new gtlds Day 1 of the implosion N.gTLDs. Stop renewing

[betthelot]

This will be seen as Day 1 of the implosion of new gTLDs. Fundamental shift of opinion and direction happened at Mind+Machines the owners of .London .Law and the not so good .Horse .Rodeo, 20 in total. Big player in this space.

If you are investing in new gTLDs, you really need to read this.
I started a thread headless.domainer in a topless.bar to show why the new gTLDs have not taken off and why they will not. There was little defense of the new gTLDs .

Fortunately the fired co founder of Mind+Machines the CEO, who arguably is a bigger new gTLD believer than Frank Shilling, gave a detail response why he got fired and his difference of opinion with the board (notably all the board members voted him out). His response I feel is the best defense of the new gTLDs, he's still a big believer, so Im going to break his response down to get an insight of what is happening in this space.

Minds + Machines, the company I founded in 2009, informed me last week that I was no longer wanted as CEO.
Now what? New gTLDs are barely birthed. The industry is very young. Twelve million new gTLD names have been sold in just about two years. That's nearly 5% of all domain names out there. What reasonable person doesn't expect that to rise to 20% or more within the next few years? There's a lot of opportunity in the field.

ICANN predicted originally 33 million new gTLD domain name registrations in 2015—a number it later revised to just 15 million. Didnt hit that, so by any measure the numbers are pitiful
Conveniently forgets even those numbers are inflated by 5million that were registered at $1 or less. A rise to 20% of nothing is nothing. Interestingly his last post blasted strings like .xyz for distorting registration numbers and giving new gLTDs a bad rep for spam and fraud.
Domianers have spent by far the most acquiring these names. We are holding up this whole ecosystem.

And yet there are some signs of desperation out there. (AGREE) Demand for new gTLDs hasn't been what anyone expected.(AGREE) Many single-TLD registries, though not all, are hurting.(AGREE) Many registrars still do not fully support new gTLDs that aren't plain-vanilla .com clones. Its because they dont sell, GoDaddy and others will only promote what the enduser want, its your job to create enduser demand.

ICANN continues to treat registries and registrars as unpleasant necessities despite the fact that its sky-rocketing budget is underwritten by domain name sales. No breakout awareness of new gTLDs has yet occurred and until it does marketing of the new gTLDs, many feel as useless as pushing a piece of string.

OH its ICANNs responsibility to promote the new gTLDs. YEP no marketing, no awareness, no sales, its Business 101 But I forgot the new gTLDs were special, there was going to be people banging down your door to reg them. Didn't happen, so its ICANNs fault, not that you completely over estimated demand. If you felt that the new gTLDs would fail without ICANN promoting them, shouldnt you have made sure they were going to do that before you sunk millions into new gTLDs.

Even so, the larger players in our industry continue to be very bullish: .shop went for more than $40M, the single biggest mistake in domain history, wrote a post about that as well.
.app went for $25M and a secondary market in new gTLDs is heating up fast. Really could of fooled us domainers. Existing registries, and companies outside the space, are on the prowl. Despite the perceived lack of demand, some people are clearly seeing a lot of value in new gTLDs. Yes and Mind + Machines are hoping to be brought out before they lose more money. Have not shown an operational profit since its inception in 2009.

Why the disconnect? It's a matter of perspective, and cash. Owning a registry, or even better a portfolio of them, is a fantastic long-term business. Those who can't think long term (no cash) or won't (no vision), will not be well served by what's to come. OK so you wanted to burn more cash to realize your long term vision and the board disagreed with your long term vision being profitable and wanted to call a halt to the cash spend.


What kind of registries are out there, and how will they fare? Below I've listed some of the major types of commercial models (non-brand) that exist today, and what their prospects are; there are also hybrids of these models.

