2 Hours On The Panel Its Clear That The New gTLD’s Are Just About The Money
I sat on a panel Friday at the Domainer Mardi Gras with Jeffrey Eckhaus from Demand Media, whose company is expected to apply for at least several new gTLD’s, Ken Hansen from Neustar whose company is trying to provide the back end for many of the new gTLD’s registries, Mike Rodenbaugh who is an attorney hoping to represent some of the applicants for new gTLD’s and who also sits on the ICANN committee working on the new gTLD’s and Mr. John Berryhill, who represents domain owners against trademark claims who appeared through Skype since Philadelphia was basically shut down by the snow storm.
(Andrew Allemann from DomainNameWire.com did a great job as the moderator)
My first thought as I found myself on stage was that I was the only one not looking to profit off the new extensions.
I think that pretty much sums up my opinion on the new gTLD’s.
Its simply a big money grab.
ICANN wants the new extensions because its going to add ten’s of millions of dollars to their coffers.
While ICANN is a non-profit corporation, we just read the compensation report the other day to discover that in addition to six figure salaries the higher ups of the non-profit receive they in additionentitled to bonus of up to 50% of their salary based on performance. To me it seems that a lot of this bonus money is going to be tied to getting the new extension approved and up and running ASAP.
Instead of awarding a new gTLD, which get competing applications to the company that would agree to provide the service for the least amount of cost to the consumer, ICANN decided to award the extension to the company will to pay the most for the privilege. Actually the proposed cost to the consumer is not even a factor in the decision of which company would receive a competing extension.
By awarding the extension to the company that pays the most, the process almost guarantees that the winning bidder will be the one with the highest cost to the consumer.
Back asswards.
Of course this is the history of ICANN.
Competitive bidding to drive prices down?
Not Allowed.
This is the same ICANN gave a no bid monopolistic contract with guaranteed price increases to VeriSign desipte the fact that other company wanted to bid on the contract and offered to provide the sames services for less money to the consumer.
It only makes common sense if a company has to pay millions of dollars to get an extension, rather than just $185K, they are going to have to charge more per domain registration to recoup their costs.
Wouldn’t you?
While some on the panel I sat in on, will tell you the whole point of the new extensions is to increase competition and lower costs to the consumer, the way the system is being set up by ICANN pretty much insures the opposite.
Those that spend the most will win and they will charge whatever they want to make their investment back.
For companies seeking to become a registry of one or more new extension the financial rewards can be substantial.
While domainers may consider such extensions like .biz and .mobi to be failures from a domain investor point of view, from the business of operating a registrar, TLD’s can be a cash cow.
Neustar a public compan y,which operates the .biz registry among other business, said there were over 2,000,000 .biz domain name registered.
At $6 per year that’s $12M in recurring cash flow.
Neustar also provides back end support for other companies looking to sponsor a new gTLD another nice money making business.
So companies like Demand Media which seem ready to apply for multiple new gTLD’s as a registry and sell the new gTLD’s as a registrar through Enom are all standing to make a big payday.
There is also plenty of room for consultants and attorneys to represent applicants through a fairly complicated process with plenty of potential for disputes and conflicts.
Trademark holder are screaming that its going to cost them a fortune to register domain names in extensions they don’t want or need.
While trademark holders can use the sunrise period to secure their domain in every new extension, registries and registrars have traditionally charged a premium price for this service, usually in the hundreds of dollars per domain per extension.
As an attorney I try to see all sides and actually for companies that have hundreds, even thousands of trademarks your talking about huge dollars.
Many trademark holders do not apply for their domains in the sunrise period, I guess hoping that other will stay away, usually just to find they then have to spend even more in UDRP or WIPO or lawsuits to get their trademark domain back.
My suggestion to avoid this ongoing mess is to give trademarked holders of famous and global brands their domains for free, or at least at a nominal charge, certainly not the premium amount past TLD rollout’s have charge.
Moreover the each registry could reserve globally trademarked brands so only the trademark holder could get the domain but no one else.
The response back from the panel was a resounding No Bueno.
No to giving away domains to those global brands.
The dirty little secret of the whole deal is that while a domainer who registers a domain that’s the subject of a trademark is labeled a cybersqautter, and is subjected to a fine of $100,00o per domain, and loss of the domain, registries and registrars are perfectly fine with making money off of trademarks by selling the registrations back to the trademark holder for premium amounts.
Moreover if the trademark holder doesn’t register its domain during the Sunrise period then the registry will auction the domain off as happened multiple times in the .me release to the highest bidder, trademark or no trademark.
