Dynadot
Spaceship Spaceship
Watch
Impact
5
THIS COULD MEAN BANKRUPTCY FOR TONS OF DOMAINERS AND A TON MORE COMPETITION ONLINE!

NEW YORK — Amazon.com wants ".joy," Google wants ".love" and L'Oreal wants ".beauty."

Big brands are behind hundreds of proposals for new Internet addresses, including scores for generic terms such as "cruise," ".kids" and ".tires."

If approved, Amazon could use ".author" in an attempt to dominate online bookselling, while Google could use ".love" to collect registration fees from its rivals.

Amazon and Google also are vying for ".app" and ".music," while the wine company Gallo Vineyards Inc. wants ".barefoot."

It's all part of the largest expansion of the Internet address system since its creation in the 1980s, a process likely to cause headaches for some companies while creating vast opportunities for others.

The organization in charge of Internet addresses, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, announced the proposals for Internet suffixes Wednesday. A suffix is the ".com" part in a domain name.

The bids now go through a review that could take months or years. Up to 1,000 suffixes could be added each year.

There were 1,930 proposals for 1,409 different suffixes. The bulk of proposals that met the May 30 deadline came from North America and Europe. About 100 were for suffixes in non-English characters, including Chinese, Arabic and Thai.

From a technical standpoint, the names let Internet-connected computers know where to send email and locate websites. But they've come to mean much more. For Amazon.com Inc., for instance, the domain name is the heart of the company, not just an address.


A new suffix could be used to identify sites that have a certain level of security protection. It could be used to create online neighborhoods of businesses affiliated with a geographic area or an industry. French cosmetics giant L'Oreal, for instance, proposed ".beauty" as a home for beauty products and general information on personal beauty.

"The Internet is about to change forever," ICANN CEO Rod Beckstrom declared. "We're standing at the cusp of a new era of online innovation, innovation that means new businesses, new marketing tools, new jobs, new ways to link communities and share information."

But there's a question of how useful the new names will be. Alternatives to ".com" introduced over the past decade have had mixed success. These days, Internet users often find websites not by typing in the address but by using a search engine. And with mobile devices getting more popular, people are using apps to bypass Web browsers entirely.

Many businesses worry that they'll have to police the Internet for addresses that misuse their brands, in many cases paying to register names simply to keep them away from others. It was one thing having some 300 suffixes; it's another to have thousands.

"One thing that's going to occur is a lot of money is going to get sucked out of the ecosystem," said Lauren Weinstein, co-founder of People For Internet Responsibility and a strong critic of ICANN. "The cost is billions and billions of dollars with no value returned to people and an enormous capacity for confusion."

One worry is that an expansion will mean more addresses available to scam artists who use similar-sounding names such as "Amazom" rather than "Amazon" to trick people into giving passwords and credit card information.

The public now has 60 days to comment on the proposals. There's also a seven-month window for filing objections, including claims of trademark violation.

Of the 1,930 proposals, 1,179 were unique and 751 were for 230 different suffixes. ICANN will hold an auction if competing bidders cannot reach a compromise. Most of the duplicate bids were for generic names, though the Guardian newspaper and The Guardian Life Insurance Co. both sought ".guardian."

Bidders had to pay $185,000 per proposal. If approved, each suffix would cost at least $25,000 a year to maintain, with a 10-year commitment required. By comparison, a personal address with a common suffix such as ".com" usually costs less than $10 a year.

ICANN has received some $350 million in application fees. The money will be used to set up the system, review applications and make sure parties do what they have promised once the suffix is operational. Some of the money will be set aside to cover potential lawsuits from unsuccessful applicants and others.

Some of the proposals are for suffixes to be reserved for in-house use. Yahoo Inc. and Microsoft Corp., for instance, plan to restrict ".yahoo and ".microsoft" to their sites or affiliates, while keeping their current names under ".com." If Google Inc. wins its bid for ".search," the search leader won't let rivals use it.

But there are hundreds of proposals for generic names that the public would be able to buy names under – for $10 or thousands depending on the suffix. Some are coming from entrepreneurs or businesses that specialize in domain names.

Others are from big technology companies. That means Google, for instance, could charge its fiercest rivals for rights to "Microsoft.love," "Facebook.love" and "Apple.love." Google declined comment.

Amazon has bids for 76 names, many related to businesses the online bookseller now dominates or might want to. Besides ".book" and ".author," Amazon is seeking ".joy."