• Registry as a domainer play: the registry is essentially an unlimited portfolio of names, and like a domainer you can price your inventory, park it, and wait for the right buyer to walk through the door. This model is concerned with understanding the value of each name and pricing it for maximum return. It also requires staying power and self-sufficiency; impatient investors are going to have a hard time with this model. This is the premium pricing and renewals model that the registries like so much. So the numbers look crap noone is buying them at the prices you set and investors are getting restless. Perhaps they are overpriced.
• Registry as supermarket. Sell it super-cheap or give it away and try to win on large volumes with low margins. Because low prices disproportionately attract fraudsters, this approach is problematic but in the short term at least it seems to be profitable. In terms of resale, however, it may be a poisoned well. (AGREE).
• Registry as small business. Make some nice signs, tell some friends, try to get good shelf space at the local store, take out some stands at trade shows, get some testimonials, keep the costs down, and build the business over time. This can work if there are no investors, or if they are angel investors looking for a nice ongoing income in the future. Having a single TLD instead of a portfolio is actually an advantage here. AGREE keep cost down, BUT 47% of the strings are not even profitable if you say there is only a $150,000 annual running cost.
• Registry as part of a bigger plan. Naming is part of a vaster ecosystem that includes the branding, positioning, marketing, selling and licensing of companies, goods, and services on the Internet. And, importantly, it includes Internet governance. It takes no great power of observation to see that being a big registry, essential to commerce and communication on the Internet, contributing substantial amounts to ICANN, gets you a privileged seat at ICANN, at the center of things when it comes to deciding what the Internet will look like in 10 years. That's actually worth a lot, but it's only available, or useful, to the biggest players. A dig at Verisign influence on ICANN. Again ICANNs fault. ICANN is the scape goat for the failing new gTLDs, I expect we will hear this more and more but they are not there to promote the registries names.

Existing portfolio registries have basically two ways to go. One option is to build up the TLDs in the existing portfolio, treating them as a collection of small businesses, and hope that they become self-sustaining and will fetch a decent multiple of profits in an eventual sale. A better option would be to treat today's highly fragmented ownership of new gTLDs as an opportunity to continue the portfolio-building that began with the first applications, acquiring good TLDs that are selling cheap now, keeping focused on the long-term value.
There selling cheap because they are not making any money and your board decided they never will.

One thing we agree on IS there will be consolidation as more of these new gTLDs fail.

Internet Identity that looks at security of the internet for businesses and governments said this recently about the new gTLDs, and remember they have no axe to grind, they are not invested one way or another.

IID anticipates an unprecedented series of domain registry failures as a result of the lack of gTLD popularity by 2017 in the form of bankruptcies and abandonment. “Most new gTLDs have failed to take off and many have already been riddled with so many fraudulent and junk registrations that they are being blocked wholesale,” said IID President and CTO Rod Rasmussen. “This will eventually cause ripple effects on the entire domain registration ecosystem, including consolidation and mass consumer confusion as unprofitable TLDs are dropped by their sponsoring registries.” WHEN THIS HAPPENS BAD PUBLICITY FOR ALL new gTLDs and LOSE OF TRUST. THIS WILL BE THE NAIL IN THE COFFIN.

I have been a domainer since late December 1999 and what I see today really worries me about domainers losing their shirt. Do your research and invest wisely guys. Dont listen to propaganda, look at the numbers, they dont lie.

 

[Silentptnr]

They never answer the real question I ask which is, "Can a domain purchased registered as a non registry premium domain be re-classified as a registry premium domain at a later time?"

I truly hope that never happens. Funny enough, it depends on who I ask. I ask GD and they say they wouldn't do that but other registrars might. I ask Uniregistry and they say they wouldn't do that but other registrar might. etc, etc, etc...

 

[SiteMachine]

They never answer the real question I ask which is, "Can a domain purchased registered as a non registry premium domain be re-classified as a registry premium domain at a later time?"

I truly hope that never happens. Funny enough, it depends on who I ask. I ask GD and they say they wouldn't do that but other registrars might. I ask Uniregistry and they say they wouldn't do that but other registrar might. etc, etc, etc...

Hmm... I hear people mention that fear a lot here. Personally I think you have a better chance at being struck by lightning than being the first person to have that happen but lets work through that scenario...
You just made me think of a new point with your info, if GD or Uniregistry wants to act like they are all high and mighty and wont do that then how about transfers? You can always just transfer the domain to a registry that isn't shady and considering that there are dozens of very popular ones eager to have you switch your business to them I think you have a pretty good shot at finding one that is willing to do the right thing.