So lets be clear.
Domainer get fined and have their domains taken away on the basis that they can’t be allowed to make money off of a trademark.
However, a registry can hold a trademark holders hostage for hundreds of dollars per domain to get their domain registered under the Sunrise period or even auction off the trademarked domain to the highest bidder, stuff the money in their pockets and let the trademark holder and the auction winner fight it out to who should have ownership.
Aren’t registrars and registries thereby making money off of others trademarks?
Of course they are.
Sometimes a lot more than any domain would be registering and parking on a new extension.
If a domainer does it, they face fines, sanctions and ridicule. If a registry or registrar charges $250 for a domain its just good business.
If a domain owner isn’t allowed to make money off a trademark holders domains, why are registries and registrars?
Most Sunrise application are historically in the hundreds of dollars per domain, per extension, making a company like Microsoft which own hundreds if not thousands of trademark folk over huge sums to register the domains that match their mark.
Apparently many new registries have the premium fees for trademarked domains budgeted into their business plan.
Its all about the money.
The question that was raised on the panel but really went unanswered is what becomes of domainers in all this?
The lifting of price caps on domain names is still in the guidebook.
All registries want to be treated the same, new one’s and existing one’s.
So if one registry is allowed to adopt .tv variable pricing for a new gTLD then VeriSign would want to be able to operate the .com registry with no price caps.
This is not science fiction or a scare tactic, its just the way the situation currently is.
While ICANN say they want the domain names from the new extension to go to end users, the rules they set up will guarantee that most wind up in the hands of domainers.
Registries of new gTLD’s will hold back their best domains and auction them off.
I would expect most registries of new gTLD’s to follow the .me model (even the rollout of the 2 character .biz domain currently ongoing) and put any domain backordered by more than one person into a private auction (this raised over $2M for the .me registry) then auction off the few thousand of best domains they reserve, in domain industry auctions like TRAFFIC and DomainFest and online through Sedo.
There is even a movement that registries should be able to keep whatever domains they want for themselves, never making them available to the public.
Bottom line the new gTLD aren’t about the public interest.
They aren’t about giving more choices to consumers or lowering costs to consumers.
No the new gTLD’s are about the all mighty dollar.
Cash.
Profit.
Money.
More for ICANN
More for the registries.
More for the registrars.
Domainers be damned.
Trademark holders be damned.
Big money is being made
Loading ...
Mr. Berkens – An absolutely prolific post. You speak the truth, period!
This was an awesome post. Seems like you can make more money in this world playing off people’s stupidity then the other way around. Aren’t the people that support these registries half to blame? I think it’s gotten to the point where a .imanidiot extension could come out and people would flock to it.
I agree with previous commenter — absolutely profilic. Otherwise, I couldn’t agree less.
Are you saying domainers don’t have a financial interest in whether/when/which/how many new TLDs there are?
Of course they do.
When it comes to new TLDs, big domainers have the same exact interests as big trademark holders. Both have big portfolios in business niches; both have invested lots of time and money to get to that position; in many cases both have, either through law or through careful collecting, have a blocking monopoly position on certain words, and both want to protect their interests from any competition. It’s just that the trademark holders have a 200-year head start in passing laws to protect their interests.
That’s why big domainers and big trademark holders tend to be completely in sync about stifling competition from new gTLDs, even though on any other issue they’d be happy to throw the other one into a cage with hungry trained attack pigs.
Smaller domainers and trademark holders, on the other hand, will find new competition in new TLDs, and welcome it.
Antony
I was absolutely moved by your post.. Just had to say thank you.
Couldn’t have said it better Mike
Hopefully someone will stop all this before it gets started.
Trademarks owners are angry, domain owners are angry !
How right you are, Mike.
In effect, each new TLD is itself a new government-like trademark registry, where; if you don’t “file” your trademarks by registering them with each new registry as they launch; someone else will likely take your intellectual property for themselves; basically daring you to take what is already rightfully yours . . . from them.
Sounds like a great time to apply to be a WIPO/UDRP panelist.
Is this really going work? I seriously doubt any big success with the new extensions. Don’t we have hundreds of extensions today and a only a few are really worth buying domains from?
If domainers and end users would stick to the most popular extension (country codes, .com, net, org) there would not be a discussion about this topic. If we don’t speculate everytime a new extension becomes available there would not be plans to create new ones. We hold the power to end this. I can “see” that they are going the wrong way as there are many complains and dissatisfaction yet they choose to ignore and take into consideration the opinions of others.