That worries Stephen Ewart, marketing manager of Names.co.uk, a domain name reseller that stands to gain from registrations under new suffixes, including ".joy" if it is approved.

"Once you own these spaces, you can write your own terms and conditions," he says. "Big brands can decide who can be there and decide what can be put in that space. It's a bit cynical to think someone can be locked out of joy."

"Do we want the likes of Amazon owning joy?" he asks.

Amazon declined comment.

Amazon and Google are among 13 bidders for ".app." Both companies operate stores for distributing apps for mobile devices running Google's Android system. That could shut out Apple Inc. and its rival iPhone and iPad devices.

While Google applied for 101 suffixes, Apple sought only one, ".apple." EBay Inc. and Facebook Inc. didn't propose for any. It was Amazon that bid for ".like" – the button on Facebook that lets users recommend links and brands to friends.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...mong-suf_n_1592839.html?utm_hp_ref=technology
 
2
•••
The views expressed on this page by users and staff are their own, not those of NamePros.
wheres Jeff when you need some "unique and compelling thoughts" on the "highly brandable .web"
 
3
•••
wheres Jeff when you need some "unique and compelling thoughts" on the "highly brandable .web"

Perhaps he's working on .jeff :bah: :hehe::talk::hi::gn::imho::snaphappy::tu::lala::lol:
 
1
•••
one thing no one seems to be able to answer is what benefit is there to use .brand over brand.com? I can see some benefit to generics in terms of keyword.keyword but otherwise, its just a vanity extention. please, someone point out what there is to gain for big corps switching out the .com's they've used for 15-20 years to these brand new .whatever with nearly zero public awareness and zero years of link popularity.

*

I think that .brands will succeed IF smart owners restrict their .brand to (1) Their Company Website, (2) Marketing, and (3) High Level Company Employees.

In other words, users who visit .brand websites will know, beyond a shadow of doubt, that the site belongs to the company and not a spoofer/scammer. This is not possible with .com, especially with look-alike sites. In .brand, there will be no look-alike sites (unless the site has been hacked, a whole new issue).

On the other hand, .generic gTLDs will be a mess.

First of all, no one ought to have complete control of a generic, dictionary word, AND I think the US Feds will look at anti-monoply laws and deem those extensions as being monopolies. You might say that the US Feds do not have jurisdiction in the global economy, but you would be wrong.

More than that, .generic will be even less reliable than the established gTLDS (which isn't saying much), run by thugs (like the .xxx extortionists) and backed by dubious money.

Those companies who built their brands on generic words, even in a non-descriptive manner (Apple, Canon) will have a tough road ahead of them and may even be forced to rebrand.

Verizon was smart to create a destinctive name and will probably have no difficulty in getting its .brand, but there will be court battles over .apple, etc., which may be forced to share with Apple Records, Apple Chevrolet (my area), etc.

Sit back and watch!

Let the games begin, kiddies!

*
 
1
•••
I mean why spend $2 million on one domain if you can spend 1/10th of that and own the entire TLD for your business?
Because:
  • consumer awareness reasons: .brand and .com are not equal, .com enjoys worldwide recognition and credibility - chicken and egg situation but that's what it is
  • financial reasons: running your own registry costs much more than $10/year (price of .com renewal)
  • practical reasons: how badly do you need to own a whole TLD if you are just going to have a few domains in it... :)
 
0
•••
Similar debates raged regarding .mobi and mobile webpage naming conventions... Brand.mobi vs m.brand.com vs auto detection/redirection vs some other subdomain or sub directory. Thing is it all coexists and will for quite some time to come because they all work. Companies will deploy their .brands in ways that make sense for their business models. Some may sell/offer domains as part of community membership like facebook, some may use them as solid indicators of security like financial institutions, we'll see. Point is that it all can work, no standard need exist. Home.brand is 1 character longer than brand.com ...BFD. Nobody cares about that beyond domainers making silly arguments. But a corps legal/IP/web depts absolutely love having ultimate control over their webspace, no more concerns over accidental drops, no more registrars or registries to deal with that can possibly ruin their web presence through some dumb mistake or inappropriate response to legal claims or govt intimidation. Its just them and ICANN now, whole new paradigm and I expect some will make heavy use of this new level of control and autonomy.

---------- Post added at 03:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:54 PM ----------



When your business is crippled after your domain.com is seized by the govt without due process through the registrar and/or registry (as has happened in the recent past) you may change your outlook on this.

:lol::lol::lol: Won't give up on .mobi will you?! I told you it was a complete bust.