That said, I still think you have a better chance at being struck by lightning than being the first one to have this happen to you. In terms of it being used as a reason that the new tlds are somehow weaker, I don't think I'm the only one that realizes the irony of that.

 

[betthelot]

I don't think I agree with this, that domain is parked and for sale. Are you familiar with the UDRP? The only situation in which they make that domain significantly more valuable (casinolive.com starts a competing business) is also the situation where casinolive.com would be awarded to the owners of casino.live in a dispute. As you must know, owning the .com first does not secure the brand so I wholeheartedly disagree with your statement.

That's an easy one to answer when you look at rights in a name you need to look at it from a trademark prospective. The example you give is casino.live and Casinolive.com. You are making the assertion that if casino.live built a site then he would have rights over casinolive.com because he has built a successful and known site first and therefore created a brand. Which means casinolive.com cannot subsequently build a website that competes with casino.live, without being subject to a UDRP. The first thing you should understand about trademarks is that you cannot register a trademark that describes a good or service. For example if you ran a wine club you could not register the trademark wine club. Therefore wineclub.com has no rights over wine.club. What is important is you can register the trademark wine club and then use the brand on a clothes range and therefore you would not be able to use the website wine.club to sell clothes. Your example is casino.live. So if casino.live built up a website that was a realtime casino and it was successful, he would then not have rights for casinolive.com just because his website is successful. This is why it is beneficial for the .com to see the new gTLD succeed, when it's a descriptive phrase of what the website offers, because you cannot trademark it. It is also useful to know that trademarks are not made all the same. Some are much easier to defend than others, there is a sliding scale of trademarks from the descriptive up to what are called the fanciful. Fanciful trademarks are very easy to defend and the fanciful marks are often a created new word and not a dictionary word like Coca-Cola, Google, Cisco are all fanciful trademarks and very easy to defend. The more difficult trademarks to defend are ones which use dictionary words. A recent UDRP case which was successfully defended by a domainer contained the dictionary words nano and steel. There was a trademark for nanosteel and the domainer owned nanosteel(.)com. The domain was successfully defended, by stating that those are common dictionary words and has a meaning for steel at a microscopic level Now what's important for a domainer to know is that when a UDRP is judged, the most important aspect a panel looks at is your intent when you registered that name. Now if the domain owner of nanosteel(.)com went to the company that is called nanosteel, who holds the trademark nanosteel and offered it to them for a price, it can easily be shown that the intent was to gain financial benefit from someone's trademark and therefore it was registered in bad faith. If however you registered that name and then put a for sale page up with no advertising on it, then your are in the business of selling generic domain names and that is a legitimate business use. Now this is possible with descriptive words that are dictionary words. It is not possible to do this when it is a fanciful trademark because that is clearly a trademark infringement. As with all these trademark cases they are complicated and require an attorney but these are the basics facts a domainer needs to know. Hope I didn't bore the hobbyists, if you got this far.

 

[betthelot]

Hmm... I hear people mention that fear a lot here. Personally I think you have a better chance at being struck by lightning than being the first person to have that happen but lets work through that scenario...
You just made me think of a new point with your info, if GD or Uniregistry wants to act like they are all high and mighty and wont do that then how about transfers? You can always just transfer the domain to a registry that isn't shady and considering that there are dozens of very popular ones eager to have you switch your business to them I think you have a pretty good shot at finding one that is willing to do the right thing.

That said, I still think you have a better chance at being struck by lightning than being the first one to have this happen to you. In terms of it being used as a reason that the new tlds are somehow weaker, I don't think I'm the only one that realizes the irony of that.

The assumption you make here is that the registrar controls the prices and therefore when uniregistry and godaddy say they will not increase prices then prices will remain the same. This is not so. The largest element of the price is the registry component of the price. For example .London is owned by mind + machines and they sell wholesale .london names to uniregistry godaddy and other registrars at $15 each. godaddy and uniregistry are in a competitive market and therefore they will put a small profit on top of the wholesale price. Now if the registry increases the wholesale price the prices will go up across the board at all registrars. What's important is that the ICANNs policy with the new gTLDs allows the registry to set their own prices and therefore increase prices at will. Compare this with .com which VeriSign is the Registry the agreement is for the next 6 years that they cannot increase prices, unless they can demonstrate because of some change in policy, means their running costs have increased. Therefore it is very unlikely we will see a price increase with .com in the next six years. With the new gTLDs it is very likely we will see price increases as the registration numbers are so low the only way that they can increase their revenue is by increasing prices and I'm sure we will see that. Wether they change a name from non premium to premium is up to the registry but it will be very bad publicity and therefore much more likely to increase fees across the board.

