Amazon May Not Get Its .Amazon Domain-Name Extension After All

Written by Frank Hayes
May 20th, 2013

Walmart (NYSE:WMT), Amazon (NASDAQ:AMZN) and more than a dozen other retailers who applied for their own top-level domains (TLDs) were expecting to see them rolled out starting this year. But the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is running into more delays in approving the vanity domains, and some—including .amazon—look like they may not be available to retailers at all.

The problem comes down to the fact that anyone can object to a TLD that has special significance beyond being a trademark, and far more objections have been filed over the nearly 2,000 applications for the new TLDs. In .amazon’s case, there’s a South American river with the same name (what a coincidence, huh?)—and several South American countries believe that’s a good reason for Amazon not to get control of .amazon.

No one seems to have expected that kind of backlash, but that’s hardly the first thing in this process that ICANN didn’t mention to the retailers (and many other entities) that shelled out $185,000 for each application. If all 1,930 applications were successful, ICANN stood to rake in more than more than $350 million. Any doubts as to why ICANN wanted to sell you your domain name all over again should end there.

What was expected was that some much-coveted vanity domains would get multiple applicants. That was supposed to be settled by either private negotiations or an auction process in which ICANN would collect the high bid, take out the $185,000 fee and then give the remainder to charity. Instead, some applicants are holding private auctions in which there’s no charity donation and no transparency as to how the winner came out on top.

It turns out there’s a bigger problem: objections from all those people who didn’t bid of a TLD, including everything from private individuals to ICANN’s own Government Advisory Committee (GAC). The flood of objections has been so great that in April ICANN said the objections would delay the rollout of the first new TLDs from June to August. Now observers think the organization will miss the August target too.

Some of those objections carry more weight than others. For example, the ICANN GAC said last month that it was worried about certain proposed TLDs that have religious or geographical meaning. Result: The GAC advised the ICANN board to hold off on Amazon’s registrations for .amazon, as well as the Chinese and Japanese versions of the name.

The GAC also listed about 180 proposed vanity domains, including retail-related TLDs such as .book, .toys and .sale, that it said should have special restrictions. And it listed 61 TLDs that it said are generic even though the applicants want complete control of the domains—including .grocery, which Walmart and Safeway (NYSE:SWY) are fighting over.

In addition, the GAC recommended that the ICANN board rethink the idea of letting different applicants have singular and plural versions of the same TLD—in other words, OKing both .book and .books. For some reason, ICANN’s board still thinks that won’t cause confusion.

Last Thursday (May 16), the Association of National Advertisers (ANA) added its objections to the mix, arguing that ICANN shouldn’t be approving any new TLDs until it has made sure there are sufficient protections in place for trademarks and brand names, and that registrars are accredited for that kind of protection before any of the new TLDs are approved. (ANA also pointed out that allowing both .book and .books was a very bad idea.)

A lot of what the GAC, the ANA and other objectors are saying sounds like just common sense. But for some reason, no one at ICANN thought there would be a problem with .book, .toys, .flowers, .food, .grocery, .shop or .store being tied up for exclusive use by one retailer (and those are just the most obviously retail-oriented TLDs that the applicants want exclusive use for).

In practical terms, that means the major retailers who committed hundreds of thousands (or in some cases tens of millions) of dollars to play the vanity domain game—including Walmart, Safeway, Amazon, Macy’s (NYSE:M), Gap (NYSE:GPS), TJX (NYSE:TJX), Home Depot (NYSE:HD), Tiffany (NYSE:TIF), Apple (NASDAQ:AAPL), Target (NYSE:TGT), JCPenney (NYSE:JCP), Best Buy (NYSE:BBY), McDonald’s (NYSE:MCD), Staples (NASDAQ:SPLS) and Polo (NYSE:RL)—are now waiting indefinitely to find out how the rules will be changed.


Comments are closed.


StorefrontBacktalk delivers the latest retail technology news & analysis. Join more than 60,000 retail IT leaders who subscribe to our free weekly email. Sign up today!

Most Recent Comments

Why Did Gonzales Hackers Like European Cards So Much Better?

I am still unclear about the core point here-- why higher value of European cards. Supply and demand, yes, makes sense. But the fact that the cards were chip and pin (EMV) should make them less valuable because that demonstrably reduces the ability to use them fraudulently. Did the author mean that the chip and pin cards could be used in a country where EMV is not implemented--the US--and this mis-match make it easier to us them since the issuing banks may not have as robust anti-fraud controls as non-EMV banks because they assumed EMV would do the fraud prevention for them Read more...
Two possible reasons that I can think of and have seen in the past - 1) Cards issued by European banks when used online cross border don't usually support AVS checks. So, when a European card is used with a billing address that's in the US, an ecom merchant wouldn't necessarily know that the shipping zip code doesn't match the billing code. 2) Also, in offline chip countries the card determines whether or not a transaction is approved, not the issuer. In my experience, European issuers haven't developed the same checks on authorization requests as US issuers. So, these cards might be more valuable because they are more likely to get approved. Read more...
A smart card slot in terminals doesn't mean there is a reader or that the reader is activated. Then, activated reader or not, the U.S. processors don't have apps certified or ready to load into those terminals to accept and process smart card transactions just yet. Don't get your card(t) before the terminal (horse). Read more...
The marketplace does speak. More fraud capacity translates to higher value for the stolen data. Because nearly 100% of all US transactions are authorized online in real time, we have less fraud regardless of whether the card is Magstripe only or chip and PIn. Hence, $10 prices for US cards vs $25 for the European counterparts. Read more...
@David True. The European cards have both an EMV chip AND a mag stripe. Europeans may generally use the chip for their transactions, but the insecure stripe remains vulnerable to skimming, whether it be from a false front on an ATM or a dishonest waiter with a handheld skimmer. If their stripe is skimmed, the track data can still be cloned and used fraudulently in the United States. If European banks only detect fraud from 9-5 GMT, that might explain why American criminals prefer them over American bank issued cards, who have fraud detection in place 24x7. Read more...

Our apologies. Due to legal and security copyright issues, we can't facilitate the printing of Premium Content. If you absolutely need a hard copy, please contact customer service.