com, .net, .tv being the beneficiaries of the delays as well as lobbying ICANN successfully to keep the separation of Registries and Registrars so there is less competition in their field. Again what do I know. I heard promises by ICANN and I am just a guy waiting on getting things done and have millions waiting in line for .music to happen. I feel bad for Stuart of .xxx. It is looking likely that even though ICANN was found guilty in violating their own constitution that the chances are the .xxx extension will never become a reality even though they were initially "approved" by ICANN.

Hopefully .music will launch sometime in 2011 or 2012. Seems sad that the initial timeline was end of 2009. If it was one delay i would be ok with it but 3?! I guess dealing with ICANN, governments, big corporations, insiders and the big domain registries who love the status quo can create those problems. I can not believe that I have become a lobbyist at these ICANN meetings. I guess what makes sense to me and others just not make sense to many at those meetings. I will press hard and get this done though, I assure you.

Thank you for all the support!

 

[Jaco]

Awesome that you posted here, Mr. Roussos.

I'd like to ask a question, if you're taking them.

What is it that .music will do that existing platforms will not do?
I ask this as a semi-serious amateur musician and a huge fan of music in general.

Let me give you an example.
I'm a Fingerstyle Guitarist. I recent bought (and quickly developed) Fingerstyle/Guitarists/com into a fast videobook mashup of the better Fingerstyle Guitar talent out there. It's literally days live and hardly out of beta, yet is already receiving WOM traffic, in spite of no search engine presence (and absolutely ZERO on-page SEO effort for the sake of a clean, streamlined aesthetic). We expect this to grow over time. Whether the site had been Fingerstyle/Guitarists/com, FingerstyleGuitarists.music or fingerstyle.guitarists.music, the 'spark' that inspired users to look in- and to tell their friends- had absolutely nothing to do with the TLD and everything to do with the idea and (thusfar static) content.

By utilizing existing free content distribution infrastructure (ie- Youtube) and linking to artists own websites, we're able to distribute content cheaply, efficiently and get their presence 'out there'.


It's easy to conceive of an idea and theoretically compound that idea forward to the point that you're 'dominating the world' in your mind before the first steps are ever taen- and you're apparently someone with the financial wherewithal to subsidize such ideas- but what practical rudiments exist in .music that might actually precipitate your big ideas to transition from a fanciful and big notion to *actually* becoming ground zero for music distribution?

While the vanity/custom TLD concept is fascinating and potentially might be a paradigm buster over time, what is it about .music that would 'shake up' the way things are, right now? Genericized concept -TLD's strike me as being "just another TLD" and not subject to the same potential that is inherent to, say, IBM becoming .ibm.

What's out there right now seems adequate for the task that you're charging .music with accomplishing- and it's very, very difficult to redefine 'adequate' on the internet, barring some huge enrichment in user experience and as we all know, there's no point in reinventing the wheel.

What is it about this particular customized TLD that will "unseat adequate"?
I understand that conceptually, your idea is to develop out .music and make it a central clearinghouse for music in general- which obviously has huge potential- but what is it about the TLD itself (and whatever development scheme you employ) that will re-centrifugalize the distribution of music content back into a more controlled model- a model that the internet has since broken up?

Really interested in this.

 

[DU]

I'm thrilled Constantine took the time to respond to us here in this forum

I don't think I called this quite correctly based on what he has said but I still don't believe I'm far wrong.

As far as I'm concerned, I really hope that he is as sincere as he sounds because he's saying a lot of great things and a lot of great things that shake up the industry in a profound way. Not quite how I envisioned it - it seems he has a greater passion for achieving massive change than just reaping the rewards.

While the final destination is not as fully integrated as I expected it is definitely a stepping stone towards that destination.

I wish you the best of luck.

 

[Spade]

I agree with Dongsman, at least in principal. I question what a platform built on .music will do that a platform built on a .com wont do?

