Questions and Answers

Q1 - Nearly 100 million .com names are registered. Obviously it hasn't been hard to create new names. What's the problem?

A1 - The problem is just that: Nearly 100 million .com names are registered. Each name must be unique. Many of the names are held for speculation. That keeps content, and commerce, off the web.

The legacy system allows one person to 'own' a generic term. Example: worldwide there can be only one plumber.com on the Internet.

As early as 2004 only 3.7% of corporations around the world had identical corporate and dotcom domain names.

Imagine the telephone system following Internet rules which allowed anyone in the world to register your name and thereby prevent you from getting phone service under your own name.

Or just try to register a domain name that is meaningful, short, and easy to remember.

Q2 - Does this require a new naming system?

A2 - No, we're suggesting an evolution of the existing system, the fundamentals aren't changed at all.

Here's how it would work:
Domain names are registered in a set format, then a little new technology is used to introduce a keyboard character that hasn't been available in domain names previously. This character is restricted for use as an 'addressing token' in much the same way the @-character is used in e-mail addresses. This character plus a number allows you to register names that are the same as - but at the same time different from - existing domain names. This simple device would bring the Internet into better alignment with the real world, where different people and companies often share 'the same' name.

If we look at the alternatives:
We know that 'all the good names are gone' and have been for years. If you're creating a new venture you may be able to register a short, catchy domain name and name your company after your domain, but if your company already enjoys name recognition and goodwill, even having a registered trademark won't help in most cases.

ICANN is now taking applications for new generic Top Level Domains - at a cost of $185,000 per application. This may be good for ICANN, but is 'fragment and confuse' a good policy toward Internet users? New top levels have been introduced before, starting a decade ago, but haven't been very successful.

The most successful new generic TLD, .info, was introduced in 2001 and now holds 8 million registered domain names, compared with .com's 100 million. Another gTLD, .biz, was opened in June of 2002 to complement (or compete with) .com. It has about 2 milion registered names.

Other expansion TLDs such as .aero (from June, 2002), .coop (June, 2002) and .pro (June, 2004) have only about 10,000 registrations each. Do you even know they exist? Users tend to treat new top level domains with suspicion and businesses rightly view them as second rate addresses.

A wait list (back-order) system is available for ordering names that expire, but how many people do you think are in line ahead of you to buy the 'good names'? How long can your business wait for a name, and do you want one that the previous owner may have run into the ground?

There is a secondary market in domain names, fueled by speculation. If it normally costs only a few dollars to register a name for a year are you willing to pay thousands, tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars for the same name? Someone is getting rich on scarcity, but the scarcity is artificial and it promotes neither communication nor commerce. In fact, it impedes both.

Q3 - Don't search engines make this unnecessary?

A3 - If search engines were perfect we wouldn't need domain names at all, but domain disputes continue year after year - business owners want control over 'their own' names.

A normal user only reads the first 2 pages of search engine results. This means that as web content grows, positioning your business becomes harder instead of easier.

Look up "JoeAndSons*2.com" in Google and you'll find the test page. If you just look for 'fish restaurant in San Francisco' without the name you get several million hits to wade through. Name recognition is important on the web, which it why it's important to have your business name registered as a domain.

Q4 - Why not just use numbers – why add a new character like the asterisk to domain names? Won't that confuse people and increase the risk of name abuse?

A4 - Good reasons for introducing an addressing token include security and avoiding possible collisions with existing names. Another is that company, product and trademark names may already end in a number. Consider the case of a television station that wants to use channel5.com as a domain name. There are lots of channel 5s in the world and the second registrant can't be expected to register as channel51.com which changes the meaning and identity, and besides, a UHF channel 51 may already own that domain name.

For novice users, the asterisk is just another character on their keyboard. If the e-mail @-character isn't confusing, the asterisk shouldn't be. One new character with a defined function is easier to assimilate than several (or many) new top level domains. An asterisk that means several instances of the same name are registered is a positive security development for domain names.

The need to create new and original words to register as domain names generates uncertainty about name ownership and supports the abuse called typo-squatting. Registering a name that is not your recognized name (because that one is already taken) generates confusion, uncertainty and frustration for the consumer. Opening an unlimited supply of familiar words and names should help, and if name-based directories are created, additional information can be made available to users even before they type in or click on a domain name.

Q5 - Aren't you requiring everyone, everywhere, to install a new browser?

A5 - No, that wouldn't be user friendly. Look up "JoeAndSons*2.com" in your favorite search engine. You can find the test page even though it doesn't get any traffic, and you can select it even if you don't have the 'right' browser.

Typing the [name]*[number] format into your address line requires a browser update, but we don't expect anyone to adopt a new browser. We've made Asterisk available as a prototype to show how the function could be added to any web browser. This could be done as an add-on, or when the browser is updated.

New web browsers are delivered with software to translate Internationalized Domain Names, even if you don't realize it or ever use it, so similar development may be seen for multiplexed names.

Or you can always type the mlx--[name]--[number] native registration format into your address line. It isn't elegant, but it works.

Digression for potential site owners:
A site registered under a multiplexed name would be on line as quickly as any other site. A directory page or database with a link to that site could be updated immediately. Search-bots have to find and index the site before it can be displayed among search results, which may take several weeks. Linking the new site to a frequently updated directory page would speed up the process. As soon as the site is listed in a directory or found by your favorite search engine, it can be selected like any other site, by anyone, with any browser, by clicking on a link.

