Home / Blogs

Time to Renew .coop, .museum, and .aero ICANN

Way back in 2000-2001, ICANN approved a handful of new top level domains, and entered into agreements with their promoters. Three of the sponsored domains, are coming up for renewal next year, so they’ve sent in their renewal proposals. A sponsored domain is one that restricts who can register to members of a particular community, in this case respectively co-ops, museums, and the airline industry. Let’s take a look and see how they’re doing.


The first proposal is from .coop, for co-operative organizations. Unlike every other sponsored TLD, one can make an argument that .coop is a success. They have 5,600 registrations, which they claim is far more than any other sTLD. (I should be able to verify this in a few days, assuming the other sTLDs provide access to their zone files like they’re supposed to.) This is a tiny fraction of the total number of co-ops, which according to the original .co-op proposal, is 48,000 in the US and 750,000 worldwide. Many of those are tiny little co-ops that are too small to have any sort of domain, but it still seems pretty lame that with under 1% of the eligible registrants having signed up, they’re still ahead of all the other sTLDs.

In their registration proposal, DotCooperation basically asks to renew the charter as is. They have a few niggling wording changes to clarify who’s eligible to register, and they report that they were not able to comply with the exact terms of the escrow agreement, apparently due to their inability to find an escrow company in England where the registry is that will agree to a contract under ICANN’s California law. Other than that, they’re happy with the way things are.

I attribute the relative success of .coop to the fact that co-ops are by their nature businesses, so the whole domain is run in a businesslike way. It also helps that there are some very large co-operative businesses and a lot of co-operative banks, so raising money was probably not a problem.

The original .co-op proposal projected that by now they would have between 100,000 and 500,000 domains, so they have egregiously failed to execute their business plan. Nonetheless, it’s hard to see any alternative scenario doing better for co-ops. The domain is run by the long standing respectable industry organizations that appear to legitimately represent co-ops around the world, I’ve never heard any grumbling from co-ops about how lousy .coop is, so this is as good as it gets.


At the time it was initially approved, the overwhelming response to .museum was ``Why bother?’‘, and that question remains unresolved. The renewal proposal starts by telling us how wonderful the museum community is, and how the .museum domain was established just as museums were starting to address digital media, online exhibits, virtual museums, and the like. It then admits that the registration rules are based on the membership rules of ICOM, the International Council of Museums, which are unlikely to be updated until 2007 to admit virtual museums, but when they are, .museum will want to update its charter to match. Then it gets to the meat of the situation:

The quantitative involvement of the dotMuseum target community in the actions described above has to date been significantly less than had been initially estimated. The cost of operating the domain is not met by revenue generated from the sale of names in it, nor is there any expectation that this situation will change in the near term. Although MuseDoma undertook its action in the belief that the domain would become self-sustaining within a foreseeable span of time, the initial prognosis of impending registration volume has not been borne out in actual practice. The business model in which the terms of the domain’s operation were conceived therefore requires fundamental revision.

Several paragraphs later it becomes apparent that they’re blaming it on the registrars. The process of registering in any sTLD is twice as complicated as registering in a normal TLD. First you have to prove you’re eligible by presenting your credentials to the sponsor. Once they’re satisfied, they issue you a codeword called a Community ID (CID) which you present to a registrar along with the rest of the details to get your domain. I did not find this procedure unduly onerous when I got my .aero domain, but apparently it is crushingly daunting for the members of the museum community. They also believe that a lot of the potential registrants are from countries where they don’t speak English, and the registry doesn’t speak whatever they speak, so the registry refers them to a nearby ICOM national affiliate who probably does speak their language to help them explain to the registry how they’re a museum. The applicant also has to negotiate about what name it can register since .museum has well-intentioned but over-complex naming rules intended to make the names look like a directory. Once all that is done, the applicant can get its CID and spend $200 for its two-year registration. It’s not hard to imagine that somewhere in this process it occurs to the applicant that for ten bucks it can register in .org and be done with it.

Their proposed solution is to let museum associations such as the ICOM national affiliates act as limited registrars so they can provide one-stop shopping, and ideally (from .museum’s point of view) hand out names as part of the membership package. This is not a bad idea, but .coop has the same problem and solved it by arranging for national associations to refer applications to friendly registrars, and also arranging to collect the qualification info at the same time as a registration. I see that .museum has done some of the latter, but it could perfectly well do the former. In any event, I have my doubts that .museum will ever get to critical mass. There are less than 500 American registrations representing maybe 200 museums, since a lot of them have multiple domains, e.g. ringling.historic.mansion.museum, ringling.mansions.museum, ringling.art.education.museum, ringling.education.museum, ringling.florida.museum, fsu.ringling.education.museum, ringling.state.museum, ringling.florida.state.museum, ringling.house.museum, and john-ringling.house.museum are all the same place.