I know I will not spend a single Dollar and that’s my vote of no confidence for the get rich quick scams.
Truer words were never spoken, Mike. It comes down to ethics, in the end. The people planning to “pump and dump” new TLDs know exactly what we do. We have the capital and the opportunity to do the same, but hold ourselves to higher ethical standards. Instead, we warn people, just like we did when .mobi launched or .asia, etc. Those who didn’t heed the warnings lost their shirts. New TLDs don’t compete in any way against existing TLDs like .com. If they actually did “compete”, there would be evidence of this, e.g. .com prices going down, instead of going up. Instead, we see the exact opposite. We would see folks abandoning their .com, and switching to a new “better” domain in a new TLD. Ever seen that? LOL HAHAHAHA
Open challenge to any folks in favour of new TLDs: If you’re for “competition”, why don’t you come out in favour of price caps for new TLDs, say up to twice the level of .com’s registry fee? Or, better yet, support tender processes for operation of a TLD at the lowest cost to the consumer (as nearly every procurement contract does)? Or how about lower costs for domains that are purely “defensive” registrations (i.e. no nameservers, do no resolve)? Those are “consumer friendly” positions, which no new TLD advocate that I’m aware of supports.
Epic post.
Regarding the TM’s, why not have a central database of TM’s that all new gTLD providers must withhold unless the respective TM holder requests the domain.
Wished MHB was part of ICANN.
You’re right on the money Mike!
Great insight!
Berkens,
What you gave to all today was simple: Epic, and the the simple Truth.
We ALL owe you!
Antony quote -
“Smaller domainers and trademark holders, on the other hand,
will find new competition in new TLDs, and welcome it.”
Antony, you are a very sharp guy.
However, you are on the opposite side of this argument.
You are one of forerunners to secure a number of the gTLDs. (like .eco)
So, you DO have a dog in this fight. Whereas, Michael and other domainers really do not.
Do most of the successful domains fear the new gTLDS?
Not really.
The only thing they fear is the possibility of the registries having
the right to charge whatever they want for the renewal of premium domains.
Seb quote -
“Trademarks owners are angry, domain owners are angry”
Trademark owners are concerned about the new gTLDs.
But, they are also concerned about the same threat the major
domainers have. The possibility of paying exorbitant renewal fees.
How much do you think Google or Yahoo could be extorted since their
domains is the total foundation of the company?
I played the game with .biz, .us, .info and .mobi. And, so did a lot
of the other domainers.
I’m VERY HAPPY I never bought one .me, .eu, .asia, etc.
I try to learn from my multiple mistakes. I’m done lining the pockets
of the new registries and losing money at the same time.
If I had put the effort and money into more .com’s instead of the new tlds,
I would have been better off.
I wonder how many domainers will be foolish enough to play the
new registries’ game?
I don’t know why I wasted the past 5 minutes commenting?
Just more time down the drain on worthless tlds.
The only TLD success stories I see on the horizon are typo TLDs that have built in traffic, like .co.
brilliant post
Great post.
However, I don’t know why we’re all surprised that people in business are motivated by the dollar.
Like it or not, ALMOST everyone’s motivation is the same: make serious cash — quickly.
I agree with Mike, the amount of new gTLD’s is getting out of hand… seeing the new one’s being promoted is almost nauseating (in the way they try to convince people that their gTLD is the “new wave”).
But, again, of course they are motivated by money… it costs a fortune to start a TLD now (even to apply for consideration is costly), and the #1 priority is to recoup the original investment and THEN make money.
When someone starts a new gTLD it’s because they’ve run the numbers and have seen the success of other’s and they “want in”.
- Aron
(my 2 cents)
Great post, Mike, but it needs to be read by more than just domainers. Please send it to CADNA so that the trademark holders can see it too.
Howard, great suggestion.
But, you know Bourne will spin it and use it against us.
This is a great suggestion, something we have talked a lot about internally. “give trademarked holders of famous and global brands their domains for free, or at least at a nominal charge, certainly not the premium amount past TLD rollouts have charged.”
There are a lot of constructive discussions that could be had about collaboration on these issues. The heavy auction reliance could be keeping a lot of people under the radar, and possibly muffling the voice of this key stakeholder group.
Mike have you considered engaging a group around a petition and/or a set of principles like these that prospective registries could sign up to? It could go a long way to helping get some best-practice and giving confidence to those concerned about the new round, and it would certainly help spur discussion about how best to handle the issue in our governing principles (http://doteco.info/policy/public-comment/governing-principles-second-draft) from our stakeholders (http://doteco.info/policy/stakeholder-council) and the public (http://doteco.info/policy/public-comment).
