Domain name registry operators have predicted that "hundreds" of well-known companies will apply to ICANN to create new "dot-brand" top-level internet domains. But it is still far from clear how many of these potential new domains will turn into thriving, active spaces and how many will be expensive digital wastelands with …
How many new TLDs have been added since .com was spawned? and how many of them have any real worth or value?
No-one who isn't either away in investment capital or is a multinational is going to be able to afford to run a vTLD (v for vanity, naturally). Everyone else is still going to want a .com, with .cctld and .co.cctld rather less popular. This whole exercise solves nothing but an ICANN budget shortfall and benefits no-one else.
It's all about the google
If my dear wife is anything to go by, she's never typed a URL in her life. She goes to google and types the name of the company she's looking for and blindly accepts the first result.
It must be the womenn.....
I am constantly telling the missus not to do this for on-line banking, I have lost count of the amount of times she just googles HSBC and clicks on the top answer (adding a couple more pennies into googles bank account in the process)...
Maybe she will learn when she logs into her bank account and finds it empty.
ICANN is already awash with too much money. Their CEO is on $1M a year or theresabouts. There will be tens of others who are on six-figure salaries and lavish expense accounts: all those VPs of this and that. Pretty much everyone on their payroll gets first class travel and 5 star hotels as standard.
It's unlikely ICANN will rake in much dosh from vanity TLDs. They make nothing on new TLD applications. The $200K application fee is to cover the costs of getting an Accenture or Crapita to check the paperwork and tick some boxes. Nice work if you can get it.
However ICANN will collect a buck or so for every name that's registered in these new TLDs. This might amount to $2-300K a year in total. That probably won't even be noticed compared to the $20M or so ICANN rakes off .com every year. Then there are the fees from registrars. And about a buck a year from domain registrations in all the other gTLDs.
"Consumers will start looking to the right of the dot."
They'll only be looking because they'll be completely confused by it. Then when they try it and get to the site they'll forget it entirely.
I understand that this will be useful because you'll no longer have to have sillymarketingurlstring . com but is this really something to get all that excited about? It just seems like marketing people trying to hype something up that's of minor importance.
How about not having any .
If other people are like me they will just type coke/microsoft, or whatever they are looking for into the browser bar without any extension and go to the 1st relevant hit. So it does not really matter if the hit is for coke.com or coke.coke I still just type coke with no dot.
So what happens if…
… someone calls a machine on the same LAN as yours "microsoft" or "coke"?
Someone on a private LAN is quite at liberty to call their system whatever they wish. gethostbyname on current OSes won't be able to tell the difference.
"So what happens if..."
Had a similar problem like that at work already.
I was trying to access an internal webserver and had firefox slapping a www. and a .com round it taking me to someone server out in the big bad world.
It could be nasty if a popular, say, purchasing program used the same webserver name everywhere by default. Someone registers a typo of that webserver name and just waits for people to hit an almost identical page to their official one. Hard to tell if you are now external or still internal when you enter your bank details.
ICANN money-printing machine
Rubbish! Even if 10,000 global brands go for their own TLD (i.e. $1.85 BILLION for ICANN) then there will still be 10,000,000 or 100,000,000 business websites that are still on .com , .co.uk, .cymru or whatever, so people will NOT forget .com - Joe's Widgets (annual turnover $150,000) is not going to set up website.joeswidgets for $185K!
I'm starting fund raising to buy the .isshit top level domain, who's with me?
Next we should get punctuation - after all, doesn't everybody love commas?
If I had my own neon transformer company, I would stick to my fart.it domain, far(...) better than .fart!
Re: first domain.
Punctuation is a great idea. I'd love to be able to have some question marks in my URLs, for example.
This could be interesting
Remember that the first iteration of dns done in Cambridge iirc, was dns backwards, eg com.apple.www. (or uk.co.apple.www). Which for a computer makes far more sense than the system which we use now, which required the trailing dot, eg www.apple.com.
But if a company gets a top level, lets say "apple", then the UK webserver could easily become uk.apple.
Which rather suggests we're close to being back where we started when dns was originally proposed in Cambridge.
