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.
i dont even know how to respond to some of the stuff you're writing after the clear explanations ive given.

Hilarious.

To summarize:

A recurring point has been "nothing is 100% true".

I contested that by noting some things in this world that are 100% true.

That means some things are 100% true.


That removes your ability to use that claim as if it helps make your point.



If you don't understand that, it's back to "Go Dog, Go" with you!

:hehe:



Far too often people in a debate will hide behind "Nobody's right, here."

That's just a trick used by people who realize they might be wrong - and want to make sure the other guy is, too.
 
0
•••
The point is zoosk was registered in 2007, back when it was still possible to register brandable names.
Zoosk caliber names are a dime a dozen. Phoosk.com is available. Anyone with a pulse can hand reg a short sweet dot com. The first mover resenting day late dollar short point of view sparks discussion but isn't persuasive. The biz/mobi/info track record is persuasive.

10 years from now there will be no namepros thread "the official lllllllllllllllllllllllll.com thread"
D-:
 
1
•••
Hilarious.

To summarize:

A recurring point has been "nothing is 100% true".

I contested that by noting some things in this world that are 100% true.

That means some things are 100% true.


That removes your ability to use that claim as if it helps make your point.



If you don't understand that, it's back to "Go Dog, Go" with you!

:hehe:



Far too often people in a debate will hide behind "Nobody's right, here."

That's just a trick used by people who realize they might be wrong - and want to make sure the other guy is, too.


we're talking about business opportunities. not all the things in the world. context.
 
0
•••
Zoosk caliber names are a dime a dozen. Phoosk.com is available. Anyone with a pulse can hand reg a short sweet dot com. The first mover resenting day late dollar short point of view sparks discussion but isn't persuasive. The biz/mobi/info track record is persuasive.

D-:

.biz could not differentiate itself from any other gtld so it failed

.info is relatively successful, and is popular in europe

.mobi failed because technology has advanced so there is no need for an extension for mobile only, as the sites automatically adjust now. It was initially successful, but failed because of this tech advancement.

.tel failed because it doesn't even give you ability to set up a website, only a stupid page. It was suppose to come out 10 years earlier. It was ancient by the time it debuted.
 
0
•••
It absolutely is not. Now you've jumped on the bandwagon of saying anything you feel because it sounds good. I could easily fire back "Typical USA-bashing" - but do you really want to go back and forth with meaningless falsehoods?

You'd have a better time selling my PoV as "English-centric", since I said nothing specific to the USA.

I helped out with a motion picture from the Philippines. Their official website address? A dot com. I have plenty of internet contacts in Canada, Europe, Asia, and of course more. I haven't seen a single personal site of theirs that was not a dot com.

Don't tell me I'm insulated - or at least you may want to try not to, since it's incorrect. :)


Playing the "Self-centered American" card just makes you look petty, with no real point to make.

Your rant would make some sense if I said there was no usage of .com in countries other than the US. My point is that in countries other than the US there is plenty of familiarity and usage of their cctlds so at the consumer level they already get the concept of com alternatives while the US is generally all com with a little org, net and gov thrown in for good measure. But even in the US the ice is breaking, I've seen commercial usage of .info, .biz, .travel, .mobi, .us, .cc, .co, .fm and .tv. Sure the com would be great but if the startup doesn't have the money or it simply isn't for sale then they seek alternatives and if you want a good keyword vs some obscure nonsense term in com then another tld is the place to turn.

Much of this argument reminds me of real estate, 200 years ago San Francisco didn't exist and now it has some of the most expensive real estate in the US even though NYC had a few centuries head start. Dubai in it's current form is maybe 50 years in the making. As MJ already pointed out, it's not a zero sum game. SF grew without NYC shrinking. Dubai grew and SF didn't go away.

Change is inevitable, the first commercial domain registration was in 1985, it's an industry not even 30 years old. It's insane to think it won't evolve from its present form. Some people may not like it but get used to it because it is coming whether you like it or not. Com isn't going anywhere but other opportunities will grow in other extensions, and others will fail, it's the nature of things in general and TLDs are no exception.
 
