Internet Body Approves Freer Domain Names

[maxeaus]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-...n-website-addresses-to-include-anything-.html

"The move may help prevent cybersquatting, the practice of registering domain names and selling them to trademark owners at a profit. Large businesses may have to buy addresses to keep their brands from being hijacked, which costs $500,000 per company, estimated the Coalition Against Domain Name Abuse, whose members include Morgan Stanley and Hewlett-Packard Co"

Really, 500k per company? this is what domain experts like "Morgan Stanley" estimate.

I notice they then mention a similar thing again quoting "Wells Fargo" this time or some BS.

GTFO!, really poor reporting by Bloomberg on this one IMO, stick to flash crashes, market updates and hedge funds, leave domains to the experts.

I cant wait for the experts at Goldman Sachs to wade in here.:hehe:

 

[ODST.com]

what will they think of next?

 

[DU]

Large businesses may have to buy addresses to keep their brands from being hijacked, which costs $500,000 per company, estimated the Coalition Against Domain Name Abuse, whose members include Morgan Stanley and Hewlett-Packard Co

Worked with someone who said that this year their employer had budgeted $1.4 million for domain related legal fees.

 

[yeppers]

EDIT: So i gather from this article (And a few others)... The domains will cost $185,000 initially, and $25,000 per year thereafter to hold. Just a single domain, not the .whatever extension itself.

There aim is to reduce cyber-squatting? BS... This serves as a more expensive alternative to a taken domain. Nice way to make some cash, i'm assuming ICANN is getting this money?

Yay.

 

[nstalk]

So far all the stories I've read are so very vague on this issue its impossible to understand or make an intelligence guess on how it will affect the dotcoms. I think the problem with the reporting is the newspeople don't understand the domain industry enough to convey what the real message is.

 

[abc123ben]

So far all the stories I've read are so very vague on this issue its impossible to understand or make an intelligence guess on how it will affect the dotcoms. I think the problem with the reporting is the newspeople don't understand the domain industry enough to convey what the real message is.

I agree. I don't think a lot of news people understand the industry enough so they publish rubbish about it which is completely incorrect or just for the sake of getting reads.

I think it's a hype issue in some respect - you see on Twitter quite often people that aren't happy with ICANN's decision but in reality if they properly understood the reasoning behind ICANN's decision and complete information on how it would work, I think half of them would have a different opinion.