Dynadot
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.
There is at least one company (owned by a domainer, I don't recall who) pitching large corporations on these custom TLDs. They get paid for helping to do the paperwork. I really have to wonder how many of these TLDs are a result of this. Just because companies are buying these doesn't mean those responsible for branding decisions will use them.
 
0
•••
Personally, i think if it was marketed well, and with the right support team, .secure could eliminate just about every domain extension. With all the spam and phishing out there, if they could make it 100% secure from spam and viruses it would be the go to extension.
 
0
•••
One company pitching to large corporations, more like hundreds of companies applying for thousands of GTLDs. Typical business behavior, still doesn't mean that nothing good can come out of this.

This topic and discussion here is too extreme to start with. Hypothetically if GTLDs succeed, it will mean the end of the monopoly .com, or if they die out, it will be just another FAD.

Too extreme views. GTLDs are only the beginning. Technology and companies along with users will use them, as evidence by their success. Success here=money and registration counts not exclusively not for the general public, or registrar only. Public do benefit from usage like whois.sc, no_url_shorteners, no_url_shorteners and other services.

I would expect domainers to be on top of changes, and expect that worldwide usage and consumption will only rise. People will spend more, not less.
 
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?

No. :D



Imagine I'm starting a site where I'm going to give all of my worldly posessions away for free. That's offering "something special"!

Now imagine I make it available via Free.demonrape


The extension made a difference, didn't it? :lol:


It's an extreme example, but it clearly illustrates that, no, we cannot truly say that extension means nothing.


If we cannot say it means "nothing", then it must mean something - and if it means something, then people touting one over the others have traction.


By the way, I went to public school. What exactly does "Theory =hello.kid< hellokid.com =0 value." mean?

Theory equals hello.kid is less than hellokid.com equals zero value? A-buh?

I have a feeling I'm not the only one out of the loop on that one.
 
Last edited:
1
•••
Motorhead:

You are imagining something that's different. Maybe you need to check somewhere else for that.

no_url_shorteners no_url_shorteners Whois.sc

Those are at work. Your imagination has nothing to do with what is already there. Which is exactly what you don't get. The 0 value part. Has nothing to do with reality.
 
0
•••
0
•••
0
•••
This thread is too extreme and absolute. So if top 500 use only .com meaning, there is no room or that there is no value elsewhere?

Yes it may dilute your .com, as the market expands. Not contract.


This is not the end, inevitable, or total waste. GTLDs are just the beginning.

Has nothing to do with what one imagine value is to be.

Stop fretting to the extreme. :) The domain world does move a bit around the .com but doesn't stop there.
 
0
•••
Motorhead:

You are imagining something that's different. Maybe you need to check somewhere else for that.

no_url_shorteners no_url_shorteners Whois.sc

Those are at work. Your imagination has nothing to do with what is already there. Which is exactly what you don't get. The 0 value part. Has nothing to do with reality.

Trust me, you know nothing about my 'imagination'. :)

I'm not imagining the link JB Lions linked to. The sites you're citing are RARITIES in the 'business of the internet'.

(Besides which I've never heard of them aside from no_url_shorteners, which I've never been to.)


domainhacks' link is useless - Alexa can't be trusted and crap names are frequently listed high due to certain techniques the owner employs. Plus are we really expected to include domains with non-English characters in this highly specific debate?!


Your replies don't make much sense, but I'm giving the benefit of that doubt that you aren't screwing around and actually DO care about understanding the situation.

To that end, I'd suggest you talk to people about this. Ask regular internet users about extensions and see what they say.

Get outside the domainer community and even probe the thoughts of people who don't own a single domain.

It's clear that you haven't if you think I'm "imagining" that people by and large hold .com above others.
 
Last edited:
0
•••
That's not a good indicator. A far better one is the 500 highest traffic sites. .com is the most common but there are plenty of .net, .org and cctld

http://www.alexa.com/topsites/

Earlier I said .com .org and major cctld like .de, co.uk etc. Most countries already have their extension, so they don't need these new ones either. First 200 0 biz, 5 net.