Everyone should read: http://www.sec.gov/investor/pubs/pump.htm which is a warning to investors about “pump & dump” stock schemes. Replace “stock” with “domain” and there are a lot of parallels, albeit for domains and new TLDs it’s not illegal to parts fools from their hard-earned money. They are victims just the same, though.
It’s time to start informing trademark holders, that tey should start filing lawsuites against ICANN. This cybermafia ICANN, is knowingly enabling and providing the tools for trademark infringement.
ICANN should be held responsible for any registerd gTLD trademark.
Antony
“”"Smaller domainers and trademark holders, on the other hand, will find new competition in new TLDs, and welcome it.”"”
I disagree.
First which new gTLD launched in the last 5 years has proven to be a good overall investment for domain owners large or small?
For domain investors, like investors in any asset, for it to be considered a good investment the value needs to increase.
Which gTLD has seen huge and sweeping aftermarket value growth?
.travel
.mobi
.tel
.biz
The only one which has had some sale volume is .info (we just saw love.info sell for $12K in an opened auction).
Here are some more .info sales:
http://domainnamereview.com/most-expensive-info-domain-sales-in-the-past/1306/
The problem is that every good domain in the new gTLD’s is going to be reserved by the registry and auctioned off to the highest bidder.
You want to really open up competition in the new gTLD’s, that would be great, then support rules for the roll out that says registries cannot issue domains other than first come, first serve. Prohibit registries from reserving domains, holding auctions or keeping domains for themselves.
Then there will arguable be opportunity for every investor large or small to get new gTLD’s.
Now as fat as trademark owners they should have to compete for the domains that they have a legal right to. They shouldn’t have to pay rates 10X the normal registration rate to secure a domain they are the only one’s legally entitled to own.
When DemandMedia becomes a registry, they will reserve ALL of the
premium domains for themselves.
Seems like the burden also should be placed on registrars regarding trademarks. Our laws don’t just go after drug users and drunk drivers. The bars who serve the drunk and the drug dealers get busted too. If I were a trademark attorney, I’d go after the registrars who allowed the names to be damaged; a registrar has far deeper pockets. Who knows, maybe ICANN could also be found culpable.
Regarding ICANN, one has to wonder how they can maintain their non-profit status. How is their kind of compensation ordinary and neccesary? Most non-profits I know have volunteers! I think its also interesting to note the mission statement change on the 990 for tax year 2001 http://www.icann.org/en/financials/tax/us/01form990.pdf see part III item a. Compare it with this: http://www2.guidestar.org/organizations/95-4712218/internet-corporation-assigned-names-numbers.aspx Would the IRS reconsider the 501(c)(3) status?
I also wonder if the consumer is as likely to conduct their search with new ntlds? I can’t recall that a search engine has brought me to a .travel, .asia or .jobs website even one time!
That was a nice post.
“Bottom line the new gTLD aren’t about the public interest.
They aren’t about giving more choices to consumers or lowering costs to consumers.
No the new gTLD’s are about the all mighty dollar.”
Spot on post, you nailed it !
Essentially its a huge con which is being pushed(bulldozed) through purely to make more money for the so called – non-profit organization, this may be one of the most blatant cons ever to face the internet and its being pulled off right in front of everyones eyes.
ICONN have their ears shut, blinkers on, pockets wide open and are steaming full speed ahead with no regard for anyone or anything else other than their own bank accounts !
They have completely lost the plot due to greed.
ps) There is no way in hell I will be spending a penny on any of these new gTLD’s that’s for sure !
New TLD advocates always say that “domainers” and “TM holders” are the ones opposing them. What about Tim Berners-Lee, who warned about new TLDs in 2004, see the analysis at:
http://forum.icann.org/lists/2gtld-guide/msg00020.html
Is Tim Berners-Lee a “domainer” or “TM holder”? Is he part of the “conspiracy” against new TLDs? Of course not. He invented the world-wide web.
I’d strongly suggest reading the entire thing. I’ve brought this to the attention of ICANN repeatedly, yet they respond with silence. I suppose money talks louder than wisdom, sometimes, especially in a shark-infected room of ICANN insiders/lobbyists. That’s the difference between ICANN the self-serving profiteer, compared to the public service custodian the people want and deserve.
Agree with you again Mike.
All domains should be available for reg fee.
No auctions, no premium domains reserved for the registry.
This would seriously hurt the business model of those wanting to start a new tld.
