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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amazon declined comment.

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

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

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...mong-suf_n_1592839.html?utm_hp_ref=technology
 
2
•••
The views expressed on this page by users and staff are their own, not those of NamePros.
domainhacks said:
Pepsi and Coke have a monopoly on the sweet beverage industry

By definition it cannot be a monopoly, it has to be a duopoly :)
 
0
•••
I hope they make a million more crappy extensions. It just means more money for domainers, not the other way around.

Those who have good .coms will get free traffic from those who build on those crappy tlds.
 
2
•••
Without development, domains with these extensions are useless (unlike .com, which has intrinsic value)
 
1
•••
I see all that as an ICANN atemp to make extra money and nothing else.It's really hard for me to imagine how these thousands new gTLDs could be regognized as urls.And if you haven't noticed yet, my post includes arleady 2 urls....Now 4!
 
1
•••
By definition it cannot be a monopoly, it has to be a duopoly :)

You have to add Dr Pepper Snapple Group in that mix so its actually a Ménage à trois
:P
 
1
•••
By definition it cannot be a monopoly, it has to be a duopoly :)

Dr Pepper has 15% market share. Not huge but still enough to make it a oligopoly. :lol:
 
0
•••
All I see commenting on this thread are a bunch of johnny-cum-lately butt-hurt lower tier hobbyist domainers with less than stellar domains

Look at their sales site in their sig & you will see it made up (not small number) of bunch of crappy .US/Biz etc that some "end user" MIGHT pay $200 for

It's not like you're the fat watermelon farmer or Telepathy etc with coveted high value domains etc

Truth is, most end users are indifferent to wanting your 5 times removed from the root keywords & would rather handreg some brandable name for $10 than pay $500 for your domain.

:lol:
 
3
•••
All I see commenting on this thread are a bunch of johnny-cum-lately butt-hurt lower tier hobbyist domainers with less than stellar domains

Look at their sales site in their sig & you will see it made up (not small number) of bunch of crappy .US/Biz etc that some "end user" MIGHT pay $200 for

It's not like you're the fat watermelon farmer or Telepathy etc with coveted high value domains etc

Truth is, most end users are indifferent to wanting your 5 times removed from the root keywords & would rather handreg some brandable name for $10 than pay $500 for your domain.

:lol:

Damn, dont hold back please tell us how you really feel.
 
0
•••
The new gtld's have opened the door for the Free domain flood to accompany the saturation of so many new extension choices. Many of us new something like this was coming a long time ago with the free email accounts at places like Yahoo, Gmail, Hotmail, etc. in addition to .tk being given away free. So gear up and strap yourself in for the ride while places like freedom registry shake things up more. .Tk won't be the only free extension on the market anymore...

Freedom Registry is a registry operator for TLDs. What sets us apart from other registry operators is that we believe domain names should be free. Just like email services are provided for free these days (think Gmail and Hotmail), we believe the best way to attract registrants to your TLD is to give away your domain names for free.

At Freedom Registry we know that giving out free domain names makes good business sense. Our subsidiary, Dot TK, has been the registry for the Tokelau country-code TLD since 2001. Dot TK is the only TLD registry that gives away free domain names. As a result, Tokelau (.tk) is now the third largest country code top level domain registry in the world, after Germany (.de) and United Kingdom (.uk) and has more active domain names registrations than Russia and China combined. And we're adding one million new registrations every month!

Read more about freedom registry here
 
0
•••
Without development, domains with these extensions are useless (unlike .com, which has intrinsic value)

.com has no intrinsic value. It's value is determined by the market.

Domainers are obsessed with this domain so that why its value is artificially high. Think of any cool phrase, even make one up, and its already taken in .com and is for sale for $1000+ by someone.

Even Ihatedomainsquatters.com has a minimum bid of $10,000 on Sedo but the .net is available for $9.99. .com is the squatters domain of choice.

People new to the market will be faced with the choice of buying a new extension for under $50 or paying 10000+ for the overinflated .com.

Easy choice imo thats why .com will be on the decline shortly. I'm not saying it's dead but it will lose its stranglehold on the market.
 
0
•••
All I see commenting on this thread are a bunch of johnny-cum-lately butt-hurt lower tier hobbyist domainers with less than stellar domains

Look at their sales site in their sig & you will see it made up (not small number) of bunch of crappy .US/Biz etc that some "end user" MIGHT pay $200 for

It's not like you're the fat watermelon farmer or Telepathy etc with coveted high value domains etc

Truth is, most end users are indifferent to wanting your 5 times removed from the root keywords & would rather handreg some brandable name for $10 than pay $500 for your domain.

:lol:

:lol:

Well i admit i am hobbyist domainer, just like most of us probably. But i can't complain about the casual earnings from while to while.
Are you a fulltime domainer and are only living from domaining?

