Comments on: Domain changes coming – should startups take notice?

By: John Salan

John Salan — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 20:57:00 +0000

you are also purchasing links and engaging in blog spamming. Not worth the investment if you are going to do that.

By: Your Facebook domain name | Laurent's blog

Your Facebook domain name | Laurent's blog — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 15:32:27 +0000

[...] at the same time as the username announcement, there was quite a bit of talk around the opportunities the unrestricted gTLD introduces. There is no doubt established [...]

By: matt

matt — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 17:21:24 +0000

I disagree that anyone fronting 100K to buy their extension will lose their ass…

spend 100K on .credit, or .realestate, .forsale

think of all the professionals that will buy a domain name with those extensions… At current .com price $9.99/year (of course the new extensions will be higher), there will be a lot of people wanting to get in on this for business branding.

Also, In 5-10 years, Google, Twitter, Apple, the internet will not be like it is today. You don’t think their will be new search engines built on these TLDs?

By: sesli

sesli — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 08:48:41 +0000

Yes Thanks

By: Paul Walsh

Paul Walsh — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 18:35:04 +0000

I see a piracy problem *when* phishers buy up domains that some people will assume are owned by those who have the trademark.

That said, the vast majority of people tend to Google domains, as you mention in your post – but perhaps that’s something which is likely to change with the next generation.

By: TaxRelief.net

TaxRelief.net — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 14:53:09 +0000

We went out and spent $xx,xxx on our domain recently because it was the best option available and well worth the investment. The .com wasn’t available unless we were going to write a seven figure check. Keyword matching domains give a business a huge competitive advantage. Look at CreditCards.com, they’re essentially a
pumped-up affiliate program that is driven by the strength of the domain and aggressive (although unnecessary) PPC marketing. The company is pull in hundreds of millions in rev, or last time I looked up their financials.

For SEO these new TLD’s will be worthless. Google practically ignores the .info extension simply because they are cheap ($.99) and were widely used for abusing Adsense.

Direct navigation (type-ins) traffic is 90% within the universe of the .com extension. Followed by the .net and then .org

Human behavior doesn’t change so easily and it won’t in this case either. If anything this will be (like the example of .coke) a $100,000 marketing campaign for some of the Fortune 100.

The speculators who actually front the cash to establish a TLD that won’t give any business some sort of competitive advantage are going to lose their asses.

I agree that this debacle will only drive up the prices of the top three, .com, .net and .org

By: mike

mike — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 13:41:25 +0000

Unless there is some serious regulation, this will end in tears!

I heard a while ago that it would be $100,000 to register one, if so, that should weed out 99.9% the ’speculators’.

Does make me wonder about the single word .com domain I purchaced earlier this year though…. maybe I should have waited and snapped up my own extention… hmmmm!?!?

By: Neil Drori

Neil Drori — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 19:50:17 +0000

The domain name issue is already complicated and in the U.S., clouded with legal issues related to intellectual property rights.
As far as I can see, this will only provide more fodder for the litigation crowd. If this change takes place it will be almost impossible to keep from stepping on someone’s trademark.

By: Jof

Jof — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 15:23:03 +0000

Start buying dotcoms now; they will be worth even more money once people figure out that it’ll take non-tech users 10 years to catch up with the change.

By: Jules Morgan

Jules Morgan — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 14:54:16 +0000

TLDs started becoming obsolete the minute they relaxed regulations on how you qualified for the different variations.

In 10 years people will be wondering why on earth we added .com to the end of everything for no apparent reason.

By: Francis Simisim

Francis Simisim — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 12:05:38 +0000

They could always contest if cybersquatters were getting their preferred domain names. It's will be so tough to remember domain names next time once you input it in your address bar. But then again maybe I'm a bit biased as I invest in Domain Names myself. I just think it will be such a mess. TechFilipino

By: Jof

Jof — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 09:48:01 +0000

“me.com” not short enough for you?

By: Jof

Jof — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 09:45:55 +0000

Except, isn’t it something ridiculous like $100,000 to get one?

By: Tom Morris

Tom Morris — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 08:47:05 +0000

Always thought this would be quite good for Apple, they could get .mac and possibly integrate it into their mobileme product as a premium up-sell.

By: Berislav Lopac

Berislav Lopac — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 08:05:40 +0000

domain name extensions

Actually, Mike, the correct term is “top-level domains” or TLDs. The domain system is similar to the postcode system in the UK, only backwards — the most general “codes” go to the right end, with more specific ones being added to the left, all the way to a specific server or service.

The big problem of course is that cybersquatters register all the best domain names or use domain names that resemble trademarks for phishing or similar.

This is a huge issue, especially as it’s not completely clear how the second (and further) level domains will be distributed.

Personally, I’m somewhat undecided on the whole “unlimited TLDs” thing. From a technical standpoint, this will be a big mess, a total chaos with regards to responsibility and who owns what. On the other hand, it opens up some interesting marketing opportunities. I guess the best approach is, as the french would say, qui vivra, verra.