Anyone still interested with these new rules ??
@MHB – Thanks for the chance to mix it up a little
I won’t deny that those who have invested substantial amounts in new gTLDs would like to get a return on their money. I do. I’m a businessman and I’d like a return. Is that wrong?
A few observations….
1. Howard’s suggestion that MHB send his ideas to CADNA strengthens my point about the common cause of big brands and big domainers.
2. .mobi reserved 5000 names for auction. There are *way* more than 5000 good domain names. Leaving that aside, they’ve sold about 500 of them. There was an active auction scene (even if there were a few snafus). Many of the bidders were domainers. The price is set by the market — if people want it, they’ll bid for it, and that’s the price the market makes. So we’re not talking about the unfairness of the market price – we’re talking about the (perceived) unfairness of the original price of acquisition. Let me ask, why is it fairer for someone who can put in thousands of markers with Pool.com’s thousands of registrars to get all the value from a domain name, rather than the people who spent the money on the machinery, the legal work, and policy work, not to mention enduring the hypocrisy of ICANN on a day-to-day basis? Whoever gets the initial value, the eventual market price of the domain name is the same.
3. In this regard, I wonder if Mr. Kirikos is also in favor of price caps in the aftermarket? After all, fair’s fair…
4. The Trademark Clearing House proposal would provide registrars and registries all the info needed to validate a trademark, removing the substantial cost of coaxing trademark holders to fill out their forms correctly. (Not easy – as CEO of NameEngine in 2001 for the opening of .biz and .info I can tell you it was a major resource drain; we barely made our money back.) With the Trademark Clearing House, a company like Apple could pay about $100 – $150 to protect their brand across ALL new TLDs. On top of that, they would have to pay the registrar. Because all the trademark info is available and pre-validated, registrars will sell it for the usual wholesale + 20% price – usually about $8 – $10. So in a world with 300 new TLDs, the premium for brand owners would be about $2 per brand per TLD. Hardly highway robbery – more like cost recovery.
5. I don’t have any problem with capping renewal fees. If you buy a domain, you should have an expectation that you can continue to own it for a reasonable amount of money. I know I’m veering very close to socialism here, because the same arguments when applied to rent control are called just that. But I think it’s good for the domain name in general if there’s predictability around renewals, so I have no opposition to that, as long renewal prices keep pace with inflation etc. No one I know who’s trying to start a new TLD feels any differently. Maybe some do, but I’ve never heard it.
If new gTLDs are so stupid and misguided and no-one will buy them, then why don’t domainers just buy some popcorn and watch the show? If new gTLDs fall flat on their faces, it will only firm up the value of the existing TLDs. And if they don’t, then there’s a new market where everyone can play.
Antony
@allyn makes an excellent point about search engines and new TLDs. He notes that he never sees a .travel, .asia, or .jobs TLD in a search engine result. There are a few reasons for that, not least of which is that .travel has crazy requirements and prices, and .jobs has been “reserving” all of its names, for reasons best understood by them.
But what about new TLDs and search engines?
The TLD is not a major factor in search engine ranking *unless* it has some bearing on the authenticity and reliability and (Google’s favorite word) “relevance” to the search. .gov, .mil, and .edu have very good authenticity and are ranked higher than .com. Some ccTLDs also rank very high in specific instances — for instance, a site in .de will rank higher than .com if the query is in German.
If the .nyc TLD has relevance to New York City (which it will, even without a bunch of rules), then a search for “New York hotels” will return a .nyc site before other TLDs, all else being equal. Similarly, users will be more likely to click on “hotels.nyc” if they’re looking for a NYC hotel than they will on something called “hotelfinder.net.”
So while you’re not seeing many new TLDs returned in search results, it’s because (a) they have no registrations because of policy or price, or (b) because they’re so open that the extension contains no clue to the website behind the name. There are plenty of new gTLDs in the works — especially geographical ones — which don’t suffer from these issues.
Antony
There’s a difference between price caps on a *monopoly* registry operator, and the aftermarket. VeriSign is like a land registry. As a natural monopoly, it needs to be price capped, otherwise it becomes a defacto tax collector. The aftermarket is a private and competitive market already.
Antony: go read the Tim Berners-Lee paper that I referenced in a prior post (it’s still waiting for moderation, as there’s a link). New TLD advocates can’t refute anything in that. Essentially, they wish to debase the root, just like a currency debasement. By stealing a little bit from everyone, they profit through the ensuing dilution and instability that is caused.