By "first iteration of dns", I assume you actually mean the quite different JANET Name Registration Scheme, not RFC 882, though I'm not sure the NRS was invented at Cambridge...
Can't see the point.
Personally, I can't see this working. Companies like to present a unified front. I can't see www.coke.coke or www.twitter.twitter taking off.
If a company presents a heavily regionalised front, then it might be useful. However, once you've got a TLD then you can sub divide it anyway. I can't actually see much use for this.
I could be wrong though ... I usually am :-)
you fail to see the point that's all
Errr, why would it be "www.coke.coke" or "www.twitter.twitter"?!
They'd be more likely to just use www.coke or www.twitter, for example.
Saying that they wouldn't even need to necessarily continue the convention of using the "www"; they may choose to use something like web.coke, mobile.coke, mail.coke or whatever they want for whatever purpose they choose.
I don't think that just www.coke would work. There would need to be "something" between them.
In general I agree, no point. If I don't know a company's domain I don't go guessing, I just type the company name into G^Hmy search engine of chioce. Is there anyone out there who doesn't?
Some important exceptions exist. Mostly, TLDs that could sell subdomains. myname.twitter, maybe. A few marketplaces restricted by subject (dominated by .xxx, but can imagine .antiques or .pets). More importantly, non-roman alphabets: .china in chinese, .russia in Cyrillic, etc.
A number of corporations will buy their TLD pronto because their defence against a domain-squatter might be very weak. .apple (it's a fruit), or .bbc (three letters formerly shared by Boston Business Computing, and probably a dozen other organisations in other countries and markets). Only the big guys, though, and they'll probably just set a redirect to their .com site and lose the expense in the "noise" of their IT budgets.
snort.coke, or piss.coke, or my favourite, sh!t.coke
Coke or twitter as single word will resolve
Re: or even
Which is troublesome because I might have machines on my LAN called coke and twitter.
How about machines called “mailserver”
See - http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/07/04/dotless_domain_security/
go for localhost
But internationalised ccTLDs already exist!
"More importantly, non-roman alphabets: .china in chinese, .russia in Cyrillic, etc."
I've been using domain names like 網.銳記.公司.香港 for months now... 香港 means Hong Kong
Maybe you should make an effort to understand how DNS works before making such a statement?
so can we have...
www.apple? apple.apple? crab.apple?
Seriously though where you use sub-domians like sales.coke.com now it can be sales.coke. But it all sounds rather messy.
Not sure what's meant by the subtitle
"'.com' and '.co.uk' could go the way of 'www.'"
You mean, remain almost ubiquitous? Sure, you don't _need_ to add the www for most sites nowadays for them to work, but despite that it's almost always included in most marketing etc, and even if you type in 'google.co.uk' or 'theregister.co.uk' you still get directed to the www variants.
www is an instantly recognisable way of saying "what follows is my web address"
compare www.drink.coke with drink.coke - the latter looks like it could just be a typo
The trend these days is for www.whatever.com to redirect to whatever.com. That www in the URL is just messy. Try it with www.twitter.com (or any other forward thinking web company). Less typing is good.
yes but no but
Hmm, I'd say that since facebook and google, the two 'biggest' sites, work the way I described, rather than the way you described, you could hardly call the matter settled as a result of your twitter example.
But that's beside the point anyway. What I was saying was that it was nonsensical to state or imply that the era of having 'www' in an address is now history; it clearly isn't, regardless of twitter or other 'forward thinking' web companies.
pointless, just there to make money
"They no longer have to look to see what's available in .com," said Hansen. "Everything's available."
In just the same way as if you own coke.com you can have anything.coke.com
everybody understands their own country tlds and the main top level ones. I know that if I'm looking for a big brand it will be .com and it's only .com that are going to be able to afford to buy their own tld.
It just makes a system that's currently easy to guess, "What's Apple's domain name? apple.com" to one where you have multiple posibilities, is it apple.apple apple.com apple. so apple have to think up of every combination and make them all redirect to the correct site. Meanwhile world+dog keep searching for sites on Google and clicking on the links, bypassing any need to know or remember a web address.
call me naive...
but I'm wondering just how many people actually give a damn? Or indeed, how many people go to big-name supplier websites anyway? I mean, if I want a coke, I don't go to coke.com, I go to the supermarket...
