BLOG VIEW: The American Bankers Association (ABA) recently created a task force that is charged with putting together recommendations for the creation of a new Internet domain. Under this plan, the new domain would be called ‘.bank,’ and it would be assigned to the nation's community banking institutions.
Of course, the ABA would not have the ability to institute this new domain by itself. That would require the approval of the Internet Corp. for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). But what argument can be made for ICANN to add ‘.bank’ to its list of domains?
Kim Kaselionis, president and CEO of Novato, Calif.-based Circle Bank, is a member of the ABA task force. In a press statement issued by Circle Bank, she explained that the new Internet domain will reinforce community banks' online security.
‘The strictness of the process is a means of protecting users of the Internet," Kaselionis said. ‘Top-level domain names require higher levels of security and have a clear relevance for banks. It is extremely important for community banks to establish the highest security standards in the financial services industry to maintain the trust with their customers.’
However, when one considers the state of community banking, it is difficult to comprehend why this idea is being given priority. Last year saw 157 banks go out of business, and there are hundreds more in various stages of instability. None of the banks ran into problems because of their Internet URL, nor was computer security cited as a cause of their problems.
Furthermore, I don't quite get the connection between a URL and maintaining ‘higher levels of security.’ I could understand if some miscreant sets up a phony website that pretends to belong to a financial institution. Last September, the Michigan Office of Financial and Insurance Regulation ordered an entity claiming to be a local credit union to cease and desist from doing business because it appeared that this phony entity was trying to steal consumers' money and identities. But this has not been an issue within community banking.
Kaselionis also states that this new Internet domain will reaffirm the community banking sector's commitment to quality service. ‘We are not impersonal, telephone-menu banks," she said. "We are located in our customers' neighborhoods and are deeply involved in their financial lives. If '.bank' can be created to deepen that trust, I'm all for it.’
I would be all for it, too, but these issues have nothing to do with each other. If a community bank is well established in a particular neighborhood, then its existing customers are already aware of what it has to offer – changing an Internet domain would be pointless. And potential customers probably won't pay much attention – they would be more interested in products and rates, not domain names.
Finally, it seems highly unlikely that ICANN would give exclusive rights to a new Internet domain to a niche segment of the U.S. economy. If ‘.bank’ is created, it would naturally make sense that all banks around the world have a right to it.
Online banking has been around for years and has worked quite well in a ‘.com’ environment. I hope that the ABA task force puts the ".bank' issue aside. To borrow a quote popularized by Bert Lance, the director of the Office of Management and Budget in Jimmy Carter's administration, ‘If it ain't broke, don't fix it.’
– Phil Hall, editor, Secondary Marketing Executive
(Please address all comments regarding this opinion column to hallp@sme-online.com.)
