poll ARE THERE TO MUCH TLDs TODAY?

[DOMAIN ILLUMINATI]

Hey nP members,



what do you think:

ARE THERE TO MUCH TLDs TODAY?
Please answer this question by voting YES / NO at the poll above to see the current result of it.

And:
Do you think there should be only one gTLD (like .top / .com / .xyz) beside the ccTLDs?
Or do you find it good that there are existing many more today while the ammount of them is still growing?

Ddiscuss this questions / your view here to see how others think about it / that others can see how you think about it.

All the best with your invest,
kingof.top

 

[deez007]

I think they should back off a little now and hold up on releasing MORE gTLD's. We have far too many options to choose from already...

 

[Domain Lead Finder]

I strongly believe in a free market and letting the market/buyers decide on what is needed and what is not.

With that said, I think there are waaaay to many, but if they want to roll out a 1000 more it is OK.

 

[Altrell]

There are over 400 choices in extensions now. It is almost overwhelming. Some of the extensions make sense and then others I just scratch my head and wonder what they were thinking when creating them.

 

[DOMAIN ILLUMINATI]

I think that it's possible that the fees to creating a new TLD will go heavily down in the next decade and the result will be more and more new TLDs.
But no problem because there is already .top and this TLD makes 'order in the chaos' in my opinion - equal how many new TLDs will come.

 

[garptrader]

Developers and businesses do want short, memorable domains relevant to their businesses. They generally do not want to pay much for them. Domain investors price domains well above reg fee so I guess there was a niche for short, memorable keyword domains that did not cost five figures. On the other hand, new TLD launches have generally placed premium prices and renewals on the most logical keywords or domain investors have snatched up the most logical combinations. We now have millions of aftermarket new TLDs in addition to the many millions of aftermarket domains that already existed in .COM, .Net, .CO, .TV, .Info, .Org, etc. Industry turnover was maybe 1-2% annually before new TLDs and is probably less than 1% now.

Why are there 100 times more aftermarket domains than end user demand for them? Why do we keep launching new TLDs if there is no end user demand for them?

As a financial professional who has worked in numerous companies, I see how much companies spend on all kinds of business expenditures. It is a joke that a company cannot afford low $XXXX for a domain name. They pay invoices like that on a regular basis. But even large companies with millions of dollars in resources at their disposal are not going to pay $25 thousand for a box of pencils. The issue is that end users even in 2016 generally speaking do not value domains as valuable tools for promoting products and services. They are still looked upon as items which should cost $XX and attempts to price domains higher than that result in very low sales ratios which do not cover renewal costs.

Do we need more TLDs? No. We need end users to start paying premium prices for domains like they do for legal, accounting and audit fees, travel, advertising, exec bonuses, website development and other IT costs.

 

[Rick Ace]

If ICANN would remove all the unsuccessful TLDs next year, then the remaining TLDs would have a better chance of improving.

 

[DOMAIN ILLUMINATI]

If ICANN would remove all the unsuccessful TLDs next year, then the remaining TLDs would have a better chance of improving.

I understand what you mean but it's not necessary to 'remove unseccessful TLDs', because they are... ...unseccessful.
Means they are not an obstacle for the improving of the remaining ones.

 

[theSun]

WAY too much. Freaking ICANN should limit to a max of 4~5 new gtlds per year! One PER Quarter!

 

[Rick Ace]

I understand what you mean but it's not necessary to 'remove unseccessful TLDs', because they are... ...unseccessful.
Means they are not an obstacle for the improving of the remaining ones.

They are an obstacle. There are people that invest and develop on randomly scattered TLDs that will not find success. The web would be a better place if we didn't have just one website on .something .

 

[Fancy.domains]

Yeah, I think they are too many, but for me personally, as a domainer, I'm fine. I have sold kind of 'obscure' TLDs such as: .YOGA, .UNO, .WALES, .CARDS and .GARDEN.

 

[Altrell]

Yeah, I think they are too many, but for me personally, as a domainer, I'm fine. I have sold kind of 'obscure' TLDs such as: .YOGA, .UNO, .WALES, .CARDS and .GARDEN.

I need to really delve more into these types of extensions. I can think of a lot of great ones that would be very memorable. I think honestly that to many people are used to .com and afraid of change including myself. I think I am going to make a choice to start thinking outside the box and gain a large field of vision.

