After 5 Years Preparing to Run a New gTLD DotGreen's Fate Rests in ICANN's Hands

[Ron Jackson]

Founder Annalisa Roger and her team at the DotGreen Community know it will be difficult for a new gTLD to break through the clutter of hundreds of other planned new gTLDs. That's why they have been tirelessly promoting .green for over 5 years now. But with 3 other applicants chasing the TLD, the race is still far from over. You can get the details here: http://www.dnjournal.com/articles/new-gtlds/dotgreen.htm

 

[Kenny]

Lofty goals, for sure.

Thanks for sharing this article, Duke.

Peace,
Cyberian

 

[alien51]

After reading that very long article (i even took the time to watch the videoclip, i had nothing much to do this friday), this DOTGREEN MOVEMENT is very VAGUE in how they attach themselves to the .GREEN tld claim.

For one thing, they are not specific to the ENVIRONMENT (unlike those pushing for .ECO tld). They point towards "sustainability" on just about anything. Even sustainability inside your office work-- it will qualify as "green".

One thing is very clear though, they seem to be strongly positioning themselves to SELL DOMAINS to ANYONE. There are no clear-cut restrictions of usage, or ownership certification to "being green". In short, it is going to be open to the public.

And when i say "public", i mean DOMAINERS. I could foresee that this is being cultivated as a fertile ground to make money hijacking domains and reselling them in the aftermarket.

 

[equity78]

And when i say "public", i mean DOMAINERS. I could foresee that this is being cultivated as a fertile ground to make money hijacking domains and reselling them in the aftermarket.

Alien can you elaborate, how do you mean hijack domains ? This would be another tld that certainly wants to sell domains. This was never proposed as a restricted tld. Annalisa in an interview we did with her said that all profits would go to helping the planet.

 

[alien51]

Alien can you elaborate, how do you mean hijack domains ? This would be another tld that certainly wants to sell domains. This was never proposed as a restricted tld. Annalisa in an interview we did with her said that all profits would go to helping the planet.

When a TLD is NON RESTRICTED, it is wide open for trading and aftermarket hoarding.

Just because the proceeds will go to "helping the planet", it doesn't define or protect the "purpose" of having a .GREEN tld in the first place. You'll have thousands of domains regged under the .GREEN tld that have nothing to do with their "sustainability" description. They are just being regged for the sole purpose of making money from domaining. It's just like buying VATICAN.XXX but the site contains nothing remotely related to porn.

People surfing the internet, will eventually get confused about the "vague-ness" of .GREEN websites they would stumble upon. A lot of mini-sites here and there, parked sites, etc.

It's not "where" the money will be used. But how the TLD makes sense in categorizing the internet websites. Maybe this is the reason why in the videoclip, she was rambling about the DotGreen Community, without defining in explicit terms what exactly they mean with "green".

And also, in her long biography (which included her father), it was clear that father-and-daughter are not "planet protectors" from the start (like being involved with Greenpeace or Salvation Army or anything). They're internet "entrepreneurs" who had a family business of making money managing the TLD for the Virgin Islands. So her "DNA" is well versed about how to make money from domains.

And she admitted that she came up with the .GREEN idea from seeing a woman sitting and surrounded by lush green vegetation. That's about it. She was not even in a jungle at the time. It was just a photo she was trying to put on someone's fashion website. That was the closest thing she had with protecting the planet.

If she is really concerned about .GREEN, she should pursue that it be RESTRICTED and applicants scrutinized for their "green" projects. And that any kind of domain reselling will be examined to prevent domain trading. TLDs must serve the purpose of internet users, especially if you are MARKETING it towards a certain advocacy.

 

[eyedomainous]

Making .green restricted, like a Good Housekeeping Seal of approval, won't fly. The absence of global green standards nips the idea in the bud.

Besides, there are national organizations, gov & industry boards, as well as trade associations that issue various "green" certifications.

dotGreen INC., says it all. There was a time when enviros, like me, tried to define and 'own' Green. And I'm sure dotGreen Inc., will earn a nasty green-washing rep from some.

However, the term Green is an industry now... and there is market value in virtually any product.green or service.green. jeans.green, car.green, home.green, travel.green, and so forth.

Will it be "green-washing"? Yes! Without a doubt, most of the time. But not too long ago 'being green' would never cross one's mind.​

 

[alien51]

Making .green restricted, like a Good Housekeeping Seal of approval, won't fly. The absence of global green standards nips the idea in the bud.

It doesn't matter if there's an absence of global green standards. The Registry Operator would have to "define" their own standards. Here, the DotGreen Community appears to be intentionally making the definition of "green" as vague as possible, so that almost anyone will qualify. Their primary aim, is to sell domains.

The main reason for setting a RESTRICTION, is to preserve the "essence" of the TLD. And to block domainers from squatting on domain names, since they are not contributing to the "advocacy" of being "green".

But just like the rest of the exotic TLDs that came before it, these TLDs are being launched for the primary purpose of MAKING MONEY. CASH COW.

The .XXX Registry is not interested in the welfare of porn lovers worldwide. They just want to sell .XXX domains to anyone, so they can make money. The analogy is the same.

