As ICANN gets closer to issuing the RFP for new gTLDs, the original black-and-white argument against the plan is fading away but not the opposition.  Now, as smart marketers are coming around to the real-world value of owning a branded domain name extension, the nay-sayers are turning to other, equally unsubtle criticisms.

The new gTLDs will create “ghettos.” But then couldn’t that criticism be leveled at every sponsored top level domain, like .cat, .jobs and .travel?  And what about the country code top level domains?

The current case in point is everyone’s favorite new gTLD, .eco.  A commitment to the environment, a plan to finance green businesses and an application team including former Vice President Al Gore.  A idea good enough to draw other, equally green groups intending to offer a competing .eco application with their own international man of green, Mikail Gorbachev and his Green Cross.

This should all make for a lively stew of an agenda at ICANN’s meeting in Seoul in late October.  We got a taste (pun intended) of gTLD value in Sydney when chef and restauranteur Wolfgang Puck flew in to promote his interest in .food and a view of the fight over those with real value when two .music groups attended the meeting in Mexico City.

What is clear is that the program will launch, the process will winnow the applicants the market will pick the winners.  As of now, to quote Shaw, all we are doing is “haggling over price.”

There is a thaw coming to the ice-cold reception that brand and trademark holders gave to ICANN’s plan to introduce a host of new gTLDs.  In recent days, some serious publications have taken a look at the program and found reason to support it.

Forbes pointed out ICANN’s view that the new gTLDs can bring real value to cause-related marketing.  “Cause-related branding is one of the most anticipated consequences of the policy change, ICANN’s spokesman Paul Levins says.”  The most visible example is the group, incuding former U.S. Vice President Al Gore, promoting the gree-focused .eco gTLD.

Even the Financial Times, with its focus on the global business marketplace, is coming to grips with the potential value of the new gTLDs.  In a recent report, the FT noted that “While tensions are high, few dispute that opening up the naming system is a necessary step to creating a more lasting foundation for the internet, and one that will benefit hundreds of millions of users.”

The New York Times has weighed in, too.  The “Newspaper of Record” had a reporter at the ICANN briefing on new gTLDs held recently in New York City.  The result? Theses new gTLD-things might hyave some use afterall the opposition from brand and trademark holers.

“But there is another use for the new top-level domains: simpler Web addresses for companies. Expect to see the likes of .amazon, .ibm and .pepsi. This will let them offer slightly faster ways to get to their various subsections, books.amazon or servers.ibm.”

In the week since the Gandi.net-sponsored report on ICANN’s proposed program to expand the number of gTLDs hit the streets, the debate over the value of the plan has been actively debated.  We noted, in this space last week, that some voices in support of the new extensions has begun to emerge.

Despite the potential for balance, too many voices in the blogosphere continue to dismiss the who exercise as “confusing to consumers.” The biggest problem this argument has in carrying the day is that hardly anyone has asked the market — except, of course, the Gandi.net interviewers and our own pre-order program.  As reported, about 10,000 names a day were pre-ordered in the first month of the program.

ICANN’s meeting in Sydney begins next week with the gTLD program front-and-center (along with, perhaps, the introduction of the organizations new president).  Perhaps when everyone is in the same place at the same time some sanity can be imposed.

ICANN today stated its decision to “move forward in the implementation of the new gTLD Program while balancing and addressing community concerns on specific aspects of the program.”  Bravo.

But it is also slowing its process, from this year to next year.  In doing so, the Internet guardians of competition, stability and security are reading a script from a turn of last century burlesque.

“Slowly I turned, step-by-step, inch-by-inch…to take my revenge” was a key line in a bit called “Niagara Falls.” In moving slowly, step-by-step, inch-by-inch, ICANN may be hoping to take some of the steam out of heated criticism of brand and trademark holders.  All they have assured themselves of, though, is a chaotic meeting in Sydney.

Unless, rather than continue to put off analysis that can lead to decision, ICANN allows the potential market for gTLDs to help make its point.

Right now, before the new registries are even more than a glint in ICANN’s eye, thousands of people a day are pre-ordering domain names.  Thousands. If ever there were a reason to move more quickly — especially with ICANN counting so much on revenue from the program — this is it.

Rather than hope the furor dies down or otherwise goes away, the mission ought to be to broker quickly a deal that satisfies everyone (or no one)

Wishing won’t make it so.  But ICANN’s wishing might be another homage to burlesque, defined as “a humorous theatrical entertainment involving parody and sometimes grotesque exaggeration.”

Remember when Ross Perot criticized General Motors for being risk averse and decision impaired?  He said if a snake slithered in the board room, rather than kill it right then and there, they’d appoint a committee to study the options.  The same, it seems, can be said of ICANN.

In the face of criticism from brand and trademark holders, the Internet’s guardian for security, stability and competition appointed an Implementation Recommendation Team or IRT to study and offer advice on how to properly introduce new gTLDs.

Even before this IRT train left the station, it drew potent and credible criticism.  It has now offered its draft report.  As some might expect, it is not all that helpful.

Domain Name Wire, a helpful guide to the often dark world of the DNS, called the recommendations “drastic” and they come practically on the eve of the program’s implementation.  More though, and as is often the case, the prescription is bitter and helps only a few.  Note this from the report:

“…(A) Globally Protected Marks List would allow holders of worldwide marks to have them added to a ‘white list’…The requirements to be included are steep: ownership of the trademark issued in at least 90 countries across multiple regions with 200 registrations, must be issued before November 2008, registered the trademark across 50 or more TLDs, and the second level domain for the main company must be identical to the mark.”

If man is the perfect study of man, then the market can be the only perfect study for the demand and use of new gTLDs.  No one is arguing against brand and trademark protections, but to only argue is to let the side with the biggest megaphone dominate.  Even the flawed economic studies offered by ICANN are better evidence than the current “did not/did to” back-and-forth offers.

Let the market decide.  Free the ICANN gTLDs!