As for endusers prefering short brandable names, even if they do want to have brandables instead of keyword names, most of those nice 5 letter and 6 letter names are now owned by domainers, so they have to pay one way or another, unless they are happy with some crap sounding name they found available to register :)
 
0
•••
1) I don't think the primary issue for domainers is going to come from this direction, imo. As technology adds layers of comfort onto the user experience, it will be interesting to see if people become less inclined to slip out of the comfort zone of a controlled environment, such as the plethora of handheld devices currently vying for dominance.



2) .barefoot? Seriously?

Might I suggest '.Ijustblewmycompanysmarketingmoneyfor10yearsonthisstupidextension'


3) I wonder when we will see the first extension actually die? That question brings up a whole lot of interesting thoughts.
 
2
•••
.com has no intrinsic value. It's value is determined by the market.
That is, demand... crap is not in demand.

People new to the market will be faced with the choice of buying a new extension for under $50 or paying 10000+ for the overinflated .com.
It's their problem, not mine :tu:

Easy choice imo thats why .com will be on the decline shortly. I'm not saying it's dead but it will lose its stranglehold on the market.
In a way, .com has been losing ground to ccTLDs, but only in relative terms.

For those who think that running a TLD is a licence to print money, the experiences of gTLDs introduced since 2000 suggest otherwise. In the past 10 years, .com’s market share may have declined from approximately 50% in 2001 to 44% in 201013, but in real terms .com registrations have nearly quadrupled. In contrast, the domain intended to offer direct competition (.biz) has stayed level at around 2% of market share. The most successful of the new gTLDs, .info, with 7m domains after 10 years of operation, has only just overtaken its original “moderate” projections for 5 years.

According to ICANN economic analysis, .mobi’s relevance had declined with advances in device aware web-technologies, and this may have contributed to a low renewal rate (37%) . The study warned that “failure to take potential alternatives into account can result in a significant over-estimate of the likely benefits of a gTLD”. Even for restricted domains, such as .museum, the study found that only 1.4% of eligible registrants (ie museums) had registered in the domain. Similarly, low registration figures in .aero indicate that “airports have not perceived significant benefits from the gTLD”.
https://www.centr.org/main/6255-CTR/version/default/part/AttachmentData/data?branch=1&language=1

Remember that ccTLDs are not going to be affected much by vanity gTLDs, with the possible exception of geoTLDs like .paris .berlin etc but even if they are to be fully open to the public without restrictions they will still be niche extensions. .berlin will never be more valuable than .de.

Today it's lots of buzz and hype, but reality will soon settle in. Maybe it's an opportunity to catch strong domains like in 2001-2002 when people were seized by panic, lost faith and dropped domains that were very viable and sellable.
 
2
•••
Anyone here who's on the fence, it should be noted that people who think one tld is just as good as another are too insulated or ignore people who aren't domainers/speculators/whatever.

The public by and large regards ".com" as THE domain name extension.

It is NOT fake inflating by domain sellers. When's the last time you saw a major motion picture with a .org or .net address? When's the last time you saw a movie where someone onscreen went to a website and it WASN'T a .com ?

It doesn't stop with movies, but that illustrates my point.

People know ".com" the best, and the flood of new tlds will not change that for the forseeable future.

Nobody out there - outside OUR community - talks of any other tld on a regular basis. The closest you'll see are commercials or news reports that mention a .org charity.

The best arguement that could be made for people outside our sphere caring much about other tlds is if we get into .edu and .gov

But we all know the commerce problem there, right?


.com is here to stay, and anyone who says otherwise probably wants your .com domains cheap.

(I kid, I kid... But I'd seriously be a lot more well-off if you guys all stopped trying to catch the same drops as me...)

:)


All I see commenting on this thread are a bunch of johnny-cum-lately butt-hurt lower tier hobbyist domainers with less than stellar domains

Everyone go easy on this guy. It can't be easy to tell what he's looking at with his head stuck up there.

:lala:
 
Last edited:
1
•••
.com has no intrinsic value.
Disagree. A subset of .coms spits out cash 24-7 on autopilot. Type-ins, parked. Try that with .ketchup. It's still possible in 2012 to hand reg earners or buy them at fair multiples. No crystal ball required. Hope and spare change don't pay the bills. Intrinsic value does.
 
4
•••
@motorhed

you realize that if facebook, twitter and google redirected to facebook.net, twitter.net and google.net

OVERNIGHT the .com domain would collapse and squatters would be hoarding .net's by the dozens.
 
0
•••
There is no chance of Facebook , Twitter and Google using anything but .com for their main website, ever.

Like people mentioned in this thread, the general public, by in-large, only knows .com (.com.au in Australia).