In my mind, this simply becomes another cost of doing business, a needless one. How much would it cost to maintain the Registry? Would it be not-for-profit?

 

[maxeaus]

This is an interesting concept IMO, especially if it going to be a "wikipedia for music" type of idea as mentioned. If the Internet is to go forward there definitely needs to be other concepts other than the hit or miss extensions that we currently have such as .tv and .mobi for example, they were maybe a good idea at the time, but have proved rather the opposite in hindsight.

The arguments about how much .music would cost and the "dot com is king" debate always crop up when things such as this are discussed but are irrelevant in the long term scheme of things, kudos to the guy for trying to get this up and running.

ICANN have shown their true colours in making this difficult, if .xxx is the best they can come up with god help us all.

I also like the idea of not making this a domainer friendly extension, it makes no sense following the current trend/s of land rush and hoarding. If we look at the Internet 20 years down the track i fail to see why this .music couldn't work given the current fractured music industry that involves the traditional labels, companies, itunes and online areas etc that don't always gel together.

IMO i think it's the best concept Ive heard of in the domain space for quite some time, whether it gets up or not i guess we will have to see.

 

[adinfinite]

I'm really glad I posted this interview on this forum. The discussion is illuminating the whole issue and has given me a kind of "insider's take" on ICANN and how they operate. Dongsman asked some damn good questions and I hope Constantine will return to answer them.

 

[dotmusic]

Awesome that you posted here, Mr. Roussos.

I'd like to ask a question, if you're taking them.

What is it that .music will do that existing platforms will not do?
I ask this as a semi-serious amateur musician and a huge fan of music in general.

Let me give you an example.
I'm a Fingerstyle Guitarist. I recent bought (and quickly developed) Fingerstyle/Guitarists/com into a fast videobook mashup of the better Fingerstyle Guitar talent out there. It's literally days live and hardly out of beta, yet is already receiving WOM traffic, in spite of no search engine presence (and absolutely ZERO on-page SEO effort for the sake of a clean, streamlined aesthetic). We expect this to grow over time. Whether the site had been Fingerstyle/Guitarists/com, FingerstyleGuitarists.music or fingerstyle.guitarists.music, the 'spark' that inspired users to look in- and to tell their friends- had absolutely nothing to do with the TLD and everything to do with the idea and (thusfar static) content.

By utilizing existing free content distribution infrastructure (ie- Youtube) and linking to artists own websites, we're able to distribute content cheaply, efficiently and get their presence 'out there'.


It's easy to conceive of an idea and theoretically compound that idea forward to the point that you're 'dominating the world' in your mind before the first steps are ever taen- and you're apparently someone with the financial wherewithal to subsidize such ideas- but what practical rudiments exist in .music that might actually precipitate your big ideas to transition from a fanciful and big notion to *actually* becoming ground zero for music distribution?

While the vanity/custom TLD concept is fascinating and potentially might be a paradigm buster over time, what is it about .music that would 'shake up' the way things are, right now? Genericized concept -TLD's strike me as being "just another TLD" and not subject to the same potential that is inherent to, say, IBM becoming .ibm.

What's out there right now seems adequate for the task that you're charging .music with accomplishing- and it's very, very difficult to redefine 'adequate' on the internet, barring some huge enrichment in user experience and as we all know, there's no point in reinventing the wheel.

What is it about this particular customized TLD that will "unseat adequate"?
I understand that conceptually, your idea is to develop out .music and make it a central clearinghouse for music in general- which obviously has huge potential- but what is it about the TLD itself (and whatever development scheme you employ) that will re-centrifugalize the distribution of music content back into a more controlled model- a model that the internet has since broken up?

Really interested in this.