There’s a core set of names that will always get bought, and essentially new TLD advocates want to get the “franchise” from ICANN for less than the expected revenues from those core names that will get auctioned off. Rinse, and repeat. It’s essentially a form of arbitrage. It’s a short-term game, not a long-term one, as seen by the corpses in the new TLD space like .pro, .name, .travel, .mobi, and I’m sure .tel’s time is coming (their “innovation” now includes allowing people to put AdSense on their pages, lol).
In my comments to the IRT report, I made a proposal titled “Ascended TLDs” (search Google for it) on May 6, 2009. That would describe yet another approach that preserves and enhances property rights.
“If new gTLDs are so stupid and misguided and no-one will buy them, then why don’t domainers just buy some popcorn and watch the show” That’s the same kind of argument that spammers use, who flood our mailboxes constantly. They impose the same kind of externalities upon others that new TLDs do, and perform the same kind of arbitrage (send email for next to nothing, and any revenues at all earn a profit).
Antony,
Why don’t domainers sit on the sideline?
1. Because, we experienced betrayal when Icann agreed in secrecy with Verisign
to manage the .com and .net registry indefinitely plus have the authority
to raise prices when it wasn’t necessary.
2. Because, domainers will once again be betrayed when Icann will permit
Verisign to raise renewal prices to whatever the market will bare.
TLDs should be managed very similar to how we manage electric utilities
in the U.S. However, in your point #2, you clearly say that you want
to receive the market value. And, apparently you want to bypass the
registrar/registry structure.
Mike,
Great post, thanks for continuing to carry the torch like no other in the business. CADNA and domainers on the same side of an issue, albeit for much different reasons. Strange Bedfellows indeed.
We all know Michael is dead on with this article but lets be realistic here. ICAAN will continually introduce new TLD’s and this is no different than banks sucking money out of the US federal government with the promises to lend and never do.
ICAAN may be a non-profit but they are not a NOT-FOR-PROFIT corporation. Big difference. If they decide to pay their top execs a million to retain them big deal, they are just as evil as any other big corporations (non-profits or not) around.
What I find ironic about the whole continued battle about ICAAN is the general public does not care.
Only domainers do.
Yet domainers continue to bid these stupid silly extensions through the roof like playing roulette with grandmothers money.
Furthermore, all the new TLD registries create their business plans around a large chunk of initial revenue coming from auctions to … domainers.
It is the continued practice of gambling on these new extensions that ICANN and all the investors of new TLD applications bet on.
So I ask you …
If you had the money to have a registry and sell domains to domainers wouldn’t you …
Keep the best
Try to get price caps lifted
Charge Sunrise Application Fees
And every other element of making money they do.
There is a reason small business and big business rarely see eye to eye since given the money and opportunity almost all small business would act like big business. When we can’t we complain.
This cycle of life exists in every business but ultimately it is you – the domainers – who support the very evil you complain about.
Of course I agree with Michael but give me $50 million and I wouldn’t give a shit about domainers either except to extract much value out of them as I could.
you know its true people …
peace
The good news is that with endless gTLD’s dot com’s will dominate even more. I use direct navigation a lot and I hardly ever go to anything other than a dot com. sometimes I’ll go to a dot org for a medical problem. I can’t remember the last time I typed in a dot Net to see what was there.
These new extentions probably won’t be squatted on to any great degree. Of course, the big companies don’t seem to understand that.
Alan your post is thee POST of the thread 100% spot on IMO.
Remark by Antony Van Couvering
“Some ccTLDs also rank very high in specific instances — for instance, a site in .de will rank higher than .com if the query is in German.”
I have never heard so much BULL! While working on several sites and in the business for several years, the above quote is nothing but hot air.
A .com will even outrank the cctld in the specific language. It’s because the .com TLD is trusted.
All new gTlds will not rank for several years until trusted by searchengines. This also means each and every new gTld has to build trust. 98% will never make it that far.
There are also other reasons why most new gTlds will not be prefered by searchengines.
For example a ” .Auto” if owned by a main Brand like BMW or Ford will never be trusted as an authority if it is used to push and advertise there own Brands. It doesnt comply with searchengine businessmodels.
New gTld’s are doomed from the beginning. Sorry if I step on someones toes but who ever jumps into the boat of these new gTlds must be flat out ignorant or loves to burn money.
Athony
“”"If new gTLDs are so stupid and misguided and no-one will buy them, then why don’t domainers just buy some popcorn and watch the show?”"