The original .mus application forecast between 20,000 and 50,000 domains in five years, which they haven’t come close to meeting, even with all of the duplicate names. The real problem is still ``Why bother?’’ The idea may have been to make the domain a directory of museums, but we’ve learned from Yahoo, AltaVista, and particularly Google that if you want to search for something, there’s better ways than using domain names to do it.


Finally we turn to the egregiously unsuccessful .aero, which is supposed to be for (depending on who you ask) the airline industry or the air travel community, sponsored by SITA, the industry-owned co-op that originally ran the telex networks and now the computer networks that tie the airlines together. Despite grand plans to make the domain work like a database, reserving all of the two letter domains that correspond to airlines and the three letter domains that correspond to airports, the community hasn’t come on board. They claim over 29,592 domains, but I suspect that about 29,400 of those are the two and three letter reserved names, few of which have been picked up by the corresponding airlines or airports. Early on, .aero was extremely snooty about who they would admit, but by 2004 they were desperate enough that when as an experiment I applied for a domain for my two bit airline ticket web site it took perhaps a day for them to approve it and sell me a domain.

They also blame registrars for their problems:

The recent acquisition of a major .aero accredited registrar (holding the majority of .aero registered domain names) by a third party not authorized to register .aero names illustrated the vulnerability of the model. It has demonstrated that the benefits associated with an established organization acting [as?] a sponsor can easily be lost.

While I can see that this would be a good reason to fire whoever wrote the registrar’s contract (some combination of ICANN and SITA), and it reflects poorly on SITA’s ability to carry out their duties under Attachment 9 of the .aero agreement which tells them to select registrars who will do a good job, it doesn’t sound like a failure of the registrar process.

Also, in the past four years, SITA has been forced to turn down a number of applications from aviation entities in the least developed countries—simply because the current distribution model is unable to accommodate the settlement mechanisms traditionally used in the air transport community.

I don’t understand that at all. When I registered airinfo.aero, Domainbank mailed me a bill, and I sent them a check for $200, about as ordinary a payment scheme as there can be, even if it’s not the way you settle payments for airline tickets. I can’t see either of these as a reason to give up on registrars. The real problem is the same as .museum’s, that the domain will never be big enough for registrars to care about it, so they’ll never be able to find a registrar that will do more than a perfunctory job.

SITA says they want to sell direct and through other organizations as in their 2000 proposal, which said that they would distribute names through industry associations such as IATA and ICAO. (Since IATA is behind .travel, it seems unlikely they’d sell .aero with much enthusiasm.) Maybe it would help, maybe not, since my experience suggests that the difficulty of the registration process is not a bar to anyone who actually wants to register.

A more important question about this renewal is whether SITA’s stewardship of this domain has served the community it’s supposed to serve. Their proposal had an optimistic estimate of 259K names, and a pessimistic one of 94K names, which appear to have been off by about two orders of magnitude, but we’ve seen that’s par for the sTLD course. An important difference between .aero and the other two sTLDs is that SITA does not include more than a small fraction of the community that the domain is supposed to support. If you’re an airline or an airport, you know who SITA is, but for all of the other potential registrants, from pilots and flight instructors to aircraft maintenance companies to two-bit airline media, it’s SITA Who? There is supposed to be a Dot Aero council that oversees .aero, but they include only a fraction of the registrant groups, their deliberations if any have been in secret, and their success in persuading people to use .aero has been non-existent. My advice would be to declare .aero a noble experiment that failed, shut it down, encourage anyone who liked .aero to try .travel and see if it works any better.

By John Levine, Author, Consultant & Speaker

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


Ram Mohan  –  Jan 1, 2006 7:42 PM

All three sTLDs still have potential, but mostly demonstrate the effects of ICANN application/beauty-contest over-enthusiasm meeting the reality of who domain buyers really are.  Let’s face it, there is so little volume and so many extra hoops to jump through that it’s no surprise the registries are unhappy with registrars - many registrars can’t be bothered with hand-holding sTLD registrants.

sTLDs in the new round (.travel, .jobs) seem to have already powered ahead of the first three in terms of number of domains sold (numbers are not public yet, but .travel publicly announced “tens of thousands” and .jobs seems to be under 10K so far). Of course, .pro has become a bit of an embarrassment considering the Mack-truck loophole created by Encirca that is still wide open.