Thanks for the email. My goal is to address the lacking marketplace that exists in the industry. For example, I am in a band in Los Angeles and i am looking for a cello player to come and record a cello part in a recording. How do you find a cello player, how do you figure out if they're good and how do you pay them? The "Booking for Sessions" is an example. The musicians (cellist in this case) sets a price and then the band hires the cellist to perform work. Fund are placed in escrow and released when the job is accomplished. How do you find the cellist on .music? Pretty simple. You search for "cellist" in LosAngeles.music or you search "Los Angeles" in cellist.music in order to find the local musician. The registrant (cellist) sets the price and transactions are made.

There is no such system today. The industry that has done wonders in this kind of marketplace is the software and website developer/programmer industry. This system does not exist within the music industry. Can you hire bands online to play at your party, wedding or event and have the whole transaction managed and processed online? Not really. This is a marketplace example and a small component of the .music marketplace. The goal is how do you reward .music registrants and how do improve both "music/artist/business discovery" using both geography and keyword-specific genres/associations.

Hope this is a small illustration that tackles the "adequate vs adding extra value" component of your question.

---------- Post added at 01:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:17 PM ----------

I'm thrilled Constantine took the time to respond to us here in this forum

I don't think I called this quite correctly based on what he has said but I still don't believe I'm far wrong.

As far as I'm concerned, I really hope that he is as sincere as he sounds because he's saying a lot of great things and a lot of great things that shake up the industry in a profound way. Not quite how I envisioned it - it seems he has a greater passion for achieving massive change than just reaping the rewards.

While the final destination is not as fully integrated as I expected it is definitely a stepping stone towards that destination.

I wish you the best of luck.

The goal of .music is offering the music community an addiotonal platform which has "constraints" of not being free attached to it. This tends to weed out the serious from the non-serious musicians. While the element of free invites everyone on board, it does create white noise. My challenge is to sort through the white noise and bring a new model of music and business discovery. While hits, views and listens can be gamed on youtube and other networks, you can not game actual income earned within a network. Having 10 million views on Youtube does not guarantee you have earned a considerable income. This is the challenge with social media. Lots of conversations, engagement but in the end how do you monetize as an indie artist. Relying on just downloads to me is just one small component of the pie. One of the biggest issue sin the music industry today is actually finding great music. Gatekeepers have a role to play and so is new search discovery technology. That is an area I am actively working on.

---------- Post added at 01:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:25 PM ----------

I'm really glad I posted this interview on this forum. The discussion is illuminating the whole issue and has given me a kind of "insider's take" on ICANN and how they operate. Dongsman asked some damn good questions and I hope Constantine will return to answer them.

I wish I was an insider. It seems that most of the stuff i have been fighting for the last few years have not worked given the red tape in ICANN. The "traditional" ICANN community is deeper than we all think. While some things seem logical to myself and others, that does not mean ICANN will vote on those. There are so many conflicts of interests happening in ICANN it is difficult to explain. Remember, the ICANN Board is not paid. They are volunteers. I need not say more. And they most certainly do not listen to me or all the new guys that have tried to enter their "community." The old schoolers always will have more might or influence. I was hoping I would change that but it is very difficult. I am currently working on some new ICANN resolutions and trying to get them to incorporate some of the multi-stakeholder as well as outreach/communication efforts for communities.

The ICANN Affirmation of Commitments clearly outlines that ICANN policy should follow what is in the public interest. We will have to wait and see about that. If only I know that a few years ago. I did not know what mess i was getting into. It all seemed so logical and simple. That is far from the truth. The process is too complicated and there are so many moving parts. I hope I do not have to wait more years for this to happen. They did vote on IDN ccTLDs even thought the same overarching issues that plague .music were not resolved with those. They just released them because of what? International government pressures and lobbying. Like I said, good luck trying to make sense out of ICANN and all the conflicts of interests. I have been trying to for years.

---------- Post added at 01:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:34 PM ----------

I agree with Dongsman, at least in principal. I question what a platform built on .music will do that a platform built on a .com wont do?

In my mind, this simply becomes another cost of doing business, a needless one. How much would it cost to maintain the Registry? Would it be not-for-profit?