 

[betthelot]

Just been contacted by one of the registries to stop being so negative about the new gTLDs as it helps no one Replied that the bloggers are biased towards them and we needed some balance and that's what drove me to start these threads. It was all rather polite. When I asked how do you convince an end user for example to go with say londonshoe.shop rather than LondonShoeShop.com she replied the com is surplus, it's 3 letters that are not needed. What about leaking traffic, leaking emails and less bang for your advertising Buck and the cost of keep telling everyone it's .shop not .shop.com or shop.com. Back to the old gem its only a matter of time and we are getting to a tipping point of public awareness day by day. Good luck with that.
So I will keep commentating. But thanks for the call.

 

[SiteMachine]

The assumption you make here is that the registrar controls the prices

No, I was asserting that after the GA phase begins the only ones who could change a name from non-premium to premium is the registry.

Wether they change a name from non premium to premium is up to the registry but it will be very bad publicity and therefore much more likely to increase fees across the board.

exactly... like I just said. I think if you are going to make this point you need to point out that it is no more true for the new tlds than .coms. Why would a registry decide to gouge you on price of a new tld but not a .com? Competition is the only reason and there is plenty of that for new tlds as well as .com
And yes, fees could be increased huge percentages across the board as has always been the case with EVERY SINGLE tld, it has always been a possibility and that's why if you like the price you are getting it makes sense to lock in as many years as possible and then do multiple transfers if those are also affordable.

Now to your IP and trademark related comments I will dig in a bit but I should preface this by agreeing with your suggestion that people talk to an IP lawyer about this stuff if they have the means, IANAL

The first thing you should understand about trademarks is that you cannot register a trademark that describes a good or service.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think you are referring to the 'merely descriptive' provision that can be used as a reason for rejecting a mark in the US. This is true to some degree but I have heard IP lawyers mention several creative ways they get around this and get a defensible mark. For the example given, I was only using casino.live because it is what you were using.. it isn't the best example but I don't think that takes away from the point I was trying to make which is that this is not a zero sum situation meaning the leakage isn't likely to drive the customer to a competitor in the same space because competing in the same space is the only thing that would put the competitor at risk of losing their domain. I don't actually think in that situation casinolive.com would lose their domain, but parking it with a generic page for years and then finally developing it with the same service as a successful site right after the successful site starts leaking traffic would at the very least help to prove the bad faith requirement. Remember, the domain going to the complainant isn't the only way they can lose the domain, I have seen UDRP decisions which simply strike the name from the registry and don't allow it to be used again in the future.

Here is a pretty good analysis that I think interestingly helps both of our points, so I'm not in total disagreement with you but this is obviously a nuanced situation. udrpsearch.com/wipo/d2015-1608

I do however think the whole doom and gloom thing you have going on here is misleading. I have very little stake in the new TLDs but I think it would serve domainers well to remember they are by definition not the end users of a domain (if they are and they develop it, I consider them a developer in that situation). Domainers are not the main target market for the ICANN, registries, or new tld owners (who are playing a much longer game than I think anyone here gives them credit for) as much as all of our egos on this site would like to believe otherwise. To claim something illegal is being done as some might have here is funny to me because all I see is attempts by the three entities mentioned above to tilt the playing field a little bit for end users and make sure they can always find a name for reg fee if they are a bit creative. With this bubble, they have their work cut out for them as us namepros and other domainers are scooping up many of the good ones (even as the .commies tell us we're crazy ) so quickly. If people invest in a ton of names for 1 year, don't transfer or develop or flip and then lose them bc of increased fees I really don't see them as having anyone to blame but themselves.

