homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.242.85.89
register, free tools, login, search, subscribe, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Pubcon Platinum Sponsor
Home / Forums Index / WebmasterWorld / Domain Names
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: buckworks & webwork

Domain Names Forum

    
Competitors In Bids To Control .eco
engine




msg:3969268
 4:55 pm on Aug 10, 2009 (gmt 0)

Competitors In Bids To Control .eco [news.bbc.co.uk]
Rival environmental groups are lining up supporters to try to take control of a new net domain aimed at green groups. At least two consortiums are known to be preparing bids to control .eco.

In March this year, former US vice president Al Gore backed a bid by the California group Dot Eco to operate the proposed "top level domain" (TLD). But now a Canadian environmental group known as Big Room has launched a competing bid to manage the TLD, which is similar to .com or .uk.

Both firms plan to apply to Icann - the regulatory body that oversees domain names - for the creation of .eco early in 2010.


 

walkman




msg:3969353
 7:10 pm on Aug 10, 2009 (gmt 0)

useless name IMO.
After cars.eco, windows.eco and the likes, what else?

maximillianos




msg:3969365
 7:22 pm on Aug 10, 2009 (gmt 0)

What a mess. Why not just focus on building a good, quality site on a .org or the 50 other extensions we already have?

Think of all the money wasted on .eco that could be donated to better causes. Oh well.

swa66




msg:3969393
 7:57 pm on Aug 10, 2009 (gmt 0)

All new TLDs like this are a waste of money for those who need to try to protect a trademark without giving any real solution to the "name taken in .com" problem.

Useless exercise unless you are ICANN / the one controlling the new TLD (much to be earned from those having to protect a trademark) or are into cybersquatting.

All the rest of us: just ignore it, it's just another .info, .travel, .biz, .tel, .mobi or whatnot that have already failed to make any difference at all.

Al Gore -Mr "Internet is tubes"- backing this is lacking to impress to say the least. The dude doesn't know the fist thing about the Internet, so why would his voice be important in creating yet another utterly useless TLD.

dailypress




msg:3969403
 8:20 pm on Aug 10, 2009 (gmt 0)

It would have been much easier if they had gotten rid of the prefix WWW and also no other extension other than .com existed.

useless name IMO.
I agree.

All the rest of us: just ignore it, it's just another .info, .travel, .biz, .tel, .mobi or whatnot that have already failed to make any difference at all.
I wouldnt put .tel in the same category.

jjwdesign




msg:3969422
 9:00 pm on Aug 10, 2009 (gmt 0)

This always reminds me of the .cc crazy days. Just keep in mind what happend to all those "valuable" domains. It's just a way to make a buck, IMHO. Jeff

Leosghost




msg:3969428
 9:20 pm on Aug 10, 2009 (gmt 0)

I'm wondering who will be the first squatter to try to get umberto.eco

koan




msg:3969437
 9:39 pm on Aug 10, 2009 (gmt 0)

Al Gore -Mr "Internet is tubes"- backing this is lacking to impress to say the least.

Gore wasn't the one who came up with this silly tube reference.

"Series of tubes" is an analogy used by former United States Senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) to describe the Internet in the context of network neutrality.

swa66




msg:3969475
 10:44 pm on Aug 10, 2009 (gmt 0)

It would have been much easier if [...] no other extension other than .com existed.

That's highly debatable as there are quite a few ccTLDs being used what they are intended for. Sure there's the "abuse" of .cc, .tv, .cm, ... but e.g. .at, .be, .cz, .de, .es, .fr, ..., .za are all actively used for what seems to be what they were intended for, quite successfully in many cases as well.

I wouldn't put .tel in the same category.

I've yet to see any good come from there.

esllou




msg:3969501
 11:54 pm on Aug 10, 2009 (gmt 0)

throw in other languages' characters and it's all set for a Mad Hatter's Tea Party.

httpwebwitch




msg:3969521
 1:16 am on Aug 11, 2009 (gmt 0)

The only "word-like" ones I can think of are artd.eco and gr.eco

and the best-selling author, Umberto Eco

I'm not going to stand in line for this landgrab

JS_Harris




msg:3969523
 1:24 am on Aug 11, 2009 (gmt 0)

Why not just focus on building a good, quality site on a .org or the 50 other extensions we already have?