Because as point out in comments, current domain owners are being dragged into the mess if its not the lifting of the price cap issue which is still in the guidebook, then its the ever expanding trademark rules, quicker and easier procedures for the take down and take away of domains like the URS which was proposed for the new gTLD’s but once approved would be put into place for all existing TLD’s.
As you your comment:
“”".mobi reserved 5000 names for auction. There are *way* more than 5000 good domain names. Leaving that aside, they’ve sold about 500 of them. There was an active auction scene (even if there were a few snafus). Many of the bidders were domainers. The price is set by the market — if people want it, they’ll bid for it, and that’s the price the market makes. So we’re not talking about the unfairness of the market price – we’re talking about the (perceived) unfairness of the original price of acquisition. Let me ask, why is it fairer for someone who can put in thousands of markers with Pool.com’s thousands of registrars to get all the value from a domain name, rather than the people who spent the money on the machinery, the legal work, and policy work, not to mention enduring the hypocrisy of ICANN on a day-to-day basis? Whoever gets the initial value, the eventual market price of the domain name is the same.”"”
The problem I have with this argument is that it fly against the “reasons” why the new extensions are needed.
Andrew’s first question to the panel was why are these extension needed?
Jeff from Demand Media, Ken from Neustar and Mike the attorney who sits on the ICANN committee for the new gTLD’s all had the same answer. The new extensions are needed to increase competition, lower costs and give consumers access to domain for their online needs for affordable prices. I think the panelists were quite clear that the availability of affordable domains is the issue and I believe Ken used the example of law.com that if someone wanted this domain it would cost millions, if available. With the new extension like .law someone could register divorce.law for a nominal amount.
We know that’s not going to happen unless reserving and auctioning of domains by the registry is prohibited.
So you can have it both ways.
You can’t say we need the new extensions to make affordable domains available on one hand and the argue that the market should set the price of these domains.
If its all about the money, which we all know it is, just say so.
I’m a businessman.
I get it.
You invest money, you want a return on your investment, and the more the better.
But then don’t sell it as a public service
MHB—what the hell are you smoking?
Sorry I cannot hire you as my attorney because you do not know how to lie which is one of the most important criteria of being a “Shark”
Anyway, Good Karma to you for being yourself.
Alan
“”"So I ask you …
If you had the money to have a registry and sell domains to domainers wouldn’t you …
Keep the best
Try to get price caps lifted
Charge Sunrise Application Fees
And every other element of making money they do.”"”
If I was in the registry business I certainly would.
If I was a bar owner I also might want to get the legal drinking age lowered to 12, and be able to operate 24 hours a day.
Sure business can push for there wish lists but someone has to stand up and say no, its not right and restrictions have to be in place to prevent abuse.
Mike,
btw the question was not directed to you but to whoever was reading the comment.
Anyway, you are right but lets take a look at our industry. There are many bright minds in this industry with years of experience yet together there has never been a single worthwhile effort to
(a) build a group or campaign to effectively target end users and educate the public about domain names (other than you can register one) or
(b) any real support for the ICA or any association that lobbies whats right. In fact, without your blog most domainers probably would not know the ICA exists
I’m not saying your wrong at all – as I stated above your article was brilliant and every point valid. My belief is simple – domainers do not care enough to make a change and will still continue to support the policies as they come by the only votes they really have …. domain renewals and bidding on new TLD’s
We are our own worst enemy.
In fact, if someone suggested a party outside ICAAN’s doors with free food I’m pretty sure no-one would even show up.
Its sad but true.
Think of it as comprable to health care in the US. Sure, everyone wants to change it but it will never happen. Money, greed and big business trump all.
Without a concerted effort by domainers as a group and a spokesperson who is both respected and has access to those who can make change most of these points are all moot and we may as well beat a dead horse imo
Antony, what you might not realize is that while most domainers are otherwise happy to sit back and watch the ensuing .FAIL unfold, what we don’t want our premium gTLDs to get dragged into the mess of uncapped renewals that the new turdTLDs will create. Sure, if you’re lucky, you might turn a profit from ill-informed newbies with dollar signs in their eyes, but ultimately you’re screwing everyone, old and new alike, to make a quick buck.
I think we have reach a point in this business that money is all anyone seems to care about.
I think the goverment will ask for more taxes etc in the future
Tks Mike
Doug
It must be clearly reiterated here as well that ICANN were not constructed to be a for-profit, self-enhancing corporate entity who were allowed to place their own self-interest above the greater good of the internet community (trademark holders included).
The way this new tld orgy unfolded showed irrefutably the intense desire of ICANN (and several others) to quickly launch a potential debacle, and rake in untold amounts of money by selling every word in the dictionary as a “new tld”.
