2 Hours On The Panel Its Clear That The New gTLD’s Are Just About The Money

[gpmgroup]

I sat on a panel Friday at the Domainer Mardi Gras with Jeffrey Eckhaus from Demand Media, whose company is expected to apply for at least several new gTLD’s, Ken Hansen from Neustar whose company is trying to provide the back end for many of the new gTLD’s registries, Mike Rodenbaugh who is an attorney hoping to represent some of the applicants for new gTLD’s and who also sits on the ICANN committee working on the new gTLD’s and Mr. John Berryhill, who represents domain owners against trademark claims who appeared through Skype since Philadelphia was basically shut down by the snow storm.

2 Hours On The Panel Its Clear That The New gTLD’s Are Just About The Money | The Domains

 

[adinfinite]

Fantastic article. Finally getting a real glimpse from the other side of the biz. Thanks to Mr.Berkens.

 

[Alex P]

Nice post was an interesting read.

 

[Blake]

Very interesting post and I agree with the Op of the Post......All about money and nothing more :S

 

[Domagon]

Yep, it's about the money. ICANN, as the article points out, operates more akin to a for-profit. This comes as no surprise to many old-timers on here.

Introducing more gTLDs will likely make .COM, along with some other select TLDs, more preferred and/or create so much confusion that even more people, including many who now prefer to type-in domains, to use search engines, apps, etc instead for navigation for nearly everything; Apple, according to some, believes that's apps assisted navigation is the future.

A side-effect of a gTLD glut will be that generic-"brandables" become more valuable in respect to domaining, since they are still intuitive, easy to remember and yet, economically speaking, often not worth registering as a gTLD...

Ie. a domain of mine, AllSkin.com is a nice generic-brandable, but likely not worth registering as a gTLD. Of course that brings up the question, what if someone registers .Skin as a gTLD - that's a risk of generic brandables. Though, in my view, is that since there are numerous permutations of domains containing .Skin, that "All.Skin" would be one of zillions and hence a person seeking AllSkin may still be more likely to type-in / navigate to the AllSkin.com version. However, if there was also a AllSkin.Skin, then things get more murky and it's not clear whether most people would navigate (including via search engines) to the domain in a familiar TLD (ie. com) or the TLD that seemingly corresponds to the subject matter (ie. skins) of the domain.

On a related note, made-up, highly unique domains, while themselves not that valuable to domainers, become far more useful and secure, for those who use them, in a zillion gTLD environment...

Ie. two brand names I came up "Domagon" and "Marihemp" are so unique and of such limited usefulness to others that there's virtually zero chance (keeping in mind that registering gTLDs will cost, at minimum, several hundred thousand dollars!) of anyone ever registering such gTLDs.

With all that said, my guess is that a some new gTLDs will be introduced in the near future, but the vast majority, especially since it's likely most will of be of a highly generic nature, will be stuck in limbo (ie .sex, .xxx, .money, .bank, .web, etc...) as various parties, including governments, duke it out for many years. In the meantime, .COM and other select TLDs will continue reinforce themselves / gain in popularity .

Ron

 

[bmugford]

And this is why 99% of new extensions will be an epic fail. They are not being released by necessity or popular demand for it. It is money driven.

Brad

All about money and nothing more

 

[equity78]

Of course its about money, everyone in this industry is in it for money. I did not know domainers were regging 10,000 names and parking them as a public service. At the end of the day, its about money. It has to be about money in this business, how else do you afford Vegas, The PLayboy Mansion and Mardi Gras ?

Now I know some will say, well "I am an individual I am not a governing body like ICANN." Well ICANN will say whatever to suit their agenda, they make the rules because they CAN, there name should be WECANN.

Why did you give Verisign the no bid contract ? Because WECANN
Why will you introduce 300 new Gtlds ? Because WECANN
Why do you allow registrars to milk the system but not domainers? Because WECANN

Everyone loves the Google Adwords Keyword Tool. Do an exact search on Domaining, Domainers and Domainer. Not big numbers it reads something like 1000, not enough data and 260 for those three. The only people who care about what domainers think are domainers. Does anyone believe the general public is saying "Oh no they might introduce 300 Gtlds and dilute the existing tlds at the same time costing companies a lot of money to reg their brands in 300 tlds." The general public could care less.

 

[bmugford]

I think the same could be said about the new gTLDs in general.

The vast majority of people who use the internet have barely heard of COM/NET/ORG. I don't see the average person or company really caring about custom TLD, outside of obvious TM issues which will be a nightmare for major companies to deal with.

Brad

The general public could care less.

 

[equity78]

I agree 100 % Brad.

 

[snoop]

Of course its about money, everyone in this industry is in it for money. I did not know domainers were regging 10,000 names and parking them as a public service. At the end of the day, its about money. It has to be about money in this business, how else do you afford Vegas, The PLayboy Mansion and Mardi Gras ?

Exactly right,

On one hand we have the people proposing new extensions and thinking up a dozen reasons for bringing in these extension, stating every reason except the obvious one.....making money.

