91Èȱ¬

Makes sense
.iplayer would be cool I reckon

I think for a brand as large and as socially important as the 91Èȱ¬ this decision should have been a no brainer. Thank goodness it wasn't wrapped up in a red tape nightmare.

While I completely understand that the 91Èȱ¬ would want to protect itself, I do not agree that this is an 'evolution' of the internet. It is a step back - and something that will pave the way for the rich to start taking control of the web.

The web should be for everyone - not just the giants with very deep pockets.

More here:

will these new TLDs require a subdomain in order to work? In other words, will the URLs be something like & or would the TLD on its own suffice? Being able to go to would be quite handy

Fordie - they will be top level domains, so yes, will be used with subdomains, such as

It's completely ridiculous that companies should be allowed to own generic top level tlds.

All this user's posts have been removed.Why?

All very well, but is this really business critical? .bbc or bbc.co.uk who cares and as for "Potentially enhancing our relationship with online audiences" come off it. We keep being told the beeb is broke. If in excess of a £100000 plus $25000 per annum for each name is kicking around give it to cash starved departments in the nations and regions who are making do and mend with ageing kit.

waste of license fee surely, the only applicable point is protecting the brand.

investing in a domain name is not "Investing in the technological future of the 91Èȱ¬" and not "Potentially enhancing our relationship with online audiences".

Is it that difficult to type bbc.co.uk into a device rather than bbc.bbc !

I agree with AstonJ.

Most of Matthew Postgate's arguments are meaningless. The only one that does make a little sense is "Protecting and maintaining the 91Èȱ¬ brand". However, in the unlikely event that someone else really was allowed to register ".bbc", do you really think people would actually be confused? I can understand private companies feeling compelled to fork out for TLDs, but as a public service organization the 91Èȱ¬ should have taken a stand against this nonsense.

If it is too late to get the protection money back from ICANN and use it for things that actually benefit licence fee payers, then I would like to request that the *only thing* hosted at the new ".bbc" domain should be 1 page with links to all the expert information about why ICANN's TLD policies are so bad.

Also, please could you add a paragraph to the above article detailing the costs of this whole exercise: upfront costs and ongoing costs.

Thanks.

All this user's posts have been removed.Why?

Didn't Sir Tim Berner-Lee say this type of thing is NOT the way to categorise the net?
That was in relation to porn, but it's a similar issue. He was advocating the use of proper **metadata** to do this job instead for very good reasons, and not the re-re-re-selling of whole new categories of TLD's as a kind of labelling system for net addresses.

However, I understand the 91Èȱ¬'s position here. If ICANN are going to go and do such things, it has to protect it's (our?) international brand interests by securing the 'online territory' before someone else does.
eg. the 91Èȱ¬ sells programming internationally keeping our licence fee increases lower! (And arguably the 91Èȱ¬ as a broadcaster, is influential in both historical terms, as well as indirectly pushing 'UK PLC' abroad.)

Regardless of whether if they wanted to be forced into buying this thing, and (more especially) given no knows the exact future usage of such TLD's, the fees concerned are relatively peanuts to secure it.