CNOs will never come this way again

[bluesman]

REVEREND BLUESMAN'S SERMON OF THE WEEK:

My friends, one main fact that's often danced around during most internet discussions is that there will never be any more Holy Trinity of the CNOs (Coms, Nets and Orgs) given out again, once the supply is ended.

All of which makes them even more like the actual real estate that cyber real estate is so often compared to. Since roughly 1995, the public has been made aware and gotten used to primarily only those three dots. Sure, a dozen more have cropped up since then, and a dozen more might in the future, but still the general public's first choice in searching the net has been - and always will be - the CNOs.

(Others more expert than I in such things can certainly provide more accurate breakdowns, but I'd estimate that searches matching hits probably run at least 60% dot coms, 20% dot nets, 10% dot orgs, and 10% other. That means CNOs dominate 90% of the market.)

I bring all this up because I believe this is why so much hanky-panky has been going on in the area of Johnny-come-lately businesses swiping established domain names (and Whois-searched-for names), since the internet celebrated its "10th anniversary" (1995-2005). These crooks - the stars of so many famous domain disputes - have realized what we all should have realized - the awesome TRUTH that 10, 20, even 50 years from now, ONLY the CNO trio will rule.

The public mind is slow to learn, yet once it grasps a concept it never lets go. For them it took some getting used to, all this jazz about an internet "super-highway' and the modern miracles in information it would supposedly bring. But get used to it the public finally did, and when they did they were weaned on the dot com-lead CNO phenomenon - not the dot "biz" or dot "info" or dot anything else phenomenon. One never forgets one's first love, and likewise the early generations of the cyberspace revolution will never forget their first introductions to it.

This can only serve to put the afore-mentioned crooks in an even more pressurized situation. They are like the greedy cattle barons, gamblers and conmen of the old west - they badly want to make a quick buck in the CNO field, but all of you innocent and honest ranchers have already grabbed up most of the good land.

That's why they don't like "cyber-settlers" - in fact they instead call them "cyber-squatters," as if you haven't even paid for your cyber land. They'll lie, cheat and steal to get it it away from you, too - and they'd bribe ICANN/WIPO or anyone else to get what they're after. Even a legal sale through a bonafide broker can often be a ripoff, when they've hoodwinked you into selling too low.

So you need to ask yourselves, will I still own these fine CNO holdings 20 years from now? How about longer than that - will I be able to pass down my CNOs to my children, and they in turn to my succeeding generations? Or will I just live for today and totally ignore tomorrow - later crying about what might have been?

And so I say to act only with the utmost caution during these confusing times. And above all, HOLD YOUR GROUND!

Something to think about, folks.

(And now let's turn to page 39 of our hymnals...)

 

[-db-]

...the general public's first choice in searching the net has been - and always will be - the CNOs.

The "has been" part is true, but the "always will be" part is false.

Current facts/statistics worldwide show this has already changed. For example, a native person in Germany is just as likely (if not more likely) to visit a .DE site as a .COM site. It's a big world out there, and as much as we like to think America is the center of all things, it's not.

...the awesome TRUTH that 10, 20, even 50 years from now, ONLY the CNO trio will rule.

Well, if we are looking that far in the future, CNO (and all others for that matter) might not even exist, because the web could be using an entirely different system for navigation.

One never forgets one's first love, and likewise the early generations of the cyberspace revolution will never forget their first introductions to it.

You speak of the 'early' generations, but the 'current' generations are another story. The kids today are growing up on a web where .DE, .US, .INFO (etc.) are becoming more common place.

 

[bluesman]

I respect your comment and anticipated responses such as this. However, I'd submit that other dots merely becoming more commonly used all the time is hardly an example of CNOs being knocked off their perch.

Likewise, over the years people have also tried A&W Root Beer, Dr. Pepper, and Mountain Dew - but there will always be only one Coke, Pepsi and 7-Up, baby.

 

[-db-]

Hey (blues)man, don't even get me started on the cola wars.