Most gTLDS will follow the same path. Maybe some local geos will do well and brands thats it.

I love the tags: .mobi bubble, .mobi round two . Absolutely COMPLETELY TRUE.
 
Last edited:
0
•••
:lol::lol::lol: Won't give up on .mobi will you?! I told you it was a complete bust.

Most gTLDS will follow the same path. Maybe some local geos will do well and brands thats it.

I love the tags: .mobi bubble, .mobi round two . Absolutely COMPLETELY TRUE.

As I was alluding to before I think the .brands will have the best opportunity to grow public awareness of this new flood of tlds.

Re: mobi, no desire to give up when I've got many strong keywords to work with. Still buying top names when the price is right.
 
0
•••
I will be interesting to see if the google algorithm will "happen to" asisign a similar "positive bias" it has for .com to any of the .google extensions...

---------- Post added at 09:18 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:03 AM ----------

I suspect that a large number of the .whatever applications are defensive in nature. Apple, for example has to take .apple, otherwise some apple growers association, for example, could buy. Coca cola certainly does not want to see some group advocating the legalization of cocaine on .coke (or insert your own silly example in place of that one).
For large companies with huge ad budgets these could get decent traffic and could work. Let's say Coke had something they wanted to market to kids (is that still legal?), then on a TV screen kids.coke could work just as well as coke.com/kids IMO.
Edit: and you know apple fan boys can hardly wait to start typing in x.apple just to see what might be there. :D
 
Last edited:
0
•••
and you know apple fan boys can hardly wait to start typing in x.apple just to see what might be there. :D

I think of apple's current transition from mobileme to icloud, they could easily transition all their subscribers once again to .apple accounts. There's plenty of ways that .brands can be put to use within the context of their customer base. In that context though I don't really see much opportunity for domain speculation.
 
1
•••
stumbled across this "TLD Song" someone made in light of the new gtld's. Thought it was kinda funny. :)

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ViIDVwoJUQU"]The TLD Song (With Apologies to Tom Lehrer and Gilbert & Sullivan) - YouTube[/ame]
 
2
•••
.com is becoming less and less imporant. With the Chrome Browser you type a word into the browser bar and searches come up. IE and Firefox will soon follow if they haven't already. So if you own pianos.info and its a real respectable site while the .com is parked, your site will appear when as soon as 'pianos' is entered in the browser bar negating any tiny advantage for the .com
 
0
•••
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FZ1M_UmQes"]Domain Name Dollar Store - YouTube[/ame]
 
3
•••
.com is becoming less and less imporant. With the Chrome Browser you type a word into the browser bar and searches come up. IE and Firefox will soon follow if they haven't already. So if you own pianos.info and its a real respectable site while the .com is parked, your site will appear when as soon as 'pianos' is entered in the browser bar negating any tiny advantage for the .com

your user name is domainhacks, so of course this would be your viewpoint as you have obviously invested in extensions other than .com. myself, have almost exclusively invested in .com so my viewpoint swings that way. its quite hard to be without some kind of bias unless you aren't involved in the domain world at all. regarless i still think that despite all the browser and se changes, using anything other than .com or cctld, the general consensus will always be that its a second or third tier type domain. you wouldn't catch a company like amazon settling for the .info. even if they started out with it they would attempt to acquire the .com once they were big enough.
 
0
•••
  • The extension expansion is all ready a success because so many bought into it.
  • Its about funding the expansion, and democratization, of namespace.
  • In the end, profitability is in the utility of mass personalization.

    Eventually, 'You' will be your extension... and everyone will own every domain name.

    -Domain names will be like an interchangeable area code, followed by your unique universal ID number; which like IP numbers will be translated into names. car.janedoe / travel.janedoe / photos.janedoe, and so forth.

    The 'old' domain system will still exist, as the web is _string_ theory in action... cyberspace is a multiverse.
 
0
•••
0
•••
your user name is domainhacks, so of course this would be your viewpoint as you have obviously invested in extensions other than .com. myself, have almost exclusively invested in .com so my viewpoint swings that way. its quite hard to be without some kind of bias unless you aren't involved in the domain world at all. regarless i still think that despite all the browser and se changes, using anything other than .com or cctld, the general consensus will always be that its a second or third tier type domain. you wouldn't catch a company like amazon settling for the .info. even if they started out with it they would attempt to acquire the .com once they were big enough.