Great questions.

The cost of doing business is very high, especially if you want to set up your own proprietary DNS system and not use the existing big 3 (verisign, afilias or Neustar). Maintenance would run in the millions depending on registrations and final contract negotiations with ICANN.

I can not discuss in great detail what the advantages of .music over .com would be. This would be revealed in a few more months. One of the biggest things is ownership. You do not own your youtube, myspace, facebook, twitter accounts. Those companies do. In regards to the technology, that is another big topic of discussion. The right thinking is what an owned .music domain would bring over a free subdomain of an existing brand eg youtube, myspace etc. Again, how do we weed out the serious from the not so serious and the active from the inactive? Also what mechanisms can .music add to reward those who use the network and profit through it? Those are the real issues. Again, this should all be from the musician's needs point of view.

I can not go through through the financials but you are right. It is a huge risk, high reward endeavor. Someone needs to do it. Wouldn't want it any other way. Music.mobi anyone? Yea I probably know what you guys are thinking. Guess was interesting that Afilias bought out .mobi. talk about consolidation and monopolies.

 

[Ms Domainer]

*

Unfortunately, dotmusic, the idea of a "gatekeeper" scares me. In my opinion, "gatekeeper" is just another word for ICANN.

What makes YOU an expert in deciding who "include" and who to "exclude" in the music industry? For all we know, .music may very well stifle the next Beethoven, Mozart, or Louis Armstrong because some bouncer at the .music gate doesn't understand that "different" doesn't always mean "non-talented," that "different" can also mean "innovation."

It's sad but true: what starts out as a good idea with idealistic goals often ends up with cronyism and henchmen and corruption at its core.

Money and greed almost always insinuate their way into the mix of altruism and good intentions.

I say, keep the "white noise" by tabling ALL generic TLDs (in other words, I'm not just picking on .music, but also .movies, .banks, .cars, .loans, etc.) because of their potential to stifle commerce and the language of commerce. For instance, I would not want AIG or Washington Mutual to own .loans either.

I really dislike the idea of individuals and "special interest" groups "owning" generic TLDs and then restricting them based on some God-knows-what criteria. For example, EACH TLD has the potential to register and/or reject MILLIONS of domains within that special category. Rejecting musicians, even if they are not that talented, from registering a .music domain for specious reasons could very well lead down the slippery slope of the "music cartel," controlled by a few powerful moguls, who then decide what style of music is "acceptable." Small garage bands and music labels could very well be excluded from registering .music, and that would just about kill the music industry, limiting membership to the elite. And what would happen if any of these small time musicians and labels wanted to use the word "music" in their name? Would .music become so powerful that it could block the use of the word "music," except by its registrants?

My question then, from an ethical standpoint, should individuals or special interest groups be allowed to own generic TLDs, and, thus, reduce language itself to the marketplace?

My answer: I hope not.

*

 

[Archangel]

There was a lot that I was going to add here, in light of dotmusic appearing here at NP. But it had all been said pretty well above by the last several posters. I do wish you well but I think you're being zealous without thinking of the full scope of things. When the dust settles all you are doing is making a large website, with domains (using .music) given only to a select few. I need to point out that there is no real way to protect against fraudulent signups. And yes, I'm sure there will be others who'll argue this but let's face it: If I teamed with a guitarist and labeled us a 'band,' who would hold the dictation to prove/disprove our status? Who would be the All-Seeing Eye who would have the ability to label us as a real, legit band or 2 ppl who play instruments? And what if two local/underground bands have the same name? Let's say there are 2 bands that call themselves Black Cross. Who would get blackcross.music?

There may be more to your idea than we realize but from all you've said, the infrastructure you've been working on is nothing more than a website. A wikipedia for music? Anyone could reg wikipediamusic.com or similar and do the exact same thing. All .music seems to be is a way to regulate the website you're building and to pass out members' jackets to the bands a la "Look, I'm a member of this website -- and I got the domain to prove it!"