I have nothing against the "Domaining Industry". You can open up any TLD you want to the public, NO RESTRICTIONS. That's fine. But then again, this "advocacy" tactic is more like a SMOKESCREEN than anything else. It's just a front, so they could get approval.

My first question to the DotGreen Community is:

1) How can you stop Domainers from hoarding the nice domain names, then reselling them in the aftermarket at an inflated price tag?

Based on that article and the videoclip, the answer is: THEY WON'T STOP IT. DOMAIN HOARDING WILL BE ALLOWED. You can do whatever you want. Wild-Wild-West.

By the way, being "green" is also synonymous to being "dirty minded". So anyone can put up a PORN site on .GREEN as well. It's NON RESTRICTED, right?

 

[eyedomainous]

Each .green domain sold 'contributes the the advocacy of 'being green'. Even a domainer's parked page with "green" ads.

If the .green price bar is restrictively high it won't grow the green 'grass roots' base needed for 'product-market health'. If .green is primarily seen as the corporate green-washing front it may wither and die.

Eco-science based restrictions are not practical, so it will likely be a dotGreen Community Mission Statement, with a buyer / Member Pledge worked into the Terms Of Use.

Raise your right hand. Place your left over your ass crack and repeat after me; "I will not dump on mother Earth any more than I have too. I pledge all dumps will be in the spirit of the dotGreen GIGO (Green In Green Out) Goals." Great! Now click Purchase.

IMO, whoever gets .green should take a holistic approach to marketing the extension. Afterall, we all need to embrace being green. Including domainers chasing the green.

Besides those who pollute the least, often live in the most dumped-on communities... so ghetto.green should be in reach.

It doesn't matter if there's an absence of global green standards. The Registry Operator would have to "define" their own standards. ... The main reason for setting a RESTRICTION, is to preserve the "essence" of the TLD. And to block domainers from squatting on domain names, since they are not contributing to the "advocacy" of being "green".

You lost me here. I'm a bit green on this definition of 'green'.

By the way, being "green" is also synonymous to being "dirty minded".

Yes! A line of green sex toys made the news a few months back, and 'green' applies to everything from lights, to camera and action.

So anyone can put up a PORN site on .GREEN as well. It's NON RESTRICTED, right?

 

[alien51]

It seems you deliberately avoided this question:

My first question to the DotGreen Community is:

1) How can you stop Domainers from hoarding the nice domain names, then reselling them in the aftermarket at an inflated price tag?

 

[eyedomainous]

Actually, I deliberately answered that question with the line:

"IMO, whoever gets .green should take a holistic approach to marketing the extension. Afterall, we all need to embrace being green. Including domainers chasing the green.

Hoarding 'overpriced' domains is not sustainable, so it won't threaten the .green ecosystem. Eventually most every name will be recycled, or reused -as a 'development'.

 

[alien51]

Actually, I deliberately answered that question with the line:

"IMO, whoever gets .green should take a holistic approach to marketing the extension. Afterall, we all need to embrace being green. Including domainers chasing the green.

That was a vague answer. Just like Annalisa was trying to be vague with her explanation in the videoclip.

So let me rephrase the question, to get a more direct to the point answer:

Domainers are ALLOWED to grab nice domain names, squat on them, and offer them for resale to real .GREEN end-users in the aftermarket at inflated prices. YES OR NO?

 

[eyedomainous]

Should domainers only be ALLOWED to buy, and/or hold, NOT nice .green names? Yes? OR NO?

Is holding a name the same as squatting on a name? YES? OR NO?
-Note- you changed the question from 'hold' to 'squat'... you green, slimy, reptile.

Should a .GREEN domain name owner have the right to determine the asking price in the aftermarket? YES? OR NO?

No need to slither and slime... we all know the "direct to the point answers".

That was a vague answer. Just like Annalisa was trying to be vague with her explanation in the videoclip.

So let me rephrase the question, to get a more direct to the point answer:

Domainers are ALLOWED to grab nice domain names, squat on them, and offer them for resale to real .GREEN end-users in the aftermarket at inflated prices. YES OR NO?

 

[wot]

They will be grabbed by the usual suspects.

There will be headline sales by the usual suspects.

The extension will then drift in to obscurity along with all the super duper new touted extensions.

The average domainer will have lined the pockets of the usual suspects and associates and then have their unwanted purchases dropping after one year.

Cynical perhaps but probably true?

 

[HeyNow]

They will be grabbed by the usual suspects.

There will be headline sales by the usual suspects.

The extension will then drift in to obscurity along with all the super duper new touted extensions.

The average domainer will have lined the pockets of the usual suspects and associates and then have their unwanted purchases dropping after one year.

Cynical perhaps but probably true?

Spot on! Perhaps they can get some help from Snapnames to bolster the prices artificially through shill-bidding. Then DnJournal.com can publish those results as though they can be trusted, and simultaneously attract newbies into the fray through cynical, "educational" sites for newbies. The whole seedy, scum-infested, predatory cycle will play out as it has in the past.