Each of these (coop, aero, museum) have credible and well funded “real-life” entities who are potential customers.  In some ways, the amount of education to get an entity to register a .museum instead of a .org, or an .aero instead of a .com is high; combine that with the fact that many Internet users still expect “.com” or the country code equivalent to be the default domain name, the challenges for small sponsored TLDs are quite high.

John Levine  –  Jan 1, 2006 11:14 PM

Since you can’t buy a .travel domain until tomorrow, doesn’t it seem a little bit premature to claim “tens of thousands” sold?  There are definitely tens of thousands of geographic place names reserved, but that’s meaningless, since there’s no reason to believe that anyone connected with those place names knows or cares about it.  (The only person who could have asked to have trumansburg.travel reserved is me, and I didn’t.)  There are about 20,000 reserved airport and airline names in .aero, after all.

Trailliance does have a spiffy little directory at http://www.nic.travel/directory.htm which appears to be open to anyone who’s applied to preregister.  Poke around in all the categories and you’ll find, oh, two or three dozen registrants, many with ten variant names.  Either the vast majority of .travel registrants don’t want anyone to know about them, or there aren’t very many of them. You decide which is more likely.

I assume that the .travel zone file will be available under the same terms as all the other GTLDs, so it should be easy enough to get it, strip out the reserved ones, and see what the reality is.  In the meantime, tens of registrants? Sure. Tens of thousands? In your dreams.

Thomas Barrett  –  Jan 2, 2006 7:25 PM

Here are some additional information and corrections regarding .travel.  The registry actually has a very well-planned and deliberate start-up period for the domain.

- Today’s .travel milestone refers to the elimination of a wait period for newly authenticated registrants.  .travel actually went live on October 3 and well over 10K names have been registered. 

- Governments and tourism boards are well aware of their ability to claim the reserved place names via the UN’s World Tourism Organization
as well as various Convention Bureau organzations such as the Destination Marketing Association International (http://www.iacvb.org).  I would expect the top 100-200 leading tourism destinations will be claimed and registered (they have until March 31, 2006 to do so)

- Those place names not claimed by tourism boards will be snapped up by tour operators and other travel intermediaries.  This will occur later this month and then again in April.

- The travel directory at directory.travel has not been populated yet.  This occurs later in 2006.


Tom Barrett
EnCirca, Inc

John Levine  –  Jan 2, 2006 8:09 PM

If you say there are 10K registrations, I believe you since you presumably registered most of them.

So I pointed my browser at http://www.expedia.travel, and I got an Encirca page, not Expedia. I tried http://www.orbitz.travel and got the same Encirca page, not Orbitz. I tried http://www.marriott.travel and got the Encirca page again, not Marriott.  How about http://www.bestwestern.travel? Encirca. http://www.budget.travel? Encirca. http://www.econolodge.travel? Encirca. Then I tried http://www.qantas.travel and got redirected to Qantas’ home page, so it’s not just a broken zone file.

The WHOIS info for all those domains looks OK, but I am having trouble figuring out how all those companies would go to the trouble to get a .travel domain and then not spend the five minutes needed to point it at their existing web sites.

Ram Mohan  –  Jan 2, 2006 11:46 PM

The WHOIS info for all those domains looks OK, but I am having trouble figuring out how all those companies would go to the trouble to get a .travel domain and then not spend the five minutes needed to point it at their existing web sites.

John, your analysis assumes that these companies registered these names for use, rather than for intellectual property protection, which is the primary target audience in the early days of any registry.  It’s normal that most of these registrations not get redirected, since these registrations often get made by attorneys rather than technologists who can update the NS records.

Thomas Barrett  –  Jan 3, 2006 12:39 AM

I can assure you that these companies have not stopped at just protecting their trademarks.

In the coming months, you will see well known destinations start to migrate to .travel domains.  I know of several that have already made the commitment.  This type of change requires a different strategy than just redirecting the domains. 

If these names were registered merely for defensive reasons, then the logical next step would be to redirect them to existing websites.

But we believe that simple redirection is the wrong step to take to start building equity in the new .travel names.

Tom Barrett
EnCirca, Inc

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.



IPv4 Markets

Sponsored byIPv4.Global


Sponsored byVerisign

Brand Protection

Sponsored byCSC

Domain Names

Sponsored byVerisign

Threat Intelligence

Sponsored byWhoisXML API