|US Senator Calls For Slowing and Caution Over Introduction of New TLDs|
| 5:37 pm on Dec 9, 2011 (gmt 0)|
US Senator Calls For Slowing and Caution Over Introduction of New TLDs [sfgate.com]
The nonprofit organization that manages the Internet's address system should proceed slowly with a plan to add new top-level domains beyond .com and .org, the chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee said.
The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers should consider scaling back the initial round of domains to be introduced in 2013, Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a West Virginia Democrat who leads the Commerce Committee, said Thursday at a hearing on the program.
"If ICANN is determined to move forward, it should do so slowly and cautiously," Rockefeller said. "The potential for fraud, consumer confusion and cybersquatting is massive and argues for a phased-in implementation."
| 9:33 pm on Dec 9, 2011 (gmt 0)|
Awesome... I am going to buy www.LetsSnort.coke & www.ILove.ass
On a serious note... does anyone foresee impact on SEO with these new TLDs...?
What if your product was regionally based...i.e.
How is Google going to look at these...?
| 9:35 am on Dec 10, 2011 (gmt 0)|
Don't breathe, the air MIGHT be polluted. If you must breathe do so slowly.
I apologize for the sarcasm but the honorable Senator from WV needs to address fraud itself, not impede legitimate business with fear mongering.
| 11:57 pm on Dec 10, 2011 (gmt 0)|
I agree with the Senator on this one mostly in concern of cybersquatting. Nice to know some of the politicians have some sense of how technology works.
| 10:31 am on Dec 11, 2011 (gmt 0)|
|US senators have called on web address overseer ICANN to rein in its imminent generic top-level domains programme over fears that it may lead to cybersquatting and consumer confusion. |
The ICANN new gTLD programme, which will open for applications in January, came under scrutiny at a lacklustre hearing of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation on Thursday.
Committee chairman Sen. Jay Rockefeller made an appearance just long enough to read a prepared statement into the record, before dashing away on other business.
"If ICANN is determined to move forward, it should do so slowly and cautiously," Rockefeller said. "The potential for fraud, consumer confusion and cybersquatting is massive and argues for a phased-in implementation. Scaling back the initial round of new top-level domains introduced in 2013 may be a prudent approach."
| 10:25 am on Dec 12, 2011 (gmt 0)|
The world should have remained .com only from the onset, however that's not what happened. Now that TLD's are a matter of preference perhaps you should be allowed to choose whichever tld you want so that AT LEAST we can avoid more money grabs by icann. Make em ALL available now, up to 5 letters for example, and be done with it.
Otherwise release no new tld's, ever. anything in between confounds the problem.
| 10:45 am on Dec 12, 2011 (gmt 0)|
Sarge... that's not going to happen. The "dollar" looms large in the mix and that's where we go "following the money."
And with IP6 out there, the numbers of TDL's has grown. Enormously.
Part of the Senatorial Look mentioned above is the government realizing they are missing out on a way to grab some bucks in that process. A Ying/Yang quandary which we'll all experience one way or the other in a few years.
| 3:29 pm on Dec 12, 2011 (gmt 0)|
|The "dollar" looms large in the mix and that's where we go "following the money." |
But just where is the money?
Judging by the quantity of domain names for sale and parked there are plenty to go round IF sellers were sensible with their asking prices however many of them seem intent on trying to be instant millionaires.
Every domain I have relinquished this past couple of years, certainly 100+, have been bought and parked obviously hoping for type-ins etc...if that were happening I wouldn't have gotten rid of them:-)
I have to admit I have been looking through some names for sale and a touch of realism seems to be coming to some people, several trade keyword names I would like are available at realistic cost however, and this is being honest, instead of having loads of sites now I am reducing them considerably since it is plainly obvious in my global industry that the Internet boom time of buyers and sellers finding and meeting new partners is over.
Almost the only new customer enquiries we now receive are for large multi million Dollar projects seeking covering prices to compare with the supplier they have most probably already chosen and when our prices are more competitive they batter theirs down!
As a matter of interest look around your local town/city and see who has and who does not have a website and ask these two questions:
1. Do the ones without a site actually need one?
2. Do those with a site have a perfectly acceptable name?
I look around my town and for 2. many of them do not require anything more than a brochure site and for many very successful businesses here, 1. is their answer.
Ok, I live in rural UK, the second-least populated area of England, and it may not be comparable to the US however I do know it is very similar to what is happening in many European countries.
No more extensions will be required for a long, long time.
| 1:17 am on Dec 13, 2011 (gmt 0)|
|The world should have remained .com only from the onset |
Well, since the world never was .com only, I don't see how it could have "remained" that way.
The original standard from 1984 allowed for the TLDs .arpa, .gov, .com, .org, .net, .mil, .edu and a provision for adding country-level domains.
There were other TLDs like .nato which were suppressed (and in this case, replaced by nato.int (for international organizations) which is still in use [nato.int...]
| 8:34 am on Dec 13, 2011 (gmt 0)|
With hindsight I still think that the net should have gone for 100% ccTLDs