Well, look when Amazon emerged. During the dot com boom. At that time, .com was king and type in made up almost everything. Now, a company can use any extension and become successful. Once again content over extension. You can't deny that the technology is changing. People don't even have to type in google.com/ccltd anymore, just type in what you are searching for in browser. Autocomplete gives you relevant results based on reputation.
 
0
•••
while that ridiculous video i posted may be exaggerated - when i was looking for a relevant domain for my business back 10some years ago and couldnt find one - i registered a domain with a double keyword just like staplerstapler.com in that video... had i known at the time other TLD's existed (maybe they didnt exist then) i would have registered a shorter more relevant keyword in a different TLD, even a "weird" vanity TLD perhaps.

the point is i wasnt looking at this from a domainer perspective - i wasnt even involved in the "domain world" at that point and had no bias...yes i originally defaulted to looking for a .com but eventually switched to .info once i realized it existed and when i saw what kind of prices people were charging for short aftermarket .com's...

i was just some guy looking for a URL to use. wasnt new to the internet either - i knew .com was the most used but thought using another TLD would be just fine too. people are focusing overwhelmingly on the businesses that already exist saying they wont "switch their .coms" which is probably true but this also completely misses that in 20 years probably more than half of the businesses that will exist then do not exist now and using another TLD isnt really that far out there - i did and was fine.

the myth that because you'll "lose traffic" your business will somehow completely fail is silly and not true in most cases. your success from traffic leakage does not necessarily equal their failure operating a business on a different TLD.
 
0
•••
How bout this terrible advice video from a .com fanatic

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKv07fz9njU"]Choosing a Great Domain for Your Internet Business - YouTube[/ame]

familyboard-games.com?

REALLY? :lol:
 
0
•••
0
•••
It's kind of like in domain hack territory.

Says another.com fanatic.

meet.me sold for 450,000k

When has a keyword1+keyword2 hyphen keyword 3.com sold for more than $10?

exactly.
 
1
•••
Well, look when Amazon emerged. During the dot com boom. At that time, .com was king and type in made up almost everything. Now, a company can use any extension and become successful. Once again content over extension. You can't deny that the technology is changing. People don't even have to type in google.com/ccltd anymore, just type in what you are searching for in browser. Autocomplete gives you relevant results based on reputation.

thats fine for websites driving traffic just anywhere but in the case of branding, its .com. in my opinion, using something use just looks cheap and unprofessional. of course i have my bias but how many fortune 500 companies are operating on anything but a .com?

---------- Post added at 08:05 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:01 PM ----------

while that ridiculous video i posted may be exaggerated - when i was looking for a relevant domain for my business back 10some years ago and couldnt find one - i registered a domain with a double keyword just like staplerstapler.com in that video... had i known at the time other TLD's existed (maybe they didnt exist then) i would have registered a shorter more relevant keyword in a different TLD, even a "weird" vanity TLD perhaps.

the point is i wasnt looking at this from a domainer perspective - i wasnt even involved in the "domain world" at that point and had no bias...yes i originally defaulted to looking for a .com but eventually switched to .info once i realized it existed and when i saw what kind of prices people were charging for short aftermarket .com's...

i was just some guy looking for a URL to use. wasnt new to the internet either - i knew .com was the most used but thought using another TLD would be just fine too. people are focusing overwhelmingly on the businesses that already exist saying they wont "switch their .coms" which is probably true but this also completely misses that in 20 years probably more than half of the businesses that will exist then do not exist now and using another TLD isnt really that far out there - i did and was fine.

the myth that because you'll "lose traffic" your business will somehow completely fail is silly and not true in most cases. your success from traffic leakage does not necessarily equal their failure operating a business on a different TLD.
the first domain i registered was a .net with a hyphen back in 97! boy was i clueless (especially considering the .com with and without the hyphen was available (i thought the words looked better separated..) but it was just a fun site i was running, didn't make any money. i took a chance on mobi and invested low xx,xxx and it sucked. not to say every extension will fail but that i was willing to give it a try. i even regged a few .xxx but that seems dead in the water too.

---------- Post added at 08:05 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:05 PM ----------

Says another.com fanatic.

meet.me sold for 450,000k

When has a keyword1+keyword2 hyphen keyword 3.com sold for more than $10?

exactly.

yep, and the owners also bought meetme.com!
 
0
•••
Says another.com fanatic.

meet.me sold for 450,000k

When has a keyword1+keyword2 hyphen keyword 3.com sold for more than $10?

exactly.

Today actually:
mercedes-benzcup.com $105 2012-06-19 godaddy.com

Same territory, meaning I think they both kinda suck.

