Home / Blogs

CRIDO Sells “Do Not Sell List”

Coalition for Responsible Internet Domain Oversight, or CRIDO, released a plan they called a “peacemaker” three days before the Jan. 12th, 2012 launch, which would allow brands to begin the ICANN application process but would allow organizations and companies the opportunity to place their brand names, without cost, on a temporary “do not sell” list. ICANN so far has not responded to the “do not sell” list, and CRIDO is getting restless and threatening lawsuits.

According to CRIDO, their members represent some 10,000 brand names, so let’s evaluate the makeup of this highly desirable “do not sell” list, but first, the three typical brand name groups in the marketplace:

1. Hassle-free names that are on a solid footing. For example: Microsoft, IBM, Nokia, Toyota, Intel, Disney, BMW, Gillette, Honda, Google, Cisco, Honda, Sony, Nike, Ikea, Nintendo or Gucci.)

2. Troublesome names that carry varying degrees of confusion. For example: GE, BT, CA, SK, or LG. Major brand names with two-letter names run into difficulty, as two-letter suffixes are reserved for countries, like .jp for Japan. Names like iSong, Citi, AIG, UMS or MPC types will require special scrutiny to stay clear from any confusion with other users. Names that come in two or more parts, like Mercedes Benz, Merrill Lynch, Harley Davidson, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Hewlett Packard—such names may pass, but two-word names are overly cumbersome in usability.

3. Borderline disaster names—those that are simultaneously used by hundreds or thousands of unrelated entities, making it difficult to claim exclusive ownership. (For example: United, Premier, Delta, National and so on.)

Please do not be shocked that only a minuscule percentage is made up of hassle-free names. Incidentally, in applying the nomenclature rules, the majority of CRIDO brand names would be considered “troublesome” or outright “disaster” names. However, it’s also important to note that at one time, what we now call borderline disaster names were fashionable, but over time they either became generic or lost their distinction through mergers and acquisitions. Most importantly, last-century thinking was much less global, and last-millennial tools of image expansion were not as cheap and freely accessible as today.

So now brand owners have two choices: Either walk on a tightrope and adopt a workable name to cross the global digital chasm, or simply do nothing and let the diluted name identity hang the image to a slow death.

This is where CRIDO’s “do not sell” list gets sticky. First, how do you determine the real owners of a name like National or United? Second, what kind of marketing geniuses will chase after such weak names that they’d require CRIDO’s “do not sell” protection? Ideally, such names should be on a “please do not ever buy list” for being almost useless and for having extremely high maintenance costs.

If such a list were ever compiled, would CRIDO indirectly admit the fallacies on behalf of their industry and expose the hardcore problems of the global naming and trademarking chaos? Is CRIDO simply trying to provide a soft landing to millions of dysfunctional brand names already sucking oxygen as you read this?

For example, according to Superbrands, a brand ranking company, in 2011, “Autoglass is a leading consumer automotive service brand, providing vehicle glass repairs and replacements to more than 1.5 million motorists every year. With the widest-reaching auto glazing network in the U.K. and Ireland, Autoglass has over 100 branches nationwide and 1,300 mobile service units operating 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Autoglass is part of Belron group, operating in 33 countries with a team of more than 10,000 highly skilled technicians.”

This is great achievement for a high-profile regional company. Assume they also try the gTLD .autoglass, to allow them a more localized global agents’ network with the issuance of tens of thousands of sub-domain names around the world. Such localized customer touchpoint branding would open up mass customer acquisition. But would it be possible under this name?

As you stretch the brand name “autoglass” or “auto glass” on the global canvas, the name starts to tear. Its generic nature and the massive brand dilution created by thousands of other companies around the world using “auto glass” devalues this brand name to no more than a “generic description.” Where, then, should it be listed in a “do not sell” list or, more appropriately, “please do not ever buy” list, or perhaps each?

The corporate world is full of such names hanging in purgatory, where they have acquired partial authority in certain markets but will never have enough to power play in the global arena. The boardroom needs the answers to who are the beneficiaries of such bad names and why such issues are not on top of the agendas.

Here is another example of “Nationwide,” according to Superbrand 2011:

“Nationwide is more than 160 years old and is now the world’s largest building society. Unlike its bank competitors it has no shareholders, so its only focus is its 14 million members. This ‘proud to be different’ approach has helped it to become the U.K.‘s third-largest mortgage and savings provider, with a quarter of U.K. households having a relationship with the society.”

How many organizations are called “Nationwide” around the globe? Please do not guess, as it may give you that sinking feeling.

According to various studies by, ABC Namebank, on global naming dilution, when you observe that “there are 100 most diluted names around the world in use by some 100 million businesses,” a logic-defying picture of waste emerges. The century-old models start showing cracks, and the need for a single universal name clearance solution appears to be the most logical solution.

ICANN’s proposal for a single global trademark clearance house is a very bold step forward. Such moves must overcome the fragmented trademark procedures as I’ve discussed in a recently released book ‘Domination, the gLTD name game

No matter what action ICANN takes, it’s highly recommended that such a “do not sell” list must be compiled by CRIDO in any case, so the corporate world can witness the chaos and abuse of naming and trademarking, and hopefully acquire some “please do not ever buy” lessons.

By Naseem Javed, Expert: Global Naming Complexities, Corporate Nomenclature, Image & Branding

He is the founder of ABC Namebank, author of ‘Domination: The GTLD Name Game’, syndicated columnist, keynote speaker and specialist on global naming complexities.