:hehe:

 

[labrocca]

I agree 100% with DB...and technology is NOT food and beverage.

Everyone has a cell phone now too and 10 years ago they didn't. Technology advances and eventually the slow minded do follow. It would only take a software advance to kill the extensions in general. I see it happening in 10-15 years. Already people don't type .com....most browser just default to that. What happens when the browser instead defaults to the best search result from google? Then it's really only important to get SERP's.

Sorry but your rant bluesman is way off base.

 

[primacomputer]

since the internet celebrated its "10th anniversary" (1995-2005)

And in this alternate reality you come from, where time is compressed and the Internet didn't exist before 1995, when was the Battle of Hastings? I suppose 1966 instead of 1066

but still the general public's first choice in searching the net has been - and always will be - the CNOs.

Probably why there have been so many high value sales in .UK and .DE the last couple years, eh?

They are like the greedy cattle barons, gamblers and conmen of the old west

You mean they are like the people who profited off the expansion of newly available realestate as opposed to sitting on the East coast saying “California? Naw, never be worth anything!”?
A rather poor analogy to use in an argument about how new namespace real estate has no future.

So you need to ask yourselves, will I still own these fine CNO holdings 20 years from now? How about longer than that - will I be able to pass down my CNOs to my children, and they in turn to my succeeding generations? Or will I just live for today and totally ignore tomorrow - later crying about what might have been?

I have no idea how many “CNO” names I'll have 20 years from now. Just like 20 years ago I had no idea that the number of registered .coms would grow from 100 to tens of millions.

But I do know I won't loose any in the way you describe. Oh sure, I own plenty of names that companies would like to grab. Many of those companies have trademarks to back up their claims. But I'm not a cybersquatter so I'm not worried in the slightest.

As for the kids, as long as they follow daddys advice of only registering names they have a legitimate interest in they'll be fine. If they take the approach other people suggest such as registering Britney-Spears-Jr.com and PlayStation38.com they will no doubt end up loosing their names.

 

[bluesman]

...technology is NOT food and beverage... ...Everyone has a cell phone now too and 10 years ago they didn't. Technology advances and eventually the slow minded do follow. It would only take a software advance to kill the extensions in general. I see it happening in 10-15 years... ...Sorry but your rant bluesman is way off base.

Uh... I knew domains weren't beverages - it's called an analogy.

And CNOs will be worthless, because cellphones were invented? Talk about apples to oranges. (Actually, you fell in to making the same comparison I did, except in the field of cellphones. Ergo, the cellphone giants who pioneered that field will still be the main ones years from now.)

Then you assert that all extensions will be killed off in 15 years? Sorry my guess of 20 years was 5 years off (assuming extensions even DO ever vanish.)

Off base, then? I hardly think so.

And in this alternate reality you come from, where time is compressed and the Internet didn't exist before 1995...

Never said it didn't exist before that - things can be traced as far back as the '70s - I was of course focusing on the mass public's first wave of interest in the "information superhighway" and the dot com boom.

Probably why there have been so many high value sales in .UK and .DE the last couple years, eh?

Gee, another guy talking about mere foreign interests. Sorry, but America far outstripts other countries in its use of the net. They're all still in their infancy over there.

You mean they are like the people who profited off the expansion of newly available realestate as opposed to sitting on the East coast saying “California? Naw, never be worth anything!”?
A rather poor analogy to use in an argument about how new namespace real estate has no future.

No, a rather good analogy (although you just made it, not me). The foreigners should have bought dot coms and used the net LAST decade a lot more, but they didn't. Now they're stuck out in the cold, having to make up their own stupid name extensions.

Oh sure, I own plenty of names that companies would like to grab. Many of those companies have trademarks to back up their claims. But I'm not a cybersquatter so I'm not worried in the slightest.

Actually, one who purposely buys domains known to be already trademarked by companies IS a cybersquatter - the fact that they haven't "come after you" yet is quite irrelevant.

As for the kids, as long as they follow daddys advice of only registering names they have a legitimate interest in they'll be fine...