This proposal, which was initially described as possibly unlimited numbers of new tld’s, brings with it REAL (not imagined, or hyped) negative consequences for multiple global stakeholders and constituents.
The danger, and resulting backlash, revolved around a potentially damaging floodgate approach about to be opened … with inferior planning for problem resolution, or for numerous other serious & costly issues that were certain to rise. A select small group (ICANN leading the charge) were so eager to rake in instant cash, they said to hell with global stakeholders’ concerns … get out of our way.
Now, we are fortunate enough that common sense and discretion have come back into focus at least a little. The no holds barred tld orgy has slowed, as well it should, and relevant parties are hopefully examining how to proceed with a more intelligent, comprehensive process. That’s what should have happened all along. And anyone who does not readily acknowledge that is full of it, and being intellectually dishonest.
The most common sense approach is for ICANN to allow for the periodic release of several new tld’s within restricted time frames. Let the market decide if the tld is needed. This will allow for gradual assimilation among internet users, and will not flood the internet with unprecedented tld pollution. It will also allow global trademark holders a better opportunity to rev up and to respond to a limited increase in TM infrigement, instead of being potentially overwhelmed.
The intial ICANN “rationale” for introducing unlimited tld’s was supposedly to bring “innovation” to the net via some Microsoft-esque vision of the future. Not buying it! And only foolish people would. I give credit to ICANN for hitting the pause button. That was a bit of a self-preservation move, but I give someone at ICANN credit for having the deceny to tune in to a tidal wave of opposition.
ICANN must demonstrate careful attention to all interests (called taking the high road), and avoid an appearance of impropriety by crawling into bed with whomever lines up to make a quick buck off of the greater public. That’s stinks of corruption, and everyone’s sick of it.
ICANN can make money, get ahead, serve their mission, and grow as a global organization representing many interests. But they can only do so operating on principle and deliberate, careful planning of major initiatives. This 1998 “do whatever we want ’cause no one’s looking” mentality is over!
LOL at domainers complaining about profit-seeking behavior. Remind me of the public service that domainers are providing next time I’m getting shaken down for tens of thousands of dollars for a half decent .com name.
“My first thought as I found myself on stage was that I was the only one not looking to profit off the new extensions.”
So what are you looking to do with them?
At the end of the day it is about money, every extension is, .com included.
The people proposing new extensions will present a dozen arguments to make it look like it is not about money, but off course it is, these companies aren’t charities.
Likewise the people against new tlds will present a dozen arguments about why they shouldn’t come in, but at the end of the day the main concern is it sapping money from other extensions. Yes folks……money.
Let’s bring in all these extension and be done with it, if someone makes money, who cares.
Candid and to the point. Best post I have read in a while. No mincing words. Now how to beat the system?
@Khanan B. – You’re looking out at the world through a keyhole. And don’t come close to comprehending how much you don’t see. Perhaps your entitlement mentality has blinded you?
It always makes me laugh when I see M. Menius precede his meaningless platitudes and gibberish with a link to a .us domain.
Snoopy … now there are words of wisdom
Another element people seem to forget about is that with every new extension trademark holders care less and less about buying thier names. Sure, you have the Google, Yahoo and Coca-Cola companies whose lawyers will always want thier names but as far as trademarks go I’m willing to bet that every extension released sees fewer and fewer early sunrise registrations by trademark holders since these new extensiions never get traffic and nothing more than a few hundred dollars work by an attorney.
How really important is a .newtld to a company?
On a scale of 1 to 10 it doesn’t register. Only if the attorneys think it does and can make a buck.
Preventing people from registering domains which conflict with a trademark is impossible – you will always have the ambulance chasers of this industry register typos, trademarks and more but ultimaley all these extensions fade and fewer and fewer people care about protecting thier trademark from some third-rate domain extension.
Snopy brought up a good point.
As domainers why do we care?
So we can enjoy a system so fair enough that we can buy a newTLD domain for $20 and sell it for $20,000.
I don’t know about you but these TLD’s are created by people who fund a business – not a charity – so more power to them if they want to keep them and all and auction them. Its thier mandate, a domainer is only affected if he/she wants a piece of the pie (money again)
.com is far too important to have arbitrary registration fees such as .tv and yes, this issue needs to be resolved or put away but as for all the other extensions lets take Snoopy’s words of wisdom
“Let’s bring in all these extension and be done with it, if someone makes money, who cares”
Fantastic post – I hope something is done to even the playing field here…and soon!