Q6 - Is the name registration format formally standardized?

A6 - No, there is a proof of concept. The system is fully compliant with existing standards, but adds a level. That level isn't standardized. If a standard is established it may differ from the one being tested.

Q7 - Who wants to be a 'number 2'?

A7 - Ask instead: if your name is Jones and jones*21.com is already registered, would you hesitate to register as jones*22.com? There may be some perceived advantage to having a lower number, just because it is shorter (fewer digits).

Remember, Jones registers as jones.com and the rest is 'disambiguation'. The asterisk and number aren't a value judgment any more than your telephone number is.

The proposed naming evolution returns domain names to the status they once had as simple addresses rather than property. The site you are now reading is the first example of this naming convention in use to provide information.

Q8 - Isn't there a 'chicken and egg' problem here? Without a lot of names registered in the suggested format there's no reason to download a browser to translate them, and without general implementation of the browser there's no advantage in registering a name.

A8 - There was no reason to have a web browser until there was information available on the web, and no rationale for putting information on the web until people had access to browsers. Yet now we have both. When people realized that better information access was possible, these developments became mutually supportive, what you might expect when people discover that Internet naming can be improved.

Since multiplexed domain names can be kept quite short you can always use the native name registration format – the name*number format is a convenience, just as a domain name is more convenient than typing an IP addresses.

Q9 - Won't trademark owners object to losing their monopoly on a domain name?

A9 - Trademark owners are expected, even required, to vigorously defend their marks. This applies equally to those companies that can use their trademark as a domain name, and all those that cannot.

It's understandable that companies with a registered trademark think they have a greater right to it use it as a domain name than someone else, but cybersquatting is based on the uniqueness of legacy domain names, not the uniqueness of trademarks. Trademarks generally aren't unique.

A trademark owner who also owns the corresponding domain name may complain if he loses his artificial monopoly, but since most trademarks aren't unique we should expect class action opposition to that artificial and unnecessary monopoly.

Instead of focusing on contention, consider how additional names can benefit major trademark owners. Imagine the largest suppliers of goods and services - think or companies like Wal-Mart and Sears, Pizza Hut and McDonald's. These four companies have thousands or tens of thousands of physical locations, but they're restricted to four domain names. If they recognize the need for each location to have a separate telephone number, then why not separate domain names utilizing the familiar registered trademark?

Q10 - Besides making more names available, are there other advantages to evolving the naming system?

A10 - You can't hold something for ransom unless it is unique. If domain names aren't unique you reduce the rationale for name hoarding, cybersquatting, registration hijacking and inflated prices in the secondary market.

Domain name tasting, kiting, and spying are identified abuses. Registered under an appropriate End User License Agreement, multiplexed names would combat all these abuses.

Q11 - Shouldn't we look for a completely new system instead?

A11 - Since it has been difficult to gain acceptance for new top level domains, who can we expect more radical changes to succeed? You have to respect the experience and expectations of a world full of Internet users. And what would you do with existing Internet content if a different naming system were introduced?

Name*number identities are optional, not mandatory, and coexist with legacy names. They comply with all existing DNS standards. They 'do no damage' since they're backward compatible.

Q12 - I'm an 'informavore' - I use the Internet for collecting Information but haven't felt the need to register my own domain name and possibly never will. How do more domain names rock my world?

A12 - Web usability studies have shown that given a known company or product name, many people will attempt to guess and type in the 'right' domain name several times before they turn to a search engine. 

Multiplexed names support the creation of name-based directories that provide another alternative for finding information efficiently, but the major advantage is that by eliminating the artificial scarcity of domain names, more information should become available from more sources.

Q13 - Are multiplexed names built on the same software as Internationalized Domain Names?

A13 - No, IDN software isn't involved. Both are browser applications that co-exist.

Modern browsers can read normal domain names and IDN names with characters such as the Swedish Å, Ä and Ö. The browser for multiplexed names adds the alternative of reading names containing the asterisk as an addressing token. That addition is transparent and does not interfere with legacy or IDN names.

IDNs can not use the asterisk for creating multiplexed names - they can't use the asterisk at all - but a different character such as the Euro symbol (€) could serve the same function as an addressing token for European Union domain names. If you want character universality (the asterisk always meaning the same thing in names, regardless of language) additional browser software could be written to allow multiplexed IDNs.

Q14 - What business aspects apply to multiplexed names.

A14 - In mid-September, '07, a local Internet registrar listed 61 names for sale on the secondary market. Asking prices ranged from $1,500 to $1.8 million, with an average price of nearly $245,000.

By early October, 2009, auctions for secondary market names had become established. One major reseller offered 10,000 names with bids starting at $2,000. The first 2 pages of names listed by another major reseller had 'buy now' prices averaging $6,800.

In late November, 2010, the local registrar named above listed 58 domains at an average price of nearly $280 thousand, with two listed at $1.8 million.

If you could find an appropriate name to buy for $2,000 on the secondary market (plus customary registration/renewal fees) and compare it with a multiplexed domain name hypothetically costing $25/year (plus the customary fees), it would take 80 years to realize pay-back on the secondary market name.

If we compare a high-priced name at $245k with a multiplexed name costing $25/year, pay-back would take 9,800 years.

Last updated December 13, 2011