Well, look when Amazon emerged. During the dot com boom. At that time, .com was king and type in made up almost everything. Now, a company can use any extension and become successful. Once again content over extension. You can't deny that the technology is changing. People don't even have to type in google.com/ccltd anymore, just type in what you are searching for in browser. Autocomplete gives you relevant results based on reputation.

With that, I guess you're still unaware, even tho it's been brought up more than once in this thread, that there is life/marketing outside the search engines?
 
1
•••
the first domain i registered was a .net with a hyphen back in 97! boy was i clueless (especially considering the .com with and without the hyphen was available (i thought the words looked better separated..)

hah, yeah i know what you mean about the words looking better separated. i remember thinking along those lines too, except in 1997 i was only 15 years old and saw no need for a domain. i do however remember sometime around 1996-1998 a friend on IRC jokingly made the comment that in the future you'll be able to register your own domain at Wal-Mart using a machine much like the "create-a-card" machine.. although now i wish i could remember if he was referring to TLD's or just domains in general... i was much younger then but can vaguely remember many of the early geeks being completely against making money on the internet so that may have been the context.
 
Last edited:
0
•••
.com is becoming less and less imporant. With the Chrome Browser you type a word into the browser bar and searches come up. IE and Firefox will soon follow if they haven't already. So if you own pianos.info and its a real respectable site while the .com is parked, your site will appear when as soon as 'pianos' is entered in the browser bar negating any tiny advantage for the .com
Right, browser design is important and domain investors are wise to pay attention. Keeping on the death change topic using pianos.info as new gTLD proxy/example, we see that pianos.info sold for $410 at sedo auction in 2009. Affordable, no arm and a leg. Search available keyword dot infos, cloths.info is waiting for someone to pony up $0.19 to take home. Is this the price future you see/hope for all SLDs?

Gradual aftermarket price equalization of TLDs is not going to happen. Dot com is a dominant aspirational brand. Largely erosion resistant. No Pinto gas tanks or tainted Tylenol here. No dime turning. People want dot com and pay thru the nose just like fancy sneakers. Don't have the budget or simply a cheapskate? No problem … aisle 13, wear a raincoat. The domain party ends when unforeseen technology erupts. Dot com and all TLD prices will crash to zero. Make hay while the sun shines, com/hacks/info/ketchup it's all good unless you're in OWS.

[pianos] gakt 27,100 cpc $1.33
[cloths] gakt 12,100 cpc $1.94
 
1
•••
Says another.com fanatic.
Nobody is being a fanatic, consider the following:
  1. If domains are useless what URL should businesses put on their business card ?
  2. What is the extension that is selling best as per reported sales ?
  3. Are domains worth more or less today than in 1995 ?
  4. [optional] Why has Overstock scaled back on .co ?
 
0
•••
Nobody is being a fanatic, consider the following:
  1. If domains are useless what URL should businesses put on their business card ?
  2. What is the extension that is selling best as per reported sales ?
  3. Are domains worth more or less today than in 1995 ?
  4. [optional] Why has Overstock scaled back on .co ?

I think you are right, that a quality, relevant domain will always hold value.

Still I wonder, how many years will it be before people say things like, "I need a good dessert recipe, I wonder if there's an App for that on my tablet", Instead of, "I need a good dessert recipe, I need to google that and find a good web site."

I believe, the first option removes any kind of SEO or keyword domain relevancy, and relies more on what developed App is available or promoted on their tablet. You buy or download the app, and it makes use of whatever domain it happens to be associated with. To me, that seems like a potential choke point, where a few large companies will be able to control which apps appear as you search their tablet.

I may be way, way off base on that, completely out in the boonies in my thinking, and I would be happy to be wrong. These days, I seem to be wrong on an hourly basis!

As for a plethora of extensions appearing, I just don't see that as an issue. Private companies will use the vanity extensions for their own personal use, and public vanity extensions will have the same strengths and weaknesses that other extensions have - there will be a small, core group of excellent domains followed by a slew of loser hangers-on domains.

---------- Post added at 04:59 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:54 AM ----------

No Pinto gas tanks....

Just as an aside: Ouch. My first car. Cost me $1,000. Six weeks later, it came out about the gas tanks exploding if you got hit from behind. Value dropped like a rock down to about $400. I told my mom, "Don't worry, I'll drive so fast, no one could possibly hit me from behind," but she was not reassured.
 
0
•••
  • The sidebar remains visible by scrolling at a speed relative to the page’s height.
Back