Really? You advise them that buying up trademarked company names would somehow still be in their own "legitimate interest"? (Very odd that you'd pick the word "legitimate" there.)

If they take the approach other people suggest such as registering Britney-Spears-Jr.com and PlayStation38.com they will no doubt end up loosing their names.

Thanks, but I'd rather take a flyer on one of thousands of celeb-related domains than on what would no doubt be a very big and tough few companies listed in the Fortune 500!

 

[primacomputer]

Never said it didn't exist before that - things can be traced as far back as the '70s - I was of course focusing on the mass public's first wave of interest in the "information superhighway" and the dot com boom.

Fine if that's not what you mean, but the reality is this is exactly what you did say:
"since the internet celebrated its "10th anniversary" (1995-2005)"

Probably why there have been so many high value sales in .UK and .DE the last couple years, eh?

Gee, another guy talking about mere foreign interests. Sorry, but America far outstripts other countries in its use of the net. They're all still in their infancy over there.

So these other countries have so much more room to grow which will only drive up the demand for their ccTLDs. This is exactly what we are seeing. It is happening, and will continue to happen. Your “CNO” theory has been proven wrong even before you posted it.

You mean they are like the people who profited off the expansion of newly available realestate as opposed to sitting on the East coast saying “California? Naw, never be worth anything!”?
A rather poor analogy to use in an argument about how new namespace real estate has no future.

No, a rather good analogy (although you just made it, not me). The foreigners should have bought dot coms and used the net LAST decade a lot more, but they didn't. Now they're stuck out in the cold, having to make up their own stupid name extensions.

Once again, reality check, you did make that analogy.
"They are like the greedy cattle barons, gamblers and conmen of the old west"

And if you leave someone out in the cold they will go and find another TLD, er house, to live in.

And who cares about those nasty stupid foreigners that make up the other 95% of the worlds population! They'll never amount to anything! U.S.A! U.S.A!

Oh sure, I own plenty of names that companies would like to grab. Many of those companies have trademarks to back up their claims. But I'm not a cybersquatter so I'm not worried in the slightest.

Actually, one who purposely buys domains known to be already trademarked by companies IS a cybersquatter - the fact that they haven't "come after you" yet is quite irrelevant.

Actually the rules that define what a “cybersquatter” is can be found here:
http://www.icann.org/dndr/udrp/uniform-rules.htm
And I don't qualify.

Who says they haven't “come after me”? I've had enquries from laywers. I've responded to each one explaining how my registration and use of the name does not meet the three criteria laid out in the link above. Each and every time that was the end of it.

As for the kids, as long as they follow daddys advice of only registering names they have a legitimate interest in they'll be fine...

Really? You advise them that buying up trademarked company names would somehow still be in their own "legitimate interest"? (Very odd that you'd pick the word "legitimate" there.)

No, I advise them to spend a few minutes reading the UDRP and a bit of trademark law rather than basing business decisions on the domainer old wives tales, urban legends and out and out BS that saturates the forums.

And it is not at all odd that I pick the word “legitimate” there. Anyone who knows the first thing about the UDRP would understand exactly why I used it.

If they take the approach other people suggest such as registering Britney-Spears-Jr.com and PlayStation38.com they will no doubt end up loosing their names.

Thanks, but I'd rather take a flyer on one of thousands of celeb-related domains than on what would no doubt be a very big and tough few companies listed in the Fortune 500!

Horses for courses I guess. I stay away from celeb names. This is partly because I'm not a cybersquatter and have no legitimate interest in them. But it's mainly because I prefer selling a few names I have a legitimate interest in to non-F500 companies for $XXK as opposed to selling names for a few hundred bucks or making a few bucks a day with adsense.

 

[labrocca]

Well bluesman...It's good to know that I don't have to complete with you for domains other than CNO's. Keep getting people to believe you...it only helps me and others that have a different opinion. btw..do you ever say anything nice? I have yet to see a post from you that's friendly.