 

[betthelot]

And yes, fees could be increased huge percentages across the board as has always been the case with EVERY SINGLE tld,

ICANN agreement with Verisign is that they freeze .com prices around 7.5 dollars for next 6 years whereas new gTLDs can set their own prices, so much more likely to increase.

'merely descriptive' provision

Thats another reason a trademark can be rejected. Mine is you cant describe a good or service, what you are referring to here is 'merely descriptive' word or phrase cant be trademarked. Good example is you cant trademark 'The best men's razors' but you can trademark the more creative 'the best a man can get'

I don't actually think in that situation casinolive.com would lose their domain, but parking it with a generic page for years and then finally developing it with the same service as a successful site right after the successful site starts leaking traffic would at the very least help to prove the bad faith requirement.

Bad faith is impossible if you cannot trademark casinolive for a casino live website. It describes the service product. Just impossible to get a trademark. Many casino companies describe online casinos as live casino. Just would not get passed the first hurdle that a trademark has to be distinctive and also it can't describe the product or service. No trademark no UDRP

Sorry I missed understood your point after GA and you was arguing only the registry can increase prices.

 

[SiteMachine]

Thats another reason a trademark can be rejected. Mine is you cant describe a good or service, what you are referring to here is 'merely descriptive' word or phrase cant be trademarked. Good example is you cant trademark 'The best men's razors' but you can trademark the more creative 'the best a man can get'

Again, IANAL but I think what you are referring to only exists under the merely descriptive. Check uspto.gov/trademark/additional-guidance-and-resources/possible-grounds-refusal-mark there is no mention of not being able to describe a good or service. Obviously, they can and in most cases will reject simple descriptions but, for example, a stylized mark with casino.live could be considered casinoDOTlive which if granted would mean under the 'traffic leaking and subsequent development' scenario you mentioned bad faith could be argued in the UDRP section 4(b)(iv): by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location..

ICANN agreement with Verisign is that they freeze .com prices around 7.5 dollars for next 6 years whereas new gTLDs can set their own prices, so much more likely to increase.

Ok... that's 6 years. I would argue 6 years is inconsequential in the grand scheme of this "implosion" argument you are making. People who were savvy with xyz transfers could have ~10years of registration right now for that same $7.5 (and that $7.50 is the registry's cost not the end user of course) so up to 10 years for the price of 1. If the prices go up that gives you 10 years to shop around for more transfer deals.

Seriously, I don't get what all the fuss is about aside from people being resistant to change especially when they perceive it as having some financial effect on them. This is like when we started moving from ipv4 to ipv6 just with a lot more emotion. Some people resisted that change but those with technical knowledge realized we were constrained by the limitations of a finite number of addresses. Of course if you are holding a lot of .coms this appears to hurt you given the law of supply and demand but I don't hear people flipping .coms complaining about there being a shortage of demand (especially the past few months) so why not just sit back and watch?

I'm curious from that statement if you oppose free markets in general or just when it comes to top level domain operators? I of course favor some regulation, but I don't see what you are proposing be done to make much of a difference, you may agree that 6 years is inconsequential and that they should freeze everyone's prices but I'd personally think most domainers would welcome this opportunity to catch lots of interesting drops in the coming years from anyone who didn't transfer-prepare properly now.

 

[brindle123]

Just been contacted by one of the registries to stop being so negative about the new gTLDs as it helps no one

I would love to know which one contacted you! You can PM me if you don't want to out them here on the forum. If you don't want to say anything, that's cool too.

I have regged some really good LLL, NNN .online, club, etc at regular price (cheap), but then all of a sudden, they changed all the pricing. I have asked several registrar reps if the renewal prices could be changed and they pretty much said the same scary thing. "You should register your domains for the longest periods, because then your price is guaranteed for that period. We really can't tell you if prices will rise."

Silentptnr...can you say what your pricing went up to? Did renewals go up to $24.99 for the .online, or did they go up more than that?

They give out low pricing on most new gtlds to get their reg numbers up, then after the first year, renewals go up to the standard prices. This helps lure us in.

Domainers are not the main target market for the ICANN, registries

I have a very hard time believing that domainers are not the target. There are reps from the registries on this site that promote and hype the new gtlds. I don't see any advertising being done to make the general public aware of the new gtlds. If there are any ads or marketing being done can someone please point it out to me? Domainers buy way more domains than all the end users combined(except for some large corps like google and amazon).