I truly wish you the best but your idea is nothing new (aside from the adding-an-extension part) and I really cannot fathom this taking off... at least without a few million for promotion. It'd be the quintessential Pyrrhic outcome, assuming it has enough life to make it to that plateau -- for all your hard work, the site might never yield anything to show for it, not even a profit.

 

[dotmusic]

*

Unfortunately, dotmusic, the idea of a "gatekeeper" scares me. In my opinion, "gatekeeper" is just another word for ICANN.

What makes YOU an expert in deciding who "include" and who to "exclude" in the music industry? For all we know, .music may very well stifle the next Beethoven, Mozart, or Louis Armstrong because some bouncer at the .music gate doesn't understand that "different" doesn't always mean "non-talented," that "different" can also mean "innovation."

It's sad but true: what starts out as a good idea with idealistic goals often ends up with cronyism and henchmen and corruption at its core.

Money and greed almost always insinuate their way into the mix of altruism and good intentions.

I say, keep the "white noise" by tabling ALL generic TLDs (in other words, I'm not just picking on .music, but also .movies, .banks, .cars, .loans, etc.) because of their potential to stifle commerce and the language of commerce. For instance, I would not want AIG or Washington Mutual to own .loans either.

I really dislike the idea of individuals and "special interest" groups "owning" generic TLDs and then restricting them based on some God-knows-what criteria. For example, EACH TLD has the potential to register and/or reject MILLIONS of domains within that special category. Rejecting musicians, even if they are not that talented, from registering a .music domain for specious reasons could very well lead down the slippery slope of the "music cartel," controlled by a few powerful moguls, who then decide what style of music is "acceptable." Small garage bands and music labels could very well be excluded from registering .music, and that would just about kill the music industry, limiting membership to the elite. And what would happen if any of these small time musicians and labels wanted to use the word "music" in their name? Would .music become so powerful that it could block the use of the word "music," except by its registrants?

My question then, from an ethical standpoint, should individuals or special interest groups be allowed to own generic TLDs, and, thus, reduce language itself to the marketplace?

My answer: I hope not.

*

Actually you are quite wrong about your concept of gatekeeper in music. The gatekeeper is probably the most popular way people find music. When you compare consumption before 2000 it was about the major labels and the radio stations. In my opinion, music quality-wise has been far superior on average before 2002. While the Internet and new distribution models have leveled the playing field, artist development has suffered greatly.

You did not seem to read what I said. I was pressing about the point that you made. A .music composed of multi-stakeholder governance and equal representation of both commercial and non commercial constituents. That means no special interest groups or individuals. This is community-based and your points is what I am pressing with ICANN to not have the issue of monopolization.

I mentioned rejecting domainers not rejecting musicians, so not sure where you found that information. Sorry but you would not be included as part of the music community nor be allowed to register domains for reselling. This will be restricted for the music community only. This extension will have nothing to do with domainers and I apologize if this comes out the wrong way to some of you. I am a musician myself, producer and songwriter. I have been involved in the music industry for years. You have to realize that you have to create value first and then the money will follow. I disagree with your notion that money is created just be launching a TLD or selling it in the open. Auctioning for example is a domainer approach and quick money grab. This is not my approach.

By the way an idea is just a synonym for hallucination if there is no execution. We can talk about ideas all day long but someone needs to execute it. Gatekeepers are how things work today. Tweets are sent by people to followers. The tweeter is the gatekeeper. Radio DJs are gatekeepers too. Same with bloggers. Same with chart systems. The difference is that there are many gatekeepers today. In the past it was radio, MTV and the record labels. Times have changed and we need to move beyond that and realize that. Your friends are probably the biggest gatekeepers for discovering new music. Music discovery is about gatekeepers and effective search. The consumers and everyone else is a gatekeeper. I think your notion of gatekeeper will not apply in the .music sense. The goal is to facilitate trustworthy gatekeeping according to user preferences. We can go on talking about theory and the ethics of stuff but .music has nothing to do with ethics but everything to do with execution and creating value. You can not "gatekeep" music discovery anymore becaus ethe power has shifted to the consumer. The industry is too fragmented.