 

[Ronald Regging]

I'm hoping in 20 years the Internet will be dead and we can all go back to local BBSes running 2400 baud modems where it takes 45 seconds to load a single ANSI image. Ah how I long for the simpler days.

I think in any instance where vast new alternatives are offered, the market will become diluted. It's hard for any product to hold a monopoly when there is extensive competition offering better quality. Which is the case with all these "landrushes". Most people don't like the idea of all the good names being taken, so when new opportunities arise for them to acquire those good names, they're going to seize it. In their minds they'd rather have a good quality .whatever than a crappy .com. With the ever increasing scarcity of quality CNOs this will only prove to amplify this sentiment in the future. I believe CNOs will hold their own for some time, but eventually the legend must die and the aging heroes become forgotten...

 

[Devil_Dog]

The market is already diluted with these obscure cctld extensions of countries no bigger than my queen-sized bed.

The registrars are laughing all the way to the bank at all the people registering virtually worthless "keyword" names.

 

[psalzmann]

I can see the future of the internet not having any TLDs. What's the point anyways? to monopolize every word, sentence and name in the dictionary, OVER AND OVER AND OVER again. Can't get .com? get .net. We don't care if you are infringing on someone's name, we just want your MONEY and don't care as a company if you get sued.

I can see someone stepping up with an idea that in the future will be talk about "why the heck did people in the 2000's type so many dots and slashes?

mycompanywebsite should be accessible, period .. just like that.

This prevents:
- similar TLDs
- confusing law suits
- less hassle

and so much more.

 

[AdoptableDomains]

... except in the field of cellphones. Ergo, the cellphone giants who pioneered that field will still be the main ones years from now.)

Hmmm...In my locality, the original two cellular providers were Ameritech and Airtouch. Neither exist any more after industry changes buyouts and consolidations.

So you need to ask yourselves, will I still own these fine CNO holdings 20 years from now? How about longer than that - will I be able to pass down my CNOs to my children, and they in turn to my succeeding generations? Or will I just live for today and totally ignore tomorrow - later crying about what might have been?

There are still billions of people who have not even used the internet yet. To them, the internet is what it was when they started. Someone just getting connected now may think .info is an old timer just as net/org unless someone told them otherwise. Things change and those growing up with it just don't realize it.

I think a better analogy is television. I grew up with only three channels. Lets call them "ANC" (ABC,NBC, CBS) They do still dominate to some extent because they are free to anyone and the FCC has mandatory carry rules for cable and satellite providers, otherwise they my not still be dominant. My kids don't have a preference for the original three channels. They prefer Nickelodeon, Disney, and others. Many would prefer ESPN, CNN, MTV, or others to their local network channels. Several other contenders have even challenged, and now you could probably include FOX as one of the new big 4.

I think the internet domain system is going to end up like cable TV. Many choices, with significant numbers making preferences other than the original big 3. There will still be some mainstream domination, but change will gradually happen.

Yes, .com will continue to dominate for a long time, but the margin of domination will gradually diminish as new generations won't have the preconceived notion that nothing else will do.

I also think at some point, Verisign will get the opportunity to price .com registrations higher themselves to take advantage of the preference. At that point some of the smaller players may be even more inclinded to accept options.

 

[labrocca]

I think rarely do people type the extension in the browser bar. One day the browser will simply search for you and give you the best results (some already do this). It won't matter then what extension you have. Most likely we will be speaking to our browsers saying things like "what movies are playing tonight by me" and it will search for you for the results.

EDIT: I just went to search google and found this interesting tidbit. Now who thinks anyone will be typing any extensions in 20 years? Heck..in 10! Just 20 years ago we were using Commodore 64's.

http://www.searchenginejournal.com/?p=3266

 

[AdoptableDomains]

They're all still in their infancy over there.

Which means "they" won't have the opinion that .info is any less acceptable than .org.

Also, to some .com means commercialism and is strongly associated with the US. That alone may make some in the world actively choose NOT to use .com as a method of dissassociation.

I think we are going to see true ccTLD's becoming more accepted in relation to the CNO and other new gTLD domains, particularly in non-English speaking countries.