 

[Kate]

IMO there were already too many extensions before icann started their chaotic new TLD release.
I think they should be released on a case by case basis, after careful consideration. That's what used to be done, but they still allowed pointless extensions like .coop or .museum, and they are still pursuing that kind of nonsense. We don't need that many strings, the demand just isn't there.

I am more in favor of a stricter but more realistic approval process for TLDs. But rather than levy an expensive fee (185K), Icann could instead resort to preregistrations to test the actual demand.
For example, if the applicant could muster 10K firm, prepaid preregistrations @ $10/p before approval, it could demonstrate that a. the TLD is financially viable and b. that there are enough users to support it. It is fair: an applicant who doesn't have 185K available could still file an application and be successful if the TLD is convincing enough.
I think it is logical, before you release a product to the public, you want to gauge the demand. You do market research, you run polls etc. But apparently the domain industry is the only one where wishful thinking dictates business decisions.
"Let's release this .horse or .hiv and see what happens. And while we are at it, let's release a few dozen other extensions, and hope for the best". How retarded is that ?

For private corpTLDs no such rule is needed, because they don't sell domains to third parties. They need not be subject to the same rules. But the TLDs that do sell to the public should provide assurances that they are not going to be wiped out from the root after a few years because they are not profitable.

Some end users are not going to be happy when they learn that their TLDs are to be phased out. Especially when they paid premium fees to obtain them. Outsiders don't realize how unregulated the domain industry is.

 

[trp3]

I understand what you mean but it's not necessary to 'remove unseccessful TLDs', because they are... ...unseccessful.
Means they are not an obstacle for the improving of the remaining ones.

Nevertheless, they are still disturbing.

 

[enlytend]

Way, way too many, and unleashing them all around the same time was a big mistake.
There are a number of studies (which im too lazy to look for at the moment) which demonstrate that when people are given too many choices, they become overwhelmed and give up or fall back on the familiar.
When I say "too many choices", I mean more than about 7.
That, combined with extensions of limited usage, high registration fees, and a lack end user marketing for most of the new gtlds, is a formula for failure.

 

[Grego85]

never too many imo

 

[mad409]

I think if it continues there will in fact be to many. It was my understanding that there would be a substantial slowdown once the ones in this round, or approved ones have launched.

After that ICAAN will be taking a look at the effect, corrections needed etc..

I think there will be a slowdown, maybe a temporary halt the end of this year or early 2017. BJMO.

 

[artstar]

kinda late now to even waste time thinking about it, its already here implemented and will make no dif one way or another

just buy/reg dot com

the rest will be for the newbies and wannabes

 

[Emre Sert]

Yeah, I think they are too many, but for me personally, as a domainer, I'm fine. I have sold kind of 'obscure' TLDs such as: .YOGA, .UNO, .WALES, .CARDS and .GARDEN.

How did you find the end buyers for these type of extensions?

 

[Keral_Patel]

I think that it's possible that the fees to creating a new TLD will go heavily down in the next decade and the result will be more and more new TLDs.
But no problem because there is already .top and this TLD makes 'order in the chaos' in my opinion - equal how many new TLDs will come.

See dude. I don't want to write wrong words so that my post gets deleted. But enough is enough. Stop beating your drum.

 

[DOMAIN ILLUMINATI]

See dude. I don't want to write wrong words so that my post gets deleted. But enough is enough. Stop beating your drum.

Enough is enough, yes - say that.
To yourself.

You are not the VIP here like you think.
You simply should have more respect.

I can state my opinions about TLDs, for example about the TLD .top like anybody else here.
You simply don't have to agree with my opinion - but you are not in the position to tell me 'Stop posting your opinion' (In your language: 'Stop beating your drum').

Some play the drum, others make a drama out of it.

 

[DNScholar]

Yes, more TLD's than world can accommodate.

 

[Brandon.Domains]

We don't have enough TLDs yet but they should slow it down a bit for the market to catch up.

The entry price for running your own TLD will fall over time. It is logical to assume that every word and almost all brand names like .nike will be registered at one point, making .com just one of many available TLDs. Collective internet surfer memory fades fast. .com king now, forgotten in 5 or 10 years.

This is just history repeating itself. When domain investors were registering dictionary .com words, people thought they were crazy. Now domain investors register dictionary words without the unnecessary .com at the end. Does this sound unreasonable?

The internet is in a constant flux of change. Whether you like it or not, it will run its course. I have been in the internet business for 18 years and have seen too many things come and go. The prominence of .com won't be an exception.

Thanks,
Brandon