You have not understood at all what .music is about or the underlying value. The musicians choose what they want to do. I do not dictate anything to them. They can opt in to the platform and do as they wish. Same with pricing etc. Not sure where I mentioned cartel and controlling the music. In all reality, if your music is good people will listen and spread it. Great music is never hidden. It is viral inherently. Please show me to a band as good as the beatles, led zeppelin, radiohead, pearl jam, jimi hendrix, the doors, Queen that has come out recently. You will have a difficult time because new releases of music have risen 10 fold the last 10 years. Anyone with a home studio can release a song. What all these new music discovery websites like Pandora, Last.fm etc are trying to do is facilitate better music discovery with their technology. In the end, the consumer has all the power. The days of the cartel are all over. Not sure if you are being realistic with the way the Internet works today. If you were right, the majors would still be bathing in their money, selling $15 CDs with 1 or 2 songs that are actually worth listening to.

We have moved to new times and I believe there are many ways to add value. My goal is to expand the pie for the music community and add value through a TLD. This is a democracy. Maybe bands will opt in to get a .com. Noone is squeezing their hands. Only if they see value will they do it. If there is no value, then I agree. I have failed and I am just another vanity TLD. That is not my purpose and I think the mission is beyond that.

 

[Jaco]

*

Unfortunately, dotmusic, the idea of a "gatekeeper" scares me. In my opinion, "gatekeeper" is just another word for ICANN.

What makes YOU an expert in deciding who "include" and who to "exclude" in the music industry? For all we know, .music may very well stifle the next Beethoven, Mozart, or Louis Armstrong because some bouncer at the .music gate doesn't understand that "different" doesn't always mean "non-talented," that "different" can also mean "innovation."

It's sad but true: what starts out as a good idea with idealistic goals often ends up with cronyism and henchmen and corruption at its core.

I think the likelihood of him 'redefining music' by controlling a TLD and developing some websites is next to nill, so little to worry about here, but you do raise a helluva good point here. It's one we're presently facing down in a profoundly smaller and much less ambitious way with Fingerstyle/Guitarists/com (which is literally days old and at this stage, isn't much more than a videobook and pretty much a test balloon concept beta for other sites).

Right now, admission criteria to the site results from the objective opinions of a few lifelong enthusiasts and practitioners, as well as a few of the artists themselves. If anything, we trend heavily a-conventional and strongly prefer artists who bring something 'new' to the table. This has irked a few 'purists' in the community. Seeing Claus Bossier Ferrari on the same page as Merle Travis makes a few people mad :D

With that said, should the site ever go the monetization route, who's to say that there wouldn't be temptation to more heavily showcase artists who play the guitars made by one of our sponsors? Or upsell the iTunes of artists who promise us a cut of the action?

Obviously, we aren't going to do any of that, but benevolence always dies off in time, while the systems themselves live on forever. You cannot create a system that only succeeds if the people tasked with running it are good natured. You have to presume that in time, bad natured people will weasel their way in and hijack it for their own gain. Handing over "music on the web" to the one guy who steps up with an open checkbook and a willingness to take on the task seems a bit creepy and kinda bespeaks to the sort of rottenness we can expect with these new TLDs....

"... and in other news, a multi-way bidding war has erupted between the governments of Palestine, Israel and a consortium of Investment Bankers from West Palm Beach to secure the rights to the newly proposed .Jews TLD... All parties insist their interest is rooted in the best of intentions..."

 

[dotmusic]

I think the likelihood of him 'redefining music' by controlling a TLD and developing some websites is next to nill, so little to worry about here, but you do raise a helluva good point here. It's one we're presently facing down in a profoundly smaller and much less ambitious way with Fingerstyle/Guitarists/com (which is literally days old).