Just 20 years ago we were using Commodore 64's.

No, actually most of us were using typewriters and stamped envelopes, and a select few who could afford it were using Fax machines. Even those using Commodore 64's were either printing & mailing letters or logging into private dialup BBS computers. I don't even think Compuserve, AOL, or Prodigy (remember them) existed yet in 1986.

In 1980, I was doing college computer work with punch cards, and output was to paper, not a CRT.

 

[Ronald Regging]

I think the voice command mobile search idea is great. Now not only can I walk down the street with a hands-free device that makes me look like I'm talking to myself like a crazy bum, but I can also bark out random words as well. Nothing like sitting next to someone and then randomly saying "Pineapple" or "Britney Spears." The future is looking more and more schizophrenic.

Personally I don't think the voice command will work, because there are millions of people in the world who can not properly pronounce words. Are they going to make a Southern dialect recognition version? Eubonics? One for people in Maine, Boston, New Jersey, Pennslyvania... Maybe the future of domains isn't in word typos, but in speech typos?

 

[DNQuest.com]

In 1980, I was doing college computer work with punch cards, and output was to paper, not a CRT.

But it made great confetti for football games

I just went through some of my olf RPG and Cobol boxes that are still filled with thousands and thousands of punchcards.... I don't think I need to save them anymore :hehe: Remember the days, you finsih your program, you carry the cards over to the table to box them.... then you trip....

 

[bluesman]

Well bluesman...It's good to know that I don't have to complete with you for domains other than CNO's. Keep getting people to believe you...it only helps me and others that have a different opinion. btw..do you ever say anything nice? I have yet to see a post from you that's friendly.

I've posted lots of positive stuff, including this post right here. I will indeed take your fine advice and continue to promote mainly CNOs.

Regarding my domains, many (but not all) of which involve celebs, it's not cybersquatting, since they're not trademarked companies, and said celebs are long dead with no relatives chasing after anyone. (Myself and others bought up most of the good ones in the '90s, so 95% of them are not available anymore.)

As to the other posters who nitpicked my comments like crazy until I couldn't answer each point without making a post stretching five feet long, I'll just cut to the bottom line instead:

You think the dot com ruling class is long gone and will be replaced by other extensions in the next 10 years or so? I say that's nonsense. Others go further and say there will soon be NO extensions at all. Also nonsense. (Meanwhile, I don't consider limited BBS babbling to be the "internet," and I have no desire to harken back to those primitive days. 1995-2005 still marks the main consumer wave of the internet boom.)

And even newbies (young as they may be) know how to crack a history book. They'll read about how dot coms made the web, just as certain networks (like CBS, NBC & ABC) made TV, and Verizon made the current age of phone service. Time will tell - we'll see who's right about CNOs - just check back with me here in another 10 years!

LOL

 

[primacomputer]

Regarding my domains, many (but not all) of which involve celebs, it's not cybersquatting, since they're not trademarked companies, and said celebs are long dead with no relatives chasing after anyone. (Myself and others bought up most of the good ones in the '90s, so 95% of them are not available anymore.)

Didn't someone say:
"the fact that they haven't "come after you" yet is quite irrelevant. "

Celebrity names are trademarks. This is a well established legal fact. A few minutes researching trademark law would show you this. These trademarks can be sold to a company or passed to ones heirs to ensure they remain valid for years after the celebrity's death.

If you want to see what the UDRP panelists think about your “reasoning” google for Burgar, a (in)famous celeb cybersquatter who has been loosing names left right and centre.

 

[bluesman]

You certainly seem quick to accuse me of doing no research into a subject that I've dealt in for over 10 years, sir. For one who makes such insinuations, it's looks pretty odd then that you didn't even pay attention to my post - I referred to NON-active celebs, not active ones such as Mr. Burgar made the mistake of investing in.

Even in the case of your later comment about deceased celeb names remaining active years after a celebs death is no problem, since they can't remain valid forever, particularly in cases where one agent sells their licensing to another agent years later, and long AFTER the domain name was registered.