Visit Page

Filed Under

CircleID Newsletter The Weekly Wrap

More and more professionals are choosing to publish critical posts on CircleID from all corners of the Internet industry. If you find it hard to keep up daily, consider subscribing to our weekly digest. We will provide you a convenient summary report once a week sent directly to your inbox. It's a quick and easy read.

I make a point of reading CircleID. There is no getting around the utility of knowing what thoughtful people are thinking and saying about our industry.

Co-designer of the TCP/IP Protocols & the Architecture of the Internet


Deja Vu Keith Teare  –  Jan 20, 2012 12:45 AM

We did exactly this at RealNames. We had many solutions. The team was led by Bill Washburn. ICANN could do worse than hiring Bill.

RealNames Naseem Javed  –  Jan 20, 2012 2:05 AM

Kindly indulge Keith, exactly what happened at RealNames….?

What happened at RealNames Keith Teare  –  Jan 20, 2012 2:28 AM

We reserved words that were your "borderline disaster" ones. So United could have United Airlines but not United. Delta Dental couldn't have Delta. We also divided the world into 200+ namespaces and allowed different registrations in different territories for the same names. A good example was Woolworths - which is different in South Africa, UK, US and Australia. If I gave a full answer it would take hours.....:-)

Waht happened at RealNames Naseem Javed  –  Jan 20, 2012 3:06 AM

You are on Keith… I will find the time to indulge in your intresting story… please send me your phone and email etc… .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

To Abbreviate, Or Not To Abbreviate, That Is The Question Ray Marshall  –  Jan 23, 2012 7:51 AM

In your new book, do you recommend that companies in the latter two categories explore the option of abbreviating their brand names in order to make them more conducive to the new gTLD digital paradigm?  I remember when Kentucky Fried Chicken changed its name to KFC.  My initial reaction was somewhat negative.  Why would a well known international company make such a drastic move with its brand name?  In retrospect, they may have made a very wise decision, especially if they decide to apply for “.KFC”.  Perhaps other companies that fall into the latter two categories may want to consider taking a drumstick out of KFC’s bucket.  In other words, maybe such companies may want to consider applying for a series of new gTLDs in the form of future state abbreviated brand names.  Once they secure these types of gTLDs, such companies will then have the luxury of time to decide which abbreviated brand name best suites their future state marketing strategy.  Thereafter, they can transition to the new abbreviated brand name and make use of their new gTLD.  From your perspective, is this a plausible strategy given the short window?  Or, is this strategy too drastic and financially risky?

KFC Deep Fried Drumsticks Naseem Javed  –  Jan 23, 2012 1:54 PM

Thanks Ray, a very important question indeed…
KFC wanted to eliminate ‘fried’ during the health craze movement and almost died… another story.
Each major naming case has its own criteria and may never be applicable to the next big story.
Names should only be designed as ‘marketing weapons’ for larger markets and not custom fitted to particular issues like ‘gTLD application’. If a name is right in the market place already it will have no problem with the gTLD process. It’s all about usability and marketability of a name.
You may refer to http:///www.fivestarstandard.com
What do you think?

Maybe These Companies Should Just Wing It Ray Marshall  –  Jan 23, 2012 3:08 PM

Perhaps the middle ground is keeping with the existing brand names outside the gTLD digital platform, but, developing an abbreviated name for the gTLD digital platform.  For instance, you mention “united” as a borderline disaster name.  Maybe a company like United Airlines, which is using such a common name, could go after .UAL.  Such a strategy would allow United Airlines to continue using its current brand name outside the gTLD digital platform while potentially coming up with a winning name on the gTLD digital platform.  In this example, a .UAL gTLD would also mirror the company’s stock symbol on the NYSE which is already well known.

UAL Naseem Javed  –  Jan 23, 2012 3:18 PM

Ray, any ‘borderline disaster name’ can easily create another disaster name, let’s say they are used to it. Unless the company commits to eliminate the the word ‘united’ from all the planes and signage and rebuild UAL…. on the other hand what’s the ‘usability’ of the word ‘UAL? the cost of change and possible re-chnage? etc. Stock symbols are entirely another platform and for different use… the soup gets thicker…advance level nomenclature issues demand clarity otherwise it becomes mumbling in the dark…

Is The Soup Getting Thicker With .SAS? Ray Marshall  –  Feb 2, 2012 8:56 PM

Naseem, I read today on DomainIncite that Scandinavian Airlines System Group will apply for .SAS. Aside from the fact that this effort could be contested, do you believe this strategy will succeed if .SAS is acquired by this company?

SAS vs SAS Naseem Javed  –  Feb 2, 2012 9:28 PM

Name dilution is the biggest curse on global digital canvas… here there are two, in others 3, 37, or 3700… the soup of naming stupidity is already very thick and gTLD is the best strainer….what is it you do by the way…. are you with SAS?

Not With SAS Ray Marshall  –  Feb 2, 2012 9:48 PM

Not with SAS.  Just an individual with an interest in the new gTLD initiative and one that really appreciates your perspectives in this area.

SAS Naseem Javed  –  Feb 2, 2012 9:50 PM

Thanks Ray…the big event to watch will be in May when the gTLD list from ICANN is made public…

Comment Title:

  Notify me of follow-up comments

We encourage you to post comments and engage in discussions that advance this post through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can report it using the link at the end of each comment. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of CircleID. For more information on our comment policy, see Codes of Conduct.




Sponsored byVerisign

IPv4 Markets

Sponsored byIPXO

Threat Intelligence

Sponsored byWhoisXML API

Domain Names

Sponsored byVerisign

Domain Management

Sponsored byMarkMonitor