1
•••
.biz could not differentiate itself from any other gtld so it failed

.info is relatively successful, and is popular in europe

.mobi failed because technology has advanced so there is no need for an extension for mobile only, as the sites automatically adjust now. It was initially successful, but failed because of this tech advancement.

.tel failed because it doesn't even give you ability to set up a website, only a stupid page. It was suppose to come out 10 years earlier. It was ancient by the time it debuted.
OK, you persuaded me. Where do I pre-register .ketchup SLDs?
 
2
•••
.mobi failed because technology has advanced so there is no need for an extension for mobile only, as the sites automatically adjust now. It was initially successful, but failed because of this tech advancement.


i wouldnt call it initially successful. maybe in the domain trading world which means little. also, it can be argued there was/is never a need for any of these new TLD's... there actually was never a "need" for .mobi but it was released and is now an option to register when it wasnt before - thats all.

what we really probably need is IPv6, not new TLD's.. but they're coming anyway.
 
1
•••
we're talking about business opportunities. not all the things in the world. context.

Discussions involving business or any other topic often involve analogy and the like.

I don't know why you're trying so hard to seize on a technicality.

Your rant would make some sense if I said there was no usage of .com in countries other than the US.

I think the problem is that I never said there was no/low usage of other tlds in countries other than the US. (Or "non-English-speaking" countries as opposed to non-US. I don't know why we're discussing the US only.)

So I don't really know what your problem was with my previous point(s).



Non-English-Speaking countries by and large use their own TLDs.

You and I agree. Now what? :lol:
 
0
•••
I think the problem is that I never said there was no/low usage of other tlds in countries other than the US. (Or "non-English-speaking" countries as opposed to non-US. I don't know why we're discussing the US only.)

So I don't really know what your problem was with my previous point(s).

Non-English-Speaking countries by and large use their own TLDs.

You and I agree. Now what? :lol:

Unfortunately on this we don't agree. Your comment was: "The public by and large regards ".com" as THE domain name extension." People in England have no problem with .uk, folks in Canada use .ca, Aussies are quite cool with .au, South Africans are quite at home with .za, so this distinction you're now trying to make about non-English speaking countries doesn't hold water. It's the US public that is mostly uninitiated with .us hence my statement that you were offering up a US-centric perspective.
 
0
•••
Discussions involving business or any other topic often involve analogy and the like.

I don't know why you're trying so hard to seize on a technicality.

the analogies still need to be relevant. we're talking about one side not always being 100% correct when it comes to BUSINESS. and shades of grey being involved in making money and losing money.

bringing up things like rape, genocide, child soldiers, the world being round, oxygen supporting human life in response to that makes it hard to have series discussion.
 
0
•••
Unfortunately on this we don't agree. Your comment was: "The public by and large regards ".com" as THE domain name extension."

Ahh, so you're lending different meaning to my words. Okay, that's no problem.

I'll disassemble this...

"The public" - People at large
"by and large" - Mostly
"regards ".com" - Think of the .com tld
"as THE domain name extension." - As the biggest or a very important tld.


Now, what exactly counters the idea that most people in the world (who know what a tld is) think of .com as the biggest or a very important domain extension?

What can you show me or relate to me that says people registering .uk domains in the UK don't regard .com as a very important tld if not the most important?


I think with that cleared up, we can actually have a discussion that makes sense, now.




the analogies still need to be relevant.

Alright, here's the kibosh.

It's 100% correct to say that a CEO shouldn't embezzle. It's 100% correct to say Pyramid Schemes are a bad idea for anyone who buys in. It's 100% correct to say making your employees unhappy can lead to poor productivity.

There are your business-related absolutes.


Do we have to move on to a new technicality now, or are you comfortable with debating the original point yet?

:rolleyes: ... ;)
 
Last edited:
0
•••
It's 100% correct to say that a CEO shouldn't embezzle. It's 100% correct to say Pyramid Schemes are a bad idea for anyone who buys in. It's 100% correct to say making your employees unhappy can lead to poor productivity.

There are your business-related absolutes.


Do we have to move on to a new technicality now, or are you comfortable with debating the original point yet?

:rolleyes: ... ;)


is it 100% correct to say nobody will profit or find usefulness from any new TLD?
 
0
•••
Oh man, who said that?

*looks around*

Is he behind that bush over there?

:D
 
0
•••
Oh man, who said that?

*looks around*

Is he behind that bush over there?

:D

thats what i've been talking about for 2 pages.
from your response it seems you agree.
 
0
•••
is it 100% correct to say nobody will profit or find usefulness from any new TLD?

My money is on .sucks to be one of the few "successes" if they allow it.

Imagine the defensive registrations they will get people and companies to pay for. D-:

And that sucks!
 
0
•••
Com isn't going anywhere but other opportunities will grow in other extensions, and others will fail, it's the nature of things in general and TLDs are no exception.
That's the key. New extensions are not going to make the established ones irrelevant.
That's why .com has continued to grow while ccTLDs have been soaring. There is room for both. There is not dotcom killer.

But it is important to consider that the majority of proposed TLDs are niche TLDs. Those that take off and that are not strictly private (such as corpTLDs) will have limited market share. Which means no consumer awareness. A few could do well but they will be competing with potentially hundreds of others, it's very different than in recent years when new TLDs were introduced one at a time and were spared massive new competition.

In very practical terms, consumers will continue to visit registrars in order to register domains. The default extension will be .com along a dozen of suggested alternatives. But the registrars cannot showcase 1000 extensions efficiently without confusing customers. So it is clear that choices will be made. The number of extensions on the front display will be limited, just like today in fact.

Ecalc said it well.
 
2
•••
That's the key. New extensions are not going to make the established ones irrelevant.
That's why .com has continued to grow while ccTLDs have been soaring. There is room for both. There is not dotcom killer.

Yes, there is no need for a com killer, anyone expecting that especially in the near term would be pretty misguided. Gosh this is deja vu to the early days of mobi. No doubt I'll read thousands of posts in the next year or two saying how unneeded and pointless and worthless all the new tlds are, as well as those saying the latest dotwhatever will take over the world, both sides don't get it.

But it is important to consider that the majority of proposed TLDs are niche TLDs. Those that take off and that are not strictly private (such as corpTLDs) will have limited market share. Which means no consumer awareness. A few could do well but they will be competing with potentially hundreds of others, it's very different than in recent years when new TLDs were introduced one at a time and were spared massive new competition.

In very practical terms, consumers will continue to visit registrars in order to register domains. The default extension will be .com along a dozen of suggested alternatives. But the registrars cannot showcase 1000 extensions efficiently without confusing customers. So it is clear that choices will be made. The number of extensions on the front display will be limited, just like today in fact.

Ecalc said it well.

Yea, from a practical sense the registrars will have significant influence on the new TLDs that will be available for public domain reg, much like a grocery store has huge influence on a products success depending on shelf placement. Those registries will need to have strong domain consumer marketing and registrar incentives to compete for space in that top list.
 
0
•••
Yea, from a practical sense the registrars will have significant influence on the new TLDs that will be available for public domain reg, much like a grocery store has huge influence on a products success depending on shelf placement. Those registries will need to have strong domain consumer marketing and registrar incentives to compete for space in that top list.

Very true. New TLDs have been showcased and pushed by registrars in the past, as well as padded up by domainers taking top keywords. That simply cannot happen with all those TLDs at once.

But this isn't taking into account possible regional TLDs which might market themselves on a local basis. Some of those may succeed well, but only time will tell. Some will market their domains for email addresses I bet. [email protected] sounds nice to many.

But all these TLDs have to cover their operating costs, not to mention marketing costs. .Mobi basically went bust even with a million registrations, while getting complaints they weren't marketing enough so I see quite a few new TLDs going bust, or struggling with bad reputations or just bad press from other failing or misused extensions. But actually .mobi still has a million plus registrations today, most of them probably not domainers, who just do not care about the issues.

BTW about .com - many people in the UK specifically want a .co.uk for business so that it is clear in search results that the business is in the UK - many users discount .com results in search for local services, thinking the site might not be a UK one. I regularly see businesses start up on a .co.uk without even registering the .com

I really think some of these new extensions are being set up speculatively for later resale of the whole registry. Is there still a continuity requirement, meaning you have to guarantee to a registrant that the domain will function for a minimum of x years?
 
Last edited:
1
•••
I really think some of these new extensions are being set up speculatively for later resale of the whole registry. Is there still a continuity requirement, meaning you have to guarantee to a registrant that the domain will function for a minimum of x years?

Yeah, these are new blue chip domains (some are cow chips).

Registrys must have three years expenses in the bank. The contract with ICANN is 10 years.

A year or so ago I found a blog by one of the ICANN big wigs and asked him what happens to domain owners when a registry closes. He said they were looking at the problem --- he really had no answer. I have heard nothing since, it looks like people who build on a extension that goes bust are out of luck.

A quarter million domain owners lost their property in the Registerfly mess, that number looks to be a faint echo of what is to come.
 
Last edited:
1
•••
some feel all this upcoming confusion will only make .com stronger
Correct! In a world of mess a strong leader -
.COM will rule!
 
0
•••
implying this whole thing will make .com stronger isnt entirely true either. in what way will it make it stronger... aftermarket sales, leaked traffic, new registrations?


new registrations: if the option even EXISTS to register many different TLD's other than .com, .net, .org, etc.. at very least A FEW businesses will do this especially if its a shorter more relevant keyword when their only other option was www.ThisDotComIsKindaTooLongTooRemember.com - even if domain experts consider it a bad move and have the facts to prove that you'd be better off with the longer string .com...
and even if zero people registered/used alternate TLD's this by definition would not make .com stronger in terms of someone saying "the .com is taken, i guess i need to negotiate with the owner." that's like saying i run the busiest restaurant downtown - now a bunch of new restaurants are opening and it'll only increase my business! that makes entirely no sense. it could be possible that you will not lose business, but how would it enhance your position in that regard?

aftermarket sales and traffic leakage: one thing worth mentioning is it would certainly make .COM the O.G. (that means Original Gangster, kids ;) ) of the domain world and yes after years of the same human behavior traffic will get leaked to the .com and businesses will likely realize this eventually and decide they need/want that old school .com, if they can afford it.

the bottom line and major question: will enough of these companies expose the public to these weird looking new domain names to raise awareness that they actually exist? the key here is synchronicity..it would need to happen all at once. the argument that "we've been there done that" is somewhat true but you've got to consider that was a tiny droplet of water dealing with a very small handful of new TLD's compared to hoover dam potentially being broken down with possibly THOUSANDS of TLD's.. if domainers pretend to know the answer and continue to pat themselves on the back with blindfolds on, you've lost your speculative spirit. we all grow older, but dont get so stuck in your ways so much that you lose the objectivity that got you where you are today. :tu:
 
Last edited:
0
•••
Keep the lame extensions coming!! This will only make .com stronger!
 
0
•••
If .Travel, .Jobs can't make it why would loading the marketplace with thousands of crappy alternatives do any better?
Brad

Because it will become the norm. Once people start getting USED to thinking of the words after the dot, rather than before, it will all change.

I, however, am in two minds about it. One thing is for sure, though, I would only want .COM in my portfolio (and, perhaps, .info) at this stage.
 
0
•••
people who are suggesting that remembering another word to the right of the ".dot" is going to be difficult for people - i'd like to point out that email addresses are even more complicated to remember since they have THREE parts and we've been fine with that for years. not to mention we're still able to write things down.
 
Last edited:
0
•••
.com will erode imo. It's only so long a bubble can last. Users will not pay a premium for a .com when they can get keyword+new extension.

but who is going to remember all these new extentions? buddy buys my.business and people will think its mybusiness.com. the consumers mind has been engrained for almost 20 years that its .com .com .com. all other tld's have failed. why would a barrage of them succeed?

---------- Post added at 01:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:12 PM ----------

people who are suggesting that remembering another word to the right of the ".dot" is going to be difficult for people - i'd like to point out that email addresses are even more complicated to remember since they have THREE parts and we've been fine with that for years. not to mention we're still able to write things down.
sure but why do .com's get traffic when sites are established on other tlds?

its also interesting to note a lot of the people thinking these new tld's will have some life are the same people who spend a lot of money on .mobi.
 
Last edited:
0
•••
  • The sidebar remains visible by scrolling at a speed relative to the page’s height.
Back