This thread is too extreme and absolute. So if top 500 use only .com meaning, there is no room or that there is no value elsewhere?

Yes it may dilute your .com, as the market expands. Not contract.


This is not the end, inevitable, or total waste. GTLDs are just the beginning.

Has nothing to do with what one imagine value is to be.

Stop fretting to the extreme. :) The domain world does move a bit around the .com but doesn't stop there.

More to those who say the crazy stuff like .com is going to die, coming to end etc. There's already alternate global extensions. Most major companies haven't touched them. That's not going to change. Like I said earlier, it's really about new companies, will they mess with them? I doubt it. Obviously there are some that think they will, you should put a lot of money behind that belief.
 
Last edited:
1
•••
.cn, .ru, .uk, .fr those aren't rare.

or even .jp or .vn

---------------------------------------
Those are like large CTLDs that are NORMAL and not .COM.
EVEN the .ME or .CO is not that rare as you think they are.

no_url_shorteners is #98 on the world's list.

Anyway. My point is, if you're not using anything other than .com that's fine. No need to disrespect others who are something something else outside that you are using.

Alexa's top 500 is enough to see what the world is using.

Outside the .com mind.


GTLDs are not a fad, not going away soon sorry. May dilute your .com.
Probably will.
 
0
•••
domainhacks' link is useless - Alexa can't be trusted and crap names are frequently listed high due to certain techniques the owner employs. Plus are we really expected to include domains with non-English characters in this highly specific debate?!

Site Owners can use techniques to boost traffic but show me a place where they can make a site top 500? It doesn't happen. Ebay and Flippa have people who lie about traffic, but the sites traffic is 99% of the time above alexa rank 20,000. To rank under 20,000 you need a dedicated user base.
 
0
•••
.cn, .ru, .uk, .fr those aren't rare.

or even .jp or .vn

I didn't say they were.

I said the sites were rarities - in that they're popular sites with English speakers despite those extensions.

May dilute your .com. Probably will.

Definitely won't. I've already covered why.

Promoting FreeWidgets.store is just free traffic for whoever parks FreeWidgets.com



Site Owners can use techniques to boost traffic but show me a place where they can make a site top 500? It doesn't happen. Ebay and Flippa have people who lie about traffic, but the sites traffic is 99% of the time above alexa rank 20,000. To rank under 20,000 you need a dedicated user base.

If a system is as undermined as Alexa is, I count the system as undermined no matter the specifics of which ranking group we're looking at.
 
0
•••
The closest approximations of new gTLDs are old alt gTLDs - biz, mobi, info, tel, etc. You'll find a grand total of zero on Alexa 500. The new gTLD applicants just did the same analysis and agreed to a shared NS life cycle sequence:

1 - .ooo
2 - .goo
3 - .icu
4 - .fail
5 - .vanish
 
Last edited:
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:


oh man..this made me laugh for several minutes.. that was great




This thread is too extreme and absolute. So if top 500 use only .com meaning, there is no room or that there is no value elsewhere?

Yes it may dilute your .com, as the market expands. Not contract.


This is not the end, inevitable, or total waste. GTLDs are just the beginning.

Has nothing to do with what one imagine value is to be.

Stop fretting to the extreme. :) The domain world does move a bit around the .com but doesn't stop there.


i pretty much agree with what this guy is saying.. people are always extreme and one sided when news like this comes out. neither side is usually 100% right. just aint how the world works..
 
0
•••
One side is 100% right in plenty of cases.

Being against sexism, bigotry, etc. is right 100% of the time. Not punching a baby is always 100% correct behavior. Saying genocide is a bad thing would be 100% right no matter what the other side says.

Though the situation isn't all that similar, by and large the public masses know '.com' more than anything else, and saying so is 100% correct.


So basically what some might see as an extreme and one-sided point of view is really just learning from past experience mixed with observing reality.