Because spitting out new extensions is a cash cow and it means new real estate out of thin air if you will. It is also the precursor to the "look at how broken the internet is, we need to reset it to do it right" agendas. Of course I haven't read the official reasoning for the .eco, but I don't really care to since it ads no value to anything I'm doing.

koan




msg:3969538
 2:20 am on Aug 11, 2009 (gmt 0)

The more domains are available, the cheaper they get, the best for everyone, except maybe domain hoarders. What's wrong with having even more choice? Why can't we have thousands of TLD? Getting an appropriate domain name for your site shouldn't be a matter of speculation and capital, but a matter of preferences and choice.

tim222




msg:3969569
 4:11 am on Aug 11, 2009 (gmt 0)

What's wrong with having even more choice? Why can't we have thousands of TLD?

It's risky to advertise anything except one of the better-known TLDs, like .com. Can you imagine three different ads for example.gsk, example.dfb and example.rgg - Most people wouldn't remember any of them, no mater how memorable the name "example" might be.

JS_Harris




msg:3969604
 6:05 am on Aug 11, 2009 (gmt 0)

Getting an appropriate domain name for your site shouldn't be a matter of speculation and capital, but a matter of preferences and choice.

What made you visit webmasterworld.com instead of webmasterworld.ilovemycat? Most people type .com is my point, but cats are cute.

koan




msg:3969607
 6:15 am on Aug 11, 2009 (gmt 0)

I agree the .com TLD is the preferable one over all others in terms of marketing, I just don't understand why some people are actively against the creation of new ones and blame corporate greed or some internet dysfunction. Maybe people will become aware of the difference with time.

As for discovering this site, I must have typed "webmaster forum" in Google, looking for a forum for web professionals. Any TLD would have probably done it. Well, except .biz, because spammers ruined it, as they do with anything they touch. but people don't seem to have problems with slashdot.org, or even that old weird one, del.icio.us (although I must admit they recently acquired delicious.com)

willybfriendly




msg:3969611
 6:46 am on Aug 11, 2009 (gmt 0)

The only "word-like" ones I can think of are artd.eco and gr.eco

Well, there is josecans.eco (baseball player), bandedge.co and flyingg.eco (lizards), delgr.eco (furniture company), and pach.eco (california town).

After that, well...

koan




msg:3969623
 7:44 am on Aug 11, 2009 (gmt 0)

My favorite: echo.eco

tangor




msg:3969723
 12:46 pm on Aug 11, 2009 (gmt 0)

I suppose the most appropriate will have "green" in them somewhere!

encyclo




msg:3969739
 1:17 pm on Aug 11, 2009 (gmt 0)

"Ours is to sell domain names to raise funds for organisations who can effect change." (...) "We could be one of the biggest contributors to environmental causes anywhere in the world," said Mr Childers.

Perhaps if he toned down the hyperbole just a tad, I might take him more seriously. ;)

HuskyPup




msg:3969822
 2:59 pm on Aug 11, 2009 (gmt 0)

to raise funds for organisations

Then get a .org...! :-)

swa66




msg:3970204
 12:04 am on Aug 12, 2009 (gmt 0)

I just don't understand why some people are actively against the creation of new ones and blame corporate greed or ...

If you have a trademark to protect it's not a matter of you wanting the new domainname, you have to grab it while you can (read: when it's extra expensive during the early parts of the landrush)
Corporate greed: who creates money out of thin air with every new (useless) TLD ? Right: ICANN (because they can as their name says ;) ), and whoever controls the new TLD, and the different registrars who'll sell it to us.

The other to win from this: squatters who then will try to sell the stuff to others.

koan




msg:3970332
 7:37 am on Aug 12, 2009 (gmt 0)

If you have a trademark to protect

Is it an obligation? As in, legally you have to buy them or else, you could lose the trademark in court for not protecting it?

Otherwise, I'd say no one is forced to own all possible TLD variations of their domain name, get the .org, .net, at most, don't worry about the others. As more TLDs are created, it would be foolish to chase them all and this mentality may soon be relegated to old 2000 marketing books.

It reminds me of the people in the 90s who were building dozens of duplicate web sites all under a slightly different keywords related to their business. Nobody does that anymore.

tangor




msg:3970341
 8:04 am on Aug 12, 2009 (gmt 0)

s it an obligation? As in, legally you have to buy them or else, you could lose the trademark in court for not protecting it?

Exactly! Failure to protect the trademark produces dilution of the mark. When enough dilution accumulates the trademark is lost in legal battle. Some famous trademarks lost: asprin, kleenex, scotch tape...

Trademarks are forever (as long as registrations are filed timely and properly). Copyrights are finite (though these days its near a hundred years).

Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / WebmasterWorld / Domain Names
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved