Getting a *lot* harder to find good unregged .pro's

[sky]

There are still some choice names out there, but the pickin's are getting real slim, at $14.99/yr.

Does that mean that .pro is now poised to take off? Do the odds of that happening seem a lot better now than they did a year ago or 6 months ago even?

Does that imply it is doing better than a lot of the other fringe extensions?
I notice when looking up .pro names on EstiBot's bulk appraisal tool, I find a lot of .pro names registered where the corresponding .us, .tv, .mobi, etc... names are still available.

However, having regg'ed several, I sure hope EnCirca comes down on the $59.99 renewal fee. That's steep. I think the Heroin-dealer hook 'em and squeeze 'em tactics need to go.

 

[akcampbell]

The likelihood of .pro gaining ground is higher than it was 6 months ago but you have to put things into context. Relatively few professionally licensed customers can be accessed through Encirca, DomainPeople, and Network Solutions.

I would like to see RegistryPro;

1) Persuade bigger registrars to offer .pro. There are hundreds of thousands of professionally licensed potential .pro registrants but only a tiny slither are going to be customers of Encirca, DomainPeople, and Network Solutions.

2) Apply to ICANN to remove the requirement for registrants to be professionally licensed and instead focus solely on professional use. The current restrictions are cumbersome, confusing and offputting to potential registrants.

3) Continue to cut reg fees. 2008 $15-$20 regged .pros will get culled in 2009 unless renewal fees fall sharply.

.pro is the most brandable and credible alternative extension by a mile but without commercial pricing, marketing, and regulation the current resurgence could stop as quickly as it started.

 

[Domagon]

.Pro pricing is far more reasonable than in the past, but there's still the big "uncertainty" factor...

Restricted TLDs tend to be risky to build a brand around / difficult to resell, because their rules can easily change, such as significantly higher pricing, new registrant requirements (ie. for .pro, more licensing; limiting to certain trades only), etc.

Ron

 

[mjs]

2) Apply to ICANN to remove the requirement for registrants to be professionally licensed and instead focus solely on professional use.

Of all the Andrewisms that mark your contribution to this board, some rubbish, most not, none is as brilliant as your professional use doctrine, if you will. I encourage you to focus your energies on making this happen with the vigor that has distinguished you as an undeniable force for positive change. I will support your efforts. I further call on all interested members to get behind Andrew's proposal and contribute their talents, as appropriate. Let's finally bring some clarity to .PRO. We've all, in a sense, lay witness to a better mousetrap. Now we'll clear the final hurdles necessary for worldwide distribution.

Comments encouraged. Change begins with words. Thank you.

Mike:kickass:

 

[dotprofan]

I agree wholeheartedly. The current restrictions are unclear, arbitrary, and overly cumbersome. I think that the gTLD should be open to all for all uses. Any time you have a small group of people deciding who or what constitutes a "professional" after the fact, you open the door to uncertainty, fear and legal disputes. At the minimum they should focus on usage rather than certification. I think we have passed a major milestone with the price decrease and global availability - the easing of the certification requirement seems to be the final obstacle to widespread adoption of .pro.

Of all the Andrewisms that mark your contribution to this board, some rubbish, most not, none is as brilliant as your professional use doctrine, if you will. I encourage you to focus your energies on making this happen with the vigor that has distinguished you as an undeniable force for positive change. I will support your efforts. I further call on all interested members to get behind Andrew's proposal and contribute their talents, as appropriate. Let's finally bring some clarity to .PRO. We've all, in a sense, lay witness to a better mousetrap. Now we'll clear the final hurdles necessary for worldwide distribution.

Comments encouraged. Change begins with words. Thank you.

Mike:kickass:

 

[Dean]

.pro needs more development if it will ever have a chance. I think it definitely has potential but without development it will never be known by people outside of the industry and that will obviously decrease end user interest. The newly released .me already has 4 times more pages indexed by google then .pro does.

 

[Kuli]

Apply to ICANN to remove the requirement for registrants to be professionally licensed and instead focus solely on professional use.

Hi Andrew,

I totally agree with you that the requirement to be professionally licensed is absolte nonsense and should be removed. But how do you define "professional use"? Can a mail or a name server be used in a non-professional way? Or should it be specified solely on web contents? Well, must the contents focus on professionally licensed target audience only? Or is it okay if a porn site does not offer amateur videos, just professional actors? And how could, for example, Mike develop his "game.pro" professionally?

In my opinion, this restriction has its reason in the fact that Registry Pro's original idea with third level domains didn't work. ICANN wasn't courageous enough to simply open .pro to everyone, so they invented this rather weird restriction. It's an opening step by step.

 

[akcampbell]

It's difficult to say where the professional use line should be drawn. The more you analyse the problem the more you have to conclude that restrictions of any kind don't work. If restrictions worked as a marketing strategy to reassure business, .com and .biz would still be enforcing their original commercial entity and bona fide business use restrictions.

Any type of restriction discourages take up by registrars and development by registrants. As Domagon points out restrictions create uncertainty and few people will develop if there are any question marks over permissible use or ownership.

One of the biggest downsides to developing a .pro is you can only sell it to another professionally licensed person. Also, with the current license requirements web designers and developers don't meet the .pro criteria but they are the people RegistryPro are relying on to develop sites. It's like building a golf course and saying nobody with a handicap below 18 can play on it.

As you say 8 September was a first step. Hopefully, .pro will do enough with 3 registrars and lighter restrictions for somebody to spot its branding appeal and potential. If a commercial registry like Verisign or Afilias got hold of .pro, it could really take off.

 

[mjs]

I agree wholeheartedly. The current restrictions are unclear, arbitrary, and overly cumbersome. I think that the gTLD should be open to all for all uses. Any time you have a small group of people deciding who or what constitutes a "professional" after the fact, you open the door to uncertainty, fear and legal disputes. At the minimum they should focus on usage rather than certification. I think we have passed a major milestone with the price decrease and global availability - the easing of the certification requirement seems to be the final obstacle to widespread adoption of .pro.

Thank you for your comments.

.pro needs more development if it will ever have a chance. I think it definitely has potential but without development it will never be known by people outside of the industry and that will obviously decrease end user interest. The newly released .me already has 4 times more pages indexed by google then .pro does.

I completely agree with you, and further acknowledge my own debt to the extension in this regard.

And how could, for example, Mike develop his "game.pro" professionally?

This is a great question for which I wish I had an answer. That said, that you have put the issue in play is a critical step in formulating and implementing an appropriate revision in accord with Andrew's proposal.

In my opinion, this restriction has its reason in the fact that Registry Pro's original idea with third level domains didn't work. ICANN wasn't courageous enough to simply open .pro to everyone, so they invented this rather weird restriction. It's an opening step by step.

Agree.

The more you analyze the problem the more you have to conclude that restrictions of any kind don't work.

Agree, in part. I totally get where you are coming from on this. There is no ready solution for adopting reasonable usage restrictions that do not unduly penalize owners and/or otherwise limit extension growth. However, I would not abandon the goal as of yet. There is, in theory, an advantage to maintaining an appropriate level of usage restrictions, to wit, we distinguish ourselves from other tlds. The trick, of course, is to do so in a manner that is advantageous to good faith domainers. Can it be done? Perhaps not. But unless and until we can exclude the possibility, I believe the potential benefits to be gained from a thoughtful, intelligent solution warrants further consideration.

Thank you. Comments most encouraged.

 

[sundari]

Hi

Very useful thread. I really convey my thanks to the contributors. Hope encirca makes some decision on the price to whoop up the market of .pro.



sundari.