Another flaw is in your original point, that celeb names and marks are somehow now the same, which is to you a "legal fact." Too bad for your assertion there that WIPO doesn't back you up on this, since they have denied recent attempts by current celebs to also be instantly "knighted" as trademarks (for YOUR research, check out the Springsteen case and others.)

And what did this wacky guy Burgar do that myself and my friends have never done? Yes, he not only dealt in names of active celebs, he also blatantly rediredted his sites and/or links to different pages - SALES pages! (For example, he "...redirected piercebrosnan.com to a commercial website...") He was indeed begging for trouble with such wildly provocative actions.

You referrenced another comment regarding "the fact that they haven't 'come after you' yet is quite irrelevant." On the contrary, it's very relevant. The fact that they've rightly jumped on the crazy profit-motivated types like the Burgars of the world, while leaving fansite domains - like those owned by myself and my friends - completely alone for over a decade, speaks VOLUMES.

 

[blue^ray]

I believe .info is greater than .org

 

[Ronald Regging]

I always found it facsinating that celebrity names get so much legal protection... especially considering that in other aspects of the law, like slander and defamation, they're actually awarded less protection than your average person, because they are considered public figures.

Also, 99% of the time, those aren't they're real names anyway

 

[primacomputer]

You certainly seem quick to accuse me of doing no research into a subject that I've dealt in for over 10 years, sir. For one who makes such insinuations, it's looks pretty odd then thay you didn't even pay attention to my post - I referred to NON-active celebs, not active ones such as Mr. Burgar made the mistake of investing in.

I've paid attention to your posts both in this thread and others. It's reading your many incorrect statements on the subject that lead me to believe you have a very poor grasp of trademark basics. Holding a few domain names for 10 years makes you no more of an expert at trademark law than flipping burgers for 10 years makes you an expert at sequencing the bovine genome.

Even in the case of your later comment about deceased celeb names remaining active years after a celebs death is no problem, since they can't remain valid forever, particularly in cases where one agent sells their licensing to another agent years later, and long AFTER the domain name was registered.

You're once again confusing trademarks and copyrights. The part in the US constitution where it says “To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries” means copyrights and patents can not last forever. This has nothing to do with trademarks. As long as they continue to be used they can last forever.

Another flaw is in your original point, that celeb names and marks are somehow now the same, which is to you a "legal fact." Too bad for your assertion there that WIPO doesn't back you up on this, since they have denied recent attempts by current celebs to also be instantly "knighted" as trademarks (for YOUR research, check out the Springsteen case and others.)

Well all my lawyers say your wrong. Forgive me if I choose to take their word over someone I know to simply recite domainer trademark lore. Nice example with the springsteen.com case. I particularly like this part of the decision:

“As it is possible to decide the case on other grounds, however, the Panel will proceed on the assumption that the name Bruce Springsteen is protected under the policy; it then follows that the domain name at issue is identical to that name.”

In other words the WIPO does agree that celeb names are trademarks. As you can see, the case was decided on other points despite the fact that “Bruce Springteen” was considered a trademark.

Nice "research" BTW Next time you might want to actually read the document you cite.

You referrenced another comment regarding "the fact that they haven't 'come after you' yet is quite irrelevant." On the contrary, it's very relevant. The fact that they've rightly jumped on the crazy profit-motivated types like the Burgars of the world, while leaving fansite domains - like those owned by myself and my friends - completely alone for over a decade, speaks VOLUMES.

You don't need to speak volumes. Just say “Usage”. That's another one of those terms that anyone who knows the first thing about trademarks will understand.

 

[HuskyDomains]

I believe .info is greater than .org

And I believe you're wrong...


What would the owner of Golf.info say to the owner of Golf.org??

Answer: Would you like fries with that??


In all seriousness there are a FEW cases where .info may work better but .ORG even for sites not intended for an organization just tends to hold more value..

 

[labrocca]

Good post primacomputer...one of your better rebuttles that I agree with.

Rep added.