David Bicknelle-business
After more than a few years of organised chaos thinly disguised
as an Internet talking-shop, we now have a new series of top level
Internet domain names to add to the existing .com, .net and .org.
Among the new names are .biz, .coop, .aero, .info and .museum, each
of them with its own registry to oversee usage of the names.
However, the names are unlikely to be in use until the second
quarter of next year, because Icann - the California-based names
and numbering body - still has to negotiate registry agreements,
which then have to be approved by the board of directors.
Once these have been finalised, the Icann board will forward its
recommendations to the US Department of Commerce for
implementation. This process has taken nearly three years to
conclude, which translates, in terms of the Internet, to about
eight or nine.
What has been amazing about this whole process has been the
sheer baseness of it. The domain name world, it seems, is populated
with a whole series of companies and individuals whose sole purpose
is to get rich quick. There are notable exceptions of course, but
generally this whole domain name business has appeared to be a
murky affair.
Add to this the businesses that are trying to protect their
intellectual property rights and don't want to see their trademarks
used without permission, and their rivals, the grass-roots Netizens
who regard any defensive action related to a trademark as land
grabbing, and you can see why it has been such a mess.
Actually, though, it is no great surprise. We are using a
third-rate information service that crashes regularly, is slow to
download, confusing, insecure, lacks privacy, is scarcely covered
by legal certainty and is populated by a series of suppliers whose
products get more and more unreliable.
The Internet revolution has often been characterised as a gold
rush, with the more successful players being those who hand out the
shovels. But when it comes to domain names, "gold rush" is too
civilised a description. A saloon brawl, as depicted in the movies,
by flying chairs and smashed bottles, is a more worthy
scenario.
Lately, it has become fashionable for commentators and analysts
to knock Amazon over its inability to become profitable. Actually,
what could really hurt the company is a perception that Amazon is
no better at customer service than every other duff dotcom when it
comes to fulfilment. And it is already starting to happen. I have
recently spoken to two individuals, who either received the wrong
goods straight away, or waited a month for delivery, and then got
the wrong goods.
One of these people is an unashamed Amazon evangelist. He has
even met Amazon pioneer Jeff Bezos. Now though, he is beginning to
view Amazon in a different light, and bad news travels fast. Amazon
can keep on shrugging off the inevitable queries over
profitability, but when it comes to fulfilment, it cannot be an
also-ran.
Whatever is starting to go wrong needs sorting out now. In a
couple of weeks, during the Christmas rush, a glitch could become a
disaster. Then, Amazon might be wishing everyone would ask about
its profitability again, and not about its inability to
deliver.