The Complexities of .Brand Domains: Structure, ICANN Rules, and Future Challenges

The world of domain names is constantly evolving, and one of the most intriguing developments in recent years has been the introduction of .brand top-level domains (TLDs). These domains, which feature a trademarked brand name after the dot (e.g., .honeywell), were initially hailed as a revolutionary way for companies to assert their online identity and create unique digital experiences. However, the reality of .brand domains has proven to be far more complex, with significant challenges arising from the existing domain name structure and ICANN’s (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) regulations.

Recently, ICANN announced that Honeywell is seeking to terminate its .honeywell domain name. This decision highlights the difficulties and limitations that many companies have encountered when trying to implement .brand TLDs effectively. While the concept of a branded domain seems appealing on the surface, the practical application has been hampered by several factors.

Challenges with the Current .Brand Domain Framework

.Brand domains were essentially “shoehorned” into the existing framework for top-level domains, which was not originally designed to accommodate them. This has made it difficult for companies to use these domains in innovative and meaningful ways. The structure of domain names, with the brand name appearing after the dot, presents a fundamental challenge to traditional website architecture and user expectations.

One of the main issues is determining what should go to the left of the dot for a company’s primary website. While options like “www.brand” might seem logical, they can lead to confusion and inconsistencies across different brands. As one commenter pointed out, achieving a consistent and easily guessable protocol for .brand domains requires a unified approach, which is difficult to achieve given the diverse nature of businesses and their online strategies.

John Berryhill, a prominent voice in the domain name industry, has highlighted several key challenges associated with .brand domains. He notes that in order to effectively advertise a .brand TLD’s “home” destination, the brand owner must essentially prioritize another word ahead of their brand name. This can be particularly problematic for companies with a wide range of products or services. For instance, a company like Yamaha, which manufactures everything from musical instruments to motorcycles, would face a difficult decision in choosing a single word to represent their entire brand before the “.yamaha” TLD.

Right, but they’d all have to adopt the same protocol in order to have a hope of “guessability”. But you are spot on with the words being in the wrong order, as I have also heard from the brand manager for a major automobile manufacturer. Many more .brand TLDs are going to be dropped since they were obtained on the basis of there being a limited time window to apply for them, so quite a few of the applications were simply exercises in avoiding a lost opportunity to obtain something they could figure out later if they wanted to use. (and, yes, urged on by the ICANN consultant corps)

In order to advertise the “home” destination in a .brand TLD, the brand owner, with potentially billions of value in the goodwill associated with their brand, has to pick some other word and give it ‘top billing’ on their marquee, ahead of their brand. I’s particularly tough if you are, say, Yamaha, and make everything from concert pianos to motorcycles. It would be one thing if DNS wild-carding were allowed, but it’s not since ICANN’s revenue model is based on registration volume of 2LDs. That also rules out any “TLD as database” applications, such as being able to use (product-serial-number).brand in service, support or warranty applications.

Having control of one’s own DNS data to the top-level may be of some marginal utility, but there is precious little practical value .brand TLDs. Now, of course, someone with something to sell may pop up here and argue otherwise, but one can’t deny the fact that you have better odds of seeing a snow leopard than a .brand TLD with any substantial use. It is going to become more difficult to foist these on brand owners against the growing wasteland of discarded .brand TLDs, so I can certainly understand the urgency.

One of the better pitches for these things was by Joe Alagna, then of Centralnic, who would explain that early email addresses, such as through Compuserve, would look like “(numeric)@compuserve.net”, which made no brand impression. Later, one could get “(brand)@earthlink.net” which included the brand, but still advertised Earthlink. Then, it became easier to get addresses like [email protected], which eliminated the ad for the provider, but still implicitly ‘advertises’ Verisign as the .com registry. Joe could get you to buy sand in the desert if you listen long enough.

The thing is, generic TLDs like .com are just that – generic. Nobody associates any particular brand with .com or other gTLDs (unless they are in the domain business), so they are blank canvases which do not detract from the commercial impression of a URL or email address.

ICANN’s Role and the Limitations of DNS Wildcarding

Another significant limitation is the lack of DNS wildcarding, which would allow for more flexible and creative uses of .brand domains. For example, companies could potentially use subdomains like “product-serial-number.brand” for service, support, or warranty applications. However, ICANN’s revenue model, which is based on the registration volume of second-level domains (2LDs), effectively prohibits wildcarding. This restriction severely limits the potential of .brand TLDs to be used as dynamic databases or for other innovative applications.

While having control of one’s own DNS data at the top level can offer some marginal benefits, the practical value of .brand TLDs remains limited. As Berryhill aptly puts it, “you have better odds of seeing a snow leopard than a .brand TLD with any substantial use.” The growing number of discarded .brand TLDs suggests that many companies are realizing the limitations of these domains and are choosing to abandon them.

The Generic Advantage: .com and Other gTLDs

In contrast to .brand TLDs, generic top-level domains (gTLDs) like .com are considered “blank canvases” that do not detract from a brand’s commercial impression. Generic TLDs are widely recognized and trusted by internet users, making them a safe and reliable choice for establishing an online presence. Unless ICANN implements significant changes to how .brand domains can be used, they will continue to face an uphill battle for widespread adoption.

The Future of .Brand Domains

The future of .brand domains remains uncertain. While some proponents argue that they offer unique branding opportunities and greater control over online identity, the challenges and limitations outlined above cannot be ignored. ICANN’s willingness to adapt its regulations and consider alternative models for .brand TLDs will be crucial in determining whether these domains can ultimately fulfill their initial promise.

For a pro-.brand perspective, it is worth exploring discussions and insights from industry experts who believe in the potential of these domains. Listening to podcasts and reading articles that champion .brand TLDs can provide a balanced view of the ongoing debate.

Ultimately, the success of .brand domains will depend on a combination of factors, including ICANN’s regulatory decisions, technological advancements, and the willingness of companies to invest in innovative strategies for utilizing these unique domain extensions. Whether they become a mainstream part of the internet landscape or remain a niche phenomenon remains to be seen.