• What's ticked?
• Accolades
• Contact us

c o l u m n s

• Cheap Charlie
• ChrisCrossings
• Err Travel
• Leocha
• Travel Notes
• Archives

Dot-Travel Fever
Kirby's Korner · October 27, 2000

Major decisions are being made right now that will affect how all of us buy travel on the Internet in coming years.

Yes, I know I've said that twice before (here and here) in the past three weeks. But it is still as true today as it was then.

Only the subject of concern has changed.

The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is considering a proposal by the International Air Transport Association (IATA) to create a new top-level domain name, ".travel". The idea is that, instead of typing in a Web address such as "www.flyreallycheap.com," you'd type in "www.flyreallycheap.travel".

In other words, travel-related Web sites would be identified by the ".travel" suffix, in the same way commercial Web sites are now identified by ".com" and organizations by ".org".

The ".travel" idea is part of a broad expansion of Web addresses ICANN is considering, with ".union", ".web", and ".sex" being among other proposals.

The idea has some merit, and I'm pleased to point out that my Ticked colleague Chris Elliott made a similar suggestion 41 months ago in the newsletter I then edited, Interactive Travel Report. Chris called for a ".trav" domain name hierarchy and noted some of the clunky Web addresses travel industry companies had claimed to fit into the ".com" hierarchy.

The call for new domain name systems is intended to satisfy precisely that problem: too many companies vying for the same ".com" address. But as much as I like the ".travel" idea, it won't resolve the issue.

At most we'll see an expansion of names at the margins, with smaller companies having a chance to jump aboard the Internet bandwagon -- assuming they want to pay the premium for a domain name that IATA plans to charge.

There is no way established travel companies would let competitors gobble up the new names. Can you imagine Expedia, Travelocity.com, or Trip.com not quickly grabbing a still hypothetical "expedia.travel", "travelocity.travel", or "trip.travel", respectively, to use in addition to their existing addresses?

Even some old-line travel companies have finally gotten Internet religion. United Air Lines recently stopped promoting its rather unwieldy "www.ual.com," for example. You can bet it would be at the head of the line for "united.travel".

Today, travel dot-coms are gearing up for the mere possibility that ".travel" may soon be available. Have no doubt about it.

No matter how the ".travel" decision shakes out, IATA is not the group that should control the new names. The American Society of Travel Agents agrees, arguing that IATA is an "airline cartel" that, as administrator of ".travel" names, would have control over actions of competitors.

That appears to go without saying. If United Air Lines and a hypothetical United Travel Agency both applied to an airline trade group for the "united.travel" address, can anyone seriously doubt which company would get the nod from an organization composed of more than 260 of the world's largest airlines?

ASTA is in no better position to represent the entire travel industry independently. In fact, any section of the travel industry will have biases that would raise serious issues about how well it could fairly represent other sections.

Well, any section but one. If we at Ticked had scraped together the $50,000 needed for the application fee, ".travel" would be in safe hands, indeed.

(ICANN is considering comments from the public on this and other issues related to the ".travel" name. People wishing to express their views can read IATA's proposal and comment on it here).

David Kirby is the senior editor at the start-up dot-com company iJET Travel Intelligence and was the founding editor of Interactive Travel Report. His column appears on Friday. You can reach him at david@ticked.com.