On the other hand we have the people against these new tlds, thinking up a dozen reasons why they shouldn't come in. Those people are worried about it sapping money from other extensions. They have the opposite concern...losing money.

If there is money in it for me its a great idea, if there is no money for me its a really bad idea.

Bring in these extension and be done with it, make it cheap to launch a new extension and whatever happens, happens, let the market decide.

 

[wot]

Exactly right,

On one hand we have the people proposing new extensions and thinking up a dozen reasons for bringing in these extension, stating every reason except the obvious one.....making money.

On the other hand we have the people against these new tlds, thinking up a dozen reasons why they shouldn't come in. Those people are worried about it sapping money from other extensions. They have the opposite concern...losing money.

If there is money in it for me its a great idea, if there is no money for me its a really bad idea.

Bring in these extension and be done with it, make it cheap to launch a new extension and whatever happens, happens, let the market decide.

On the nail. :bingo:

 

[gpmgroup]

let the market decide

It isn't a simple as that - There will are massive repercussions for innocent third parties because of the reach/pervasiveness of the Internet.

For example

Rules around Trademarks will likely get extended making it easier for the big companies to grab names of smaller companies and individuals.

Rules that are demanded to run/control the new gTLDs will end up being applied to existing gTLDs. For example if new gTLDs are allowed variable pricing, first the smaller TLDs like .biz will demand equal treatment then the larger ones will try to get it.

What about selling names direct like in the old days? ICANN's current proposal is only to allow new gTLDs to sell 100,000 direct. Now I wonder which names they will choose to sell direct asasdfsdfdqwer.TLD?

Small changes to ICANN's rules have massive implications for how the namespace evolves.


The other big problem is it isn't really a single market for people looking to use a domain rather than sell it. Once you have chosen a TLD you can't move without a great deal of cost because it's fundamental to your business. Businesses of any size really need to be in .com and/or local ccTLD because that is where their competitors are and that is where their customers expect them to be. New gTLDs are jsut an addtional cost of doing business.

Also people will use the launch to market to elected officals who are not risking their own funds. For example a few days ago

Dot Vegas said it has been working since summer to win the city’s endorsement to aid its application with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, a California-based nonprofit group that oversees the Internet.

If .vegas takes off and becomes a household top-level domain like .com, it could mean millions in new revenue for the city and many millions more for Dot Vegas.

One of two Dot Vegas officials at the meeting, implored the city to move quickly, saying that in a week, ICANN was going to require “expressions of interest” in potential top-level domains.

Who gets .vegas name unclear despite city’s vote - Thursday, Feb. 4, 2010 | 2 a.m. - Las Vegas Sun

 

[mwzd]

The issue as I see it is the disparity in the playing field for registrars and registrants.

As MHB says very succinctly -

The dirty little secret of the whole deal is that while a domainer who registers a domain that’s the subject of a trademark is labeled a cybersqautter, and is subjected to a fine of $100,00o per domain, and loss of the domain, registries and registrars are perfectly fine with making money off of trademarks by selling the registrations back to the trademark holder for premium amounts.

Add to that the possibility of 'premium pricing' hitting established TLDs makes this the most likely to kill domaining as an industry in entirety.

The lifting of price caps on domain names is still in the guidebook.

All registries want to be treated the same, new one’s and existing one’s.

So if one registry is allowed to adopt .tv variable pricing for a new gTLD then VeriSign would want to be able to operate the .com registry with no price caps.

This is not science fiction or a scare tactic, its just the way the situation currently is.

 

[snoop]

It isn't a simple as that - There will are massive repercussions for innocent third parties because of the reach/pervasiveness of the Internet.

For example

Rules around Trademarks will likely get extended making it easier for the big companies to grab names of smaller companies and individuals.

Rules that are demanded to run/control the new gTLDs will end up being applied to existing gTLDs. For example if new gTLDs are allowed variable pricing, first the smaller TLDs like .biz will demand equal treatment then the larger ones will try to get it.

What about selling names direct like in the old days? ICANN's current proposal is only to allow new gTLDs to sell 100,000 direct. Now I wonder which names they will choose to sell direct asasdfsdfdqwer.TLD?

Small changes to ICANN's rules have massive implications for how the namespace evolves.


The other big problem is it isn't really a single market for people looking to use a domain rather than sell it. Once you have chosen a TLD you can't move without a great deal of cost because it's fundamental to your business.

This is just a whole lot of "what if's" rather than anything factual.

Businesses of any size really need to be in .com and/or local ccTLD because that is where their competitors are and that is where their customers expect them to be. New gTLDs are jsut an addtional cost of doing business.

Also people will use the launch to market to elected officals who are not risking their own funds. For example a few days ago

Haven't you been talking up .info for years? Have you changed your opinion?

 

[gpmgroup]

This is just a whole lot of "what if's" rather than anything factual.