We support the aftermarket more than end users too!

My advice to the registries and registrars is to not screw the domain community over and we will continue to buy from you.

 

[betthelot]

Again, IANAL but I think what you are referring to only exists under the merely descriptive. Check uspto.gov/trademark/additional-guidance-and-resources/possible-grounds-refusal-mark there is no mention of not being able to describe a good or service.

I think we have beaten this to death. I maintain you will not get a trademark.

Once the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) receives a trademark registration application, it determines the answers to these questions:

• Is the trademark the same as or similar to an existing mark used on similar or related goods or services?
• Is the trademark on the list of prohibited or reserved names?
• Is the trademark generic--that is, does the mark describe the product itself rather than its source?

If the PTO answers all of these questions in the negative, it will publish the trademark in the Official Gazette (a publication of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office)

My argument is that the new gTLDs are a disaster for domainers with very little end users and those end users that want them usual have small budgets and have so much choice law lawyer attorney...... It's a domainers nightmare few end users lots of choice small budget. Any serious business would not touch them.

 

[brindle123]

They need to promote the new gtlds. Anything will help.

Godaddy is the only company that I see doing any kind of real promotion in the domain industry.

 

[Silentptnr]

I would love to know which one contacted you! You can PM me if you don't want to out them here on the forum. If you don't want to say anything, that's cool too.



Silentptnr...can you say what your pricing went up to? Did renewals go up to $24.99 for the .online, or did they go up more than that?

They give out low pricing on most new gtlds to get their reg numbers up, then after the first year, renewals go up to the standard prices. This helps lure us in.



I have a very hard time believing that domainers are not the target. There are reps from the registries on this site that promote and hype the new gtlds. I don't see any advertising being done to make the general public aware of the new gtlds. If there are any ads or marketing being done can someone please point it out to me? Domainers buy way more domains than all the end users combined(except for some large corps like google and amazon).

We support the aftermarket more than end users too!

My advice to the registries and registrars is to not screw the domain community over and we will continue to buy from you.

I haven't had any prices go up. I have registered many domains at the bargain 1st year price. I am aware when registering what the normal price is. However, my question has been, "Can the registry raise the renewal price at any time? Or more specifically, "Can the registry change a domain that was registered as non-premium, to premium(sometimes I see as much as 6k or more for premium priced domains)?"

 

[SiteMachine]

Any serious business would not touch them.

What constitutes 'touching' them? I mean, I'm sure you consider google a serious business so is the conglomerate that now owns them picking a new tld for the main website for itself not considered 'touching' it?

 

[betthelot]

Google will not use google.xyz or abc.xyz for its public facing home page. Of course Google will sell .app domains as a registry. But I'm looking at it from a domainer, you are not going to be able to resell any of these new gTLDs to google because they know it will hurt their business. Google.com does just fine. Note Bing has .bing and redirects search.bing to Bing.com.
All 39 .brands that have gone live not one uses it for their main public facing home page.

 

[SiteMachine]

All 39 .brands that have gone live not one uses it for their main public facing home page.

.brands have nothing to do with the new generic tlds.. apples to oranges. Any company that would start redirecting a successful .com to a .brand has a CEO that might possibly have a brain tumor

Google will not use google.xyz or abc.xyz for its public facing home page

abc.xyz is the public facing home page of the conglomerate alphabet which owns and controls google. I challenge you to find a "main public facing" .com page for alphabet. Go for it.

 

[betthelot]

abc.xyz is the public facing home page of the conglomerate alphabet which owns and controls google. I challenge you to find a "main public facing" .com page for alphabet. Go for it.

Are you serious abc.xyz is the most crappiest of websites, that they spent little time or effort on it because it's just for investors. Now if they used google.xyz for their search page that would be something.

.brands have nothing to do with the new generic tlds.. apples to oranges. Any company that would start redirecting a successful .com to a .brand has a CEO that might possibly have a brain tumour.

Exactly. Only suitable for start ups and small businesses and unwell CEOs with low IQ and lower budgets, with 1000 new gTLDs to choose from. Domainers nightmare.