Right now, admission criteria to the site results from the objective opinions of a few lifelong enthusiasts and practitioners, as well as a few of the artists themselves. If anything, we trend heavily a-conventional and strongly prefer artists who bring something 'new' to the table. This has irked a few 'purists' in the community. Seeing Claus Bossier Ferrari on the same page as Merle Travis makes a few people mad :D

With that said, should the site ever go the monetization route, who's to say that there wouldn't be temptation to more heavily showcase artists who play the guitars made by one of our sponsors? Or upsell the iTunes of artists who promise us a cut of the action?

Obviously, we aren't going to do any of that, but benevolence always dies off in time, while the systems themselves live on forever. You cannot create a system that only succeeds if the people tasked with running it are good natured. You have to presume that in time, bad natured people will weasel their way in and hijack it for their own gain. Handing over "music on the web" to the one guy who steps up with an open checkbook and a willingness to take on the task seems a bit creepy and kinda bespeaks to the sort of rottenness we can expect with these new TLDs....

"... and in other news, a multi-way bidding war has erupted between the governments of Palestine, Israel and a consortium of Investment Bankers from West Palm Beach to secure the rights to the newly proposed .Jews TLD..."

Let me get this straight. I volunteer after being invited to come to a domainer forum to discuss innovations in the TLD space to have you call me "creepy" and TLD initiatives "rotten"? I have nothing to say to you or others. There will always be critics especially domainers who believe that .com is the only domain on this planet that matters. Times are changing. If you have an idea that is better I suggest you execute it. There is no "handing over" I assure you. Things are not as black and white as you see it and the responsibility is large. You can believe what you want to believe but I think it is not effective to throw words such as creepy and rotten when I volunteered to come to "enemy" domainer territory to discuss .music. I am sorry but again, this is not a domainer's extension.

I assure many of you that some TLDs will be a success. I could care less about ".com is king" discussions and they are pointless in regards to new TLDs. The .music TLDs is not about beating .com. I could care less about that. It is a lost cause. Again the goal is one: making a difference that matters for the music community. That is the objective.

---------- Post added at 04:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:16 PM ----------

There was a lot that I was going to add here, in light of dotmusic appearing here at NP. But it had all been said pretty well above by the last several posters. I do wish you well but I think you're being zealous without thinking of the full scope of things. When the dust settles all you are doing is making a large website, with domains (using .music) given only to a select few. I need to point out that there is no real way to protect against fraudulent signups. And yes, I'm sure there will be others who'll argue this but let's face it: If I teamed with a guitarist and labeled us a 'band,' who would hold the dictation to prove/disprove our status? Who would be the All-Seeing Eye who would have the ability to label us as a real, legit band or 2 ppl who play instruments? And what if two local/underground bands have the same name? Let's say there are 2 bands that call themselves Black Cross. Who would get blackcross.music?

There may be more to your idea than we realize but from all you've said, the infrastructure you've been working on is nothing more than a website. A wikipedia for music? Anyone could reg wikipediamusic.com or similar and do the exact same thing. All .music seems to be is a way to regulate the website you're building and to pass out members' jackets to the bands a la "Look, I'm a member of this website -- and I got the domain to prove it!"

I truly wish you the best but your idea is nothing new (aside from the adding-an-extension part) and I really cannot fathom this taking off... at least without a few million for promotion. It'd be the quintessential Pyrrhic outcome, assuming it has enough life to make it to that plateau -- for all your hard work, the site might never yield anything to show for it, not even a profit.

Let us go one step further. There are over 10 bands called Rain. Also there are over 10 bands called Bliss. The domain goes to whoever gets it first in this case unless there is a sunrise period trademark request. Then it becomes more complicated.