There should still be chance to change things before the final implementation of the DAG for new GTLDs is passed so they are what if's... However if there isn't enough people pointing out the failings and the DAG is passed as it currently stands then the issues are very real.

For example

The Registry Registrar split probably one of the most successful policies implemented by ICANN for introducing competition to the domain market and the whole system was simply written out of the new gTLD proposals without any prior community discussion.

A 100,000 limit was inserted "to solve" the issue. Several interested groups were not happy with this change so it was raised recently at the GNSO and they voted to undertake a PDP. The PDP doesn't undo the proposals in the DAG introduced by the ICANN staff to change the model back to the old pre ICANN days of selling direct but if the GNSO finds against it, it makes the DAG proposals that much more questionable.

How much were .com and .net domains in those days, before the Registrar/Registry split? $70?

If ICANN really wants to create competition there are many ways to do it, their current proposals will do very little to create new competition. Its a bit like setting up 500 local football teams and expecting them to not get thrashed if they play in the top professional league.

Haven't you been talking up .info for years? Have you changed your opinion?

I've always liked .info and I think after .com eventually it will end up being being the second most popular gTLD. Why? Because many domains combine with the .info TLD to give good semantic meaning whereas other TLDs have more limited subset of domains which offer the same good semantic meaning when combined with their TLD.

eg berlin.info works better for more uses than berlin.us (I'm sure there are good uses but just not as many)

.com has a huge first mover advantage and it is branded implicitly day in day out by corporate communications. The only chance of changing this is if all the big brands move to .nike and .dell .microsoft and they all no longer advertise .com - But that's a huge if

Such a shift introduces fundamental economic changes to one of the most successful systems in the history of mankind and introduces a whole new set of questions which ICANN has not discussed fully, in public at least.

I think there is still opportunity for new gTLDs to be successful given ICANN is able to create the right environment, but the thinking behind the ICANN DAG is I believe so fundamentally flawed that it will result in far more harm and failed dreams than successes and improvements to the DNS as a whole.

This is why the economic studies requested by the ICANN Board over 3 years ago are so vital to the new gTLD process. There are just way too many unrealistic expectations floating around new GTLDs. Just because a new gTLD exists doesn't mean it will automatically be a success.

Should new gTLDS be allowed to try any way? That depends on how well ICANN designs the framework. The current DAG framework is I believe so flawed the answer is probably not! at least not without a rework of some of the thinking behind the whole DAG process.

 

[VURG]

And this is why 99% of new extensions will be an epic fail. They are not being released by necessity or popular demand for it. It is money driven.

Brad

I don't think that it is as high as 99%. Sure some will fail but others won't. Managing a new extension is more speculative than domaining but some people will get some good marketing strategies and do well out of them.

The fact that most of them won't match .com in terms of popularity has nothing to do with success. If they make profit in the thousands instead of the millions then they are still successes.

 

[Jeff]

Like the failed ".MOBI" and 10+/+ year stagnant ".TV" (ccTLD), the new gTLD's will definitely be money grabs; and after the initial HYPE, fake sales, pump & dump and domainer frenzies the market will ultimately decide (good point, Snoop) ... that being said - and depending on how it is launched and its ownership / development parameters - I like the potential of the highly brandable .WEB as best of the bunch, IMHO. :yell:

Bring 'em on,
Jeff

 

[Ms Domainer]

*

If you applied for a .co landrush domain and made the mistake of bidding on it and then not winning it, you lose all your application fee, all $275.00 of it (instead of just $10.00).

How greedy is that?

I can't think of one other auction platform that costs bidders three figures to place even one bid.

If you didn't bid, then you get all your money back, minus $10.00.

Can anyone explain how this policy (buried in tricky tos) benefits anyone except the greedy registrars?

Fortunately, I'll be getting my money back because I never placed a bid (although I had signed up for the auction).

Based on this close call, I'll never participate in another landrush.



*

 

[liquidcherry]

Ken Hansen from Neustar whose company is trying to provide the back end for many of the new gTLD’s registries

Neustar...really....?? FAIL looool

Cheers

Liquid

 

[gazzip]

The issue as I see it is the disparity in the playing field for registrars and registrants.

As MHB says very succinctly -

Originally Posted by MHB
The dirty little secret of the whole deal is that while a domainer who registers a domain that’s the subject of a trademark is labeled a cybersqautter, and is subjected to a fine of $100,00o per domain, and loss of the domain, registries and registrars are perfectly fine with making money off of trademarks by selling the registrations back to the trademark holder for premium amounts.

Amen to that although its hardly a secret, registries, registrars and ICANN have been profiting from selling hundreds of thousands of Trademark domains for years and its only going to get worse.

While the latest .CO is proving a success for the registrar it may also cause an EPIC problem for businesses and their customers.

It has to be one of the most riskiest domain extensions launched so far. How long before we see tons of spoofed websites and Phishing Scams of banks like hsbcbank.co etc ?

Lookout, the sh** is about to hit the fan for all domain holders

.