Far too often in the media and public debate do people make the arguement that any two points - no matter how daft - are of equal value.


For example - "We need to stop violent crime because people are getting hurt" and "Maybe violent crime will pay off, let's see how it pans out" are not opposing views. One is correct and the other is insane.

:)

Just sayin'.
 
1
•••
One side is 100% right in plenty of cases.

Being against sexism, bigotry, etc. is right 100% of the time. Not punching a baby is always 100% correct behavior. Saying genocide is a bad thing would be 100% right no matter what the other side says.

Though the situation isn't all that similar, by and large the public masses know '.com' more than anything else, and saying so is 100% correct.


So basically what some might see as an extreme and one-sided point of view is really just learning from past experience mixed with observing reality.

Far too often in the media and public debate do people make the arguement that any two points - no matter how daft - are of equal value.


For example - "We need to stop violent crime because people are getting hurt" and "Maybe violent crime will pay off, let's see how it pans out" are not opposing views. One is correct and the other is insane.

:)

Just sayin'.

uh dude, we're talking about business, TLD usage awareness, and money here.. what are you talking about?

besides, im only racist on the weekends and only consider punching babies when i know i wont get caught.
 
0
•••
I can't tell if you legitimately missed the point or are pretending for comedic effect.

So if you DID get it, don't begrudge me laying this out...

You said:

"people are always extreme and one sided when news like this comes out. neither side is usually 100% right. just aint how the world works."

I replied to your claim.

This should be clear from "One side is 100% right in plenty of cases."


Does that clear up what I was "talking about"?
 
Last edited:
0
•••
I can't tell if you legitimately missed the point or are pretending for comedic effect.

So if you DID get it, don't begrudge me laying this out...

You said:

"people are always extreme and one sided when news like this comes out. neither side is usually 100% right. just aint how the world works."

I replied to your claim.

This should be clear from "One side is 100% right in plenty of cases."


Does that clear up what I was "talking about"?


no, because the context is still wrong.

we're talking about business, not genocide.
 
0
•••
^
There is no right side 100% of the time. That is your bias wanting everyone to support you. You own a large .com portfolio so you want there to be value so when someone says .com has no value you get offended. Truth is, there is no right or wrong, only opinions. Some will agree with you, some will disagree with you. There will never be a 100% consensus.

Likewise, there is no absolute consensus in the best domain extension. .com is the most used extension, but there are many successful sites using cctlds, other gtlds or exotic extensions. .com is not necessary for a successful site. Extensions are becoming less and less important.
 
1
•••
"Extensions are becoming less and less important."

So which do you think is easier for people to remember, you're a new merchant:

something.com
something.newextension

and I'm talking in America. Lets go Germany

something.de
something.newextension

Radio, TV, billboards, online, etc. What would be your first choice?
 
1
•••
we're talking about business, not genocide.

You act as if you've never heard an analogy. Come now, we both know that's not the case.


^
There is no right side 100% of the time.

I don't know why people just say things like this...

You're saying it's impossible for one side of any issue to be 100% correct?

What about "The World is Round"? The people who believed that and the people who believed it was flat both had certain percentages of correctness?

Was it a gray area?

Again, I can never understand when people just say things that are expressly untrue.

That is your bias wanting everyone to support you. You own a large .com portfolio so you want there to be value so when someone says .com has no value you get offended.

You're just assigning your own intent to my words.

Since you're not me - that again makes you incorrect. Though you might say I can't possibly be 100% correct about my own thoughts. Ha ha! :D

I don't consider my portfolio 'large'... especially on NamePros where I am but a humble minnow... and I certainly am not offended.

Again, you must think anyone who disagrees with you is 'offended'.

Simply put, I just disagree - and that's fine.


Truth is, there is no right or wrong, only opinions.

So your stance on, say, child soldiers and rape would be "Eh, there's no right and wrong. It's all up for debate"??

I should stress that I'm not the one taking this off-course.

You took that step by saying nothing in the world is 100% correct, as if that supported your point(s).

I'm just following your tangent.