It is ok that you think it will not take off. I have the opposite view. I am sure you guys will be talking about .music soon. I am sure 1.3 million signatures and 4 million band son myspace as well as myself are wrong. I think any success of business depends on the management and the entrepreneurs. Execution and strategy. Things will fall in place.

---------- Post added at 04:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:24 PM ----------

I know this guy. His name is Costa Roussos.....And, trust me, this play is NOT remotely a play about simply owning a TLD registry, and selling registrations.


(Disclosure: I have no personal interest in the .music concept).


The way I see it, this is a bold paradigm shift move - right at the centre of one of the world's most dynamic & lucrative markets...ie Music.


Its a play to use the internet to merge all the overlapping elements of the music business (producer, distributor, promoter, & consumer) into one cohesive concept/portal.


The great challenge for music-makers (bands, individuals, songwriters) is to find a way to reach & connect with an audience. Get your music out there. Get it heard, and played - get branded - and, get people to pay to hear it.

The key channels, now, are the recording companies (and their distribution/promotion systems), online music d/l's (eg iTunes etc), and, independent bands trying to go it alone via the internet, or any other way they can.....Its fragmented. And, they all overlap.


The right .Music concept has the potential to grab and unify this global platform....become an online Mega-Mall for every aspect of the music business....The place you get your music branded, promoted, heard, discussed, d/l & sold, and exposed, to a global market....The go-to place that music lovers go to hear, see, discover, and download, emerging music, and established music.....But, much more....Dot Music could manage relationships...part-own copyright, manage & coordinate merchandise, drive the discovery of new bands/music, control distribution, interact with the global market in a hundred ways etc etc....All branded as '.Music'....And, .Music takes a clip from every aspect of it on the way through.

This .Music concept could (& will) forge partnerships with the EMI's, and the Sony's etc....It will build a massive following of millions of music lovers (they already have 1.3 million supporters - and, they haven't even got the .Music extension yet!) ....And, it will be a core channel for emerging bands to brand themselves, and get global distribution...


If iTunes can make hundreds of millions of dollars by offering simple downloads of music clips, imagine what a concept could do if music clips were only 10% of what .Music could be....


Oh, yes....This is much more than an 'extension' registry play. This is a play for the future of how music is found, sold, distributed, and managed.


This is a billion dollar play.

.

Great to hear back from you Chris! Awesome man. Thanks for the positive feedback. You are on the right track here man. Hope all is well Down Under.

 

[Vito]

Hey Constantine,

Please dont go away.
I am a Musician myself, and am very intrigued by your Plans.
The internet is constantly changing and some people dreadfully fear change.

I am a gambler also, and choose to have more than 50% of my portfolio as speculative domains,(.TV, 3D, future potential energy, Future potential products, etc.)

I find your idea and persistence Ingenious and would love to hear more.

Sometimes people here have a way with words that is well let's just say less than personable, and I for one know that it is hard to hear one iota of negativity and not take it personal but I am guessing you also have a lot of fans here.

The net is ever evolving and music is part of everyone I knows, daily life.

You are fighting an uphill battle, I'm sure but many of us here can do whatever little bit we can to help you.

I really find your concept nothing short of amazing, and hope you will stay here at NP and share some of your great struggles and accomplishments, and goals.

Have you ever heard of StereoFame?
I find that site amazing and have been promoting that to many of my musician friends, and big shots here in Chicago.
Well by listening to your plans, I think your idea will blow that away times 1000.

I just wanted to put a plea out to you to hang out a little longer, and let you know you do have some very interested fans here.

 

[Keith]

I thought everyone knew that the way to prosperity was by following a path that has been beaten time and time again (that path being .com). We all know that if it's internet related it must be .com or else be prepared to fail. I mean really can you imagine if someone actually tried to stray and do something new, think outside the box? Oh yes the folks who dream it and then do it are the reason we continue to evolve on this planet. I suggest that the folks who cannot see beyond the little blip known as .com, actually take a moment to think about the big picture. Who knows, it may actually be an eye opener for some!