---------- Post added at 11:39 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:38 AM ----------

ok.............. I really need to fix up my signature then





All I see commenting on this thread are a bunch of johnny-cum-lately butt-hurt lower tier hobbyist domainers with less than stellar domains

Look at their sales site in their sig & you will see it made up (not small number) of bunch of crappy .US/Biz etc that some "end user" MIGHT pay $200 for

It's not like you're the fat watermelon farmer or Telepathy etc with coveted high value domains etc

Truth is, most end users are indifferent to wanting your 5 times removed from the root keywords & would rather handreg some brandable name for $10 than pay $500 for your domain.

:lol:
 
1
•••
@domainhacks - No, I don't "realize" that because it's not true at all. :)

There are just a bunch of reasons that makes no sense, not least of which is that if it's a redirect people will still go to the .coms and willingly get redirected for a long period after the change. It's no skin off their nose at all to stay in the routine and even see if the change lasts... keeping in mind a lot of folks would simply forget the site was redirected...
 
Last edited:
0
•••
@domainhacks - No, I don't "realize" that because it's not true at all. :)

There are just a bunch of reasons that makes no sense, not least of which is that if it's a redirect people will still go to the .coms and willingly get redirected for a long period after the change.

Well it would still have a huge impact on public perception. People would start using .net as all the popular sites were using them.

I understand the discomfort. Many domainers here are heavily invested in .com and if it crashed alot of people here would lose their shirt.
 
0
•••
eh
 
Last edited:
1
•••
I hate to be contrary, but I'm still not onboard with your statement.

If Google, Twitter, and Facebook all started using .net as their main homepages, .com would still have almost every other popular site in the world.

Would the Coffee Shop owner now want a .net because Google uses it even though Starbucks doesn't? Would Billy want to launch his webcomic at FunzoodleComics.net because Twitter uses .net? Really?

It doesn't really connect.

There are two scenerios I CAN see .com losing out in...

1.) There's an actual .com blackout due to malicious tampering and only .com websites go offline... for a year or more.

2.) Almost EVERY popular website moves to .net


So what if .com loses Facebook/Google/Twitter?

They're the top names on the internet? So what? There's always been a top name on the internet. There was a site in Twitter's spot before Twitter came on the scene in... what, 2003?

We can say Goog/Twit/Face have more users than any of the past top websites ever claimed - but look at it logically and we have to conclude that's only because there are more people on the internet then were available to web companies back in the day.

Basically, if Facebook started using .net, people would still go to the .com by default. If they blocked the .com, no matter how much they promoted the .net change, people would go to the .com, see it was blocked, and think Facebook was down.

.com is THAT deep in the public consciousness. Well, I'm speaking of course of the related demographic - English-speaking internet users, etc.



Instead of saying we can't see your PoV because we're "afraid" of losing our shirts, how about just looking at it logically and giving a counterpoint that doesn't make assumptions about ME and is instead rooted in the real-world underpinnings of .com domination?
 
1
•••
The world is big enough for everyone.

I see so many people fret over the changes. Typical attitude, the world is not changing! Stick to Gold Standards. :)

Which is not what Technology is. The total opposite. Like it or not.
 
0
•••
The world is big enough for everyone.

I see so many people fret over the changes. Typical attitude, the world is not changing! Stick to Gold Standards. :)

Which is not what Technology is. The total opposite. Like it or not.

Yes we all know that the only thing that is constant is change.

But some change is Good
And some change is Bad.

And sometimes too much of a good thing is bad.

Believe me, most people will not remember to go to Google.Google
They will go to Google.com

All the vanity TLDs are just pollution.
In the end the public wont remember any of them. :imho:
 
0
•••
People outside the loop treat TLDs like DVD vs Blueray... Casette Tape vs CD...

They think "This is new. It will replace the old."


That's entirely wrong. With BluRay, with CDs, with MP3s and iPads... those replace old tech because they OFFER SOMETHING BENEFICIAL.


hello.kids offers NOTHING over hellokids.com


In fact, if you tell 100 people "Go to hello.kids" without letting them jot it down (as if they heard it in passing or in the car on the radio) they will get home at the end of the day and immediately try to go to hellokids.com instead.

When it doesn't resolve to the correct webpage, they'll probably give up.



All the people who think these new TLDs are going to destroy .com need to look at how "popular" all the current forgettable TLDs are.

How many of us have been to a single .name website on a regular bases?

Totally agree!
 
0
•••
Usage. Whois.sc as oppose to domaintools.com
no_url_shorteners as oppose to typing in abctheory.com

----
Usage=value or value=usage

Theory =hello.kid< hellokid.com =0 value.

I think you can agree with me that usage or any site offering something special you will use it, regardless of extension. Yes?
 
0
•••
  • The sidebar remains visible by scrolling at a speed relative to the page’s height.
Back