Really, we've gone from IP addresses, though DNS resolution of a name so we don't need to remember the IP address, to search engine dumping so we don't even need the name - I only have to look around an office to see how many people use google to get to default sites.
Maybe I'm just old and crusty.
"Also, if somebody has a brand that is a dictionary word, there's a risk."
Such as 'coke' or 'apple' perhaps?
The tld is required, and must contain letters and/or digits.
along with twitter, oracle, sprite, etc.
I see this being more useful for mid-level registrars to step in and buy generic TLDs such as .market, .medical, .health, and so on for reselling subdomains.
Oracle, Sun, Insight, Transcend, Crucial...........
Looks nice but not for most...
Guess it looks nice for some of the big guys to say 'go to uk.apple' or 'uk.google' but it's just not viable for most small to medium businesses - are they really going to spend over 100k to be www.companyname rather than www.companyname.co.uk
But how is this going to scale?
This issue is being COMPLETELY IGNORED.
Allowing hundreds (thousands?) of TLDs WILL NOT SCALE. It fundamentally knackers-up the hierarchical nature of DNS and will make zone transfer records HUGE.
.com has how many million subdomains? Can you imagine the zone transfer of that zone?
Yet, it seems to manage just fine.
Sure, this will make the root bigger. But the root name servers are just about the most solid piece of infrastructure that the internet has. They'll cope.
Domain names replaced by search engines
Geeks (like us!) still care about, and use that bar at the top for typing in proper domain names. My kids, and I think probably thousands others, just use Google to get to the websites they want. I keep telling them about going directly to the address, but they stick with what they know...
If Coke stick enjoy.coke on an advert, nobody will realise it's a web address.
The @ in email addresses and at the start of twitter names identify them as what they are. The www. and/or .com identify web addresses.
It's hard enough establishing existing TLDs as recognisable addresses, let alone one per brand.
The whole structure of a URL needs to change, especially in the browser. http:// is also no longer necessary. Taking a leaf from twitter, I'd suggest something like @cocacola would work very well.
"The whole structure of a URL needs to change"
There is no way. There is a reason for the "http:" in the URL, or more precisely, URI:
What if you want other things than "http:"?
To pick just two points from the article:
"they're very wary of what their competition might do," said Ken Hansen
Rubbish. Any "competition" who bought the gTLD for someone else's brand name risks being taken to court and they know it. Who's going to splash out several hundred thousand just to provoke a multinational into sending in the lawyers?
"if the BBC secures .bbc, a company called BBE could find it impossible to acquire .bbe."
To the extent that that is true, it's true for second level domains as well. In practice, it doesn't seem to be true to any significant extent.
Always looks odd.
The Coop went through a pahse of putting their website on their carrier bags.
It never looked like it should work!
If it was me I wouldn't have website.mycompany.
I would be tempted just to use the mycompany bit for the main company website and not bother with the rest except for marketting certain products. My reasoning is I see lots of prople either Google or just type in Facebook and hit enter in the address bar anyway.
Hundreds of Dot Brands....As Predicted By ICANN (and other beneficiaries)
CONGRATULATIONS....Your new Top Level Domain is “.lawyer”
Now…you might also like to buy:
.etc etc etc
The marketeers are in their element.
Oh you wouldn't believe...
...just how bloody damn right you are.
I have to listen to their bollocks regarding these new TLDs etc. >every bloody day<, not long any more and I may just go postal.
- Review Is it an iPad? Is it a MacBook Air? No, it's a Surface Pro 3
- Game Theory The agony and ecstasy of SteamOS: WHERE ARE MY GAMES?
- Hello, police, El Reg here. Are we a bunch of terrorists now?
- Microsoft and HTC are M8s again: New One mobe sports WinPhone
- Worstall on Wednesday Wall Street woes: Oh noes, tech titans aren't using bankers