 

[betthelot]

I haven't had any prices go up. I have registered many domains at the bargain 1st year price. I am aware when registering what the normal price is. However, my question has been, "Can the registry raise the renewal price at any time? Or more specifically, "Can the registry change a domain that was registered as non-premium, to premium(sometimes I see as much as 6k or more for premium priced domains)?"

Renewals increase, they just need to give 180 days notice and there is no limit on the increase. Initial price they just need to give 30 days notice and no limit to increase. Non premium to premium nothing in the policy. So who knows. ICANN never enforce the rules so in reality it's open season

 

[Silentptnr]

Wow, that could really shake things up. I don't think anything drastic will happen in that regard. Too many people would just drop the domains. This is why I only buy crappy, longtails! Just kidding.

 

[SiteMachine]

ok lol.

I think you and brindle are proving my point for me, the new gTLDs are good for end users. Where it seems we definitely don't agree is how "bad" they are for domainers. I would guess that smart domainers will benefit from this one way or another, boom or bust.

Are you serious abc.xyz is the most crappiest of websites, that they spent little time or effort on it because it's just for investors. Now if they used google.xyz for their search page that would be something.

Ouch, missing the point entirely. Google is an existing business and there is no upside to trying to convert decades of users from google.com to google.xyz. Heck someone could come back from a really long vacation away from technology and not know how to get to google... silly. The fact that you referred to it as "the most crappiest of websites" made my night and requires no response lol so thx.

Exactly. Only suitable for start ups and small businesses

Actually not what I said, since I referred to the conglomerate that owns and controls google, not a small business by any means. What you are missing is alphabet is NEW, there is no friction in choosing a new tld, which is something domainers need to grasp if they want to make money in this new landscape where lets face it end users have more choices.

 

[SiteMachine]

Wow, that could really shake things up. I don't think anything drastic will happen in that regard. Too many people would just drop the domains. This is why I only buy crappy, longtails! Just kidding.

Ok I just want to work through this scenario quick to show why I don't think this would shake anything up or should worry anyone.

Quick theoretical example, .work is on sale for $0.99 with $1.99 renewals and you are given 180 days notice of a price increase to $199.00. OH NO! Worst case happens and most sites end their promos and you get stuck either paying full price for renewals at $9.99 or $7.99 to transfer but you can't transfer back out for another 60 days so only can safely transfer twice in the 180 days. You decide to play it safe and just renew 10yrs at $9.99/yr so you pay $99.90 for 10 more years and end up paying about the same as you would for a .com

Now its 180 days later and you have secured a domain for 10 years with a reg fee of $199.00, maybe it isn't worth the reg fee... maybe it is and you just caught a huge break. And wait, I thought this was the worst case scenario.

 

[Silentptnr]

I just don't want to have a LL, LLL, NN, NNN domain that I registered at regular price to suddenly have a renewal price in the thousands. That would really stink.

 

[SiteMachine]

But wouldn't that just mean it kind of became a sh*t or get off the pot type of situation? You have 180 days to decide if that name is really a worthy investment and then you have a chance to renew it at an unprecedented discount. If the name really were a quality one wouldn't that be a no brainer? If you think all new gTLDs are destined to actually fail out of business (which is comical) then you probably wouldn't be in this situation anyway

 

[Silentptnr]

I guess the bottom line is that it's hard to accept that domains are rented, not owned. I just don't like that the landlord can raise the rent on some and not on others.

 

[SiteMachine]

I guess the bottom line is that it's hard to accept that domains are rented, not owned. I just don't like that the landlord can raise the rent on some and not on others.

I would think of it more like .coms having a longer lease, or maybe being rent controlled at best but the rent can always go up eventually

 

[garptrader]

We now have 2.5 million .XYZ registrations. Yet if you look at DNPRIC.ES there are fewer than 40 reported sales over $1000? And only about ten of those are actuall keywords - the rest are 1-3 character numerics or LL/LLL type names. Sales #99 and #100 (Juegos & Madrid) were for around $250 each. Type in "juegos" into DNPric.es and there are at least 100 reported domain sales for $1000 plus. Most of those are multi-word domains. And the one-word .XYZ cannot even break $300. I guess if you are a developer...