Some will agree with you, some will disagree with you. There will never be a 100% consensus.

*ahem*

Oxygen supports human life.

Who here is not part of that concensus? Anyone? Bueller?


Likewise, there is no absolute consensus in the best domain extension. .com is the most used extension, but there are many successful sites using cctlds, other gtlds or exotic extensions. .com is not necessary for a successful site.

This is pretty much a general statement. I don't know if this is supposed to counter anything I said. I don't think it does.


Extensions are becoming less and less important.

Any evidence, or are we just saying things again? :lol:


I should note that I'm not angry or offended or scared or irked or whatever else anyone wants to claim.

I simply enjoy a good debate, and some folks in this thread are providing ample material.




If anyone is confused by my outlandish analogies, it's easily explained...


If someone says nobody is 100% correct about anything, that's untrue.

To illustrate that, I say "Peanutbutter is sold as food. Do you disagree?"

Obviously this seems to have little relation to the issue, but regardless the statement is 100% correct and thusly the misconception that "nothing is ever right!!!" is easily and permanently disproven.


Now look back at the discussion.


When I say people by and large prefer .com, it's 100% true.

The same way I can look in a supermarket and see peanutbutter for sale... the same way I can buy it and put it on a sandwich...

That's the same as when I talk to people... read their words, hear their words, converse with them. That's the same as when I look at any business, product, movie, band, novel, etc. and see them using .com

That's the same as when I see people asking where SuchAndSuch.com went only to have someone point out "It's .biz not .com"




I'm basing my statements on what I've observed and what I've learned. (Among other factors!)

I'm 100% correct when I relate this information and say it tells me that .com is not in any trouble in the near future.



Saying otherwise is just nonsense.
 
Last edited:
1
•••
"Extensions are becoming less and less important."

So which do you think is easier for people to remember, you're a new merchant:

something.com
something.newextension

and I'm talking in America. Lets go Germany

something.de
something.newextension

Radio, TV, billboards, online, etc.

you're assuming that new businesses are not going to be created on the internet anymore and that they will always have the option of that fantastic generic one word .com

ya cant always get what you want.


You act as if you've never heard an analogy. Come now, we both know that's not the case.

im not acting - im saying the analogy isnt anywhere near relevant. we're not talking about morals here. im unsure how to explain any clearer how they're different topics.
 
Last edited:
0
•••
.com and .org are the elite in tv commercials.

.net can be seen on tv commercials having to with gambling or dating sites in my experiences

People will take the least path of resistance, So lets say that, A company makes a commercial using .web , Just an example. The .com of that name in the commercial is the most likely to get all the traffic from that commercial.

Why??? Because the average web user has grown up with .com , They won't identify with .web. Why??? Because they will take the least path of resistance, Go with what they know as far typing in that name.

Now, You must consider, The average web user is not a domainer, The average web user uses Google to find there destination on the internet these days. They hardly type in a domain name into the nav bar anymore. Straight to google with there search word, Phrase or term. It is the least path of resistance.

Who will get a truck load of traffic from Travel.web , Travel.com will.

It dang near excites me about the addition of all these new extensions, Because if you have the name in .com, You will see A LOT of traffic to your name, Especially during the land rush period of all these new extensions.

Therefore i will be able to thank the idiots who spent their life savings on purchasing these extensions, For all the great traffic they will be sending me.
 
0
•••
you're assuming that new businesses are not going to be created on the internet anymore and that they will always have the option of that fantastic generic one word .com

ya cant always get what you want.

You don't need a generic. Like I said, get creative. Can't get dating.com? Zoosk. Can't get jobs.com. Monster. Or do you think it's better to try to build on dating.biz? Anybody want to tell me the last .biz merchant you bought something from online? You don't think those companies considered those other available global extensions? And then ultimately decided to get creative and still get a .com. Why do you think that is if the extension doesn't matter?
 
Last edited:
1
•••
  • The sidebar remains visible by scrolling at a speed relative to the page’s height.
Back