Subscribe to RSS Feed

12|30|2008 07:01 pm EDT

FastCompany And TechCrunch On New TLDs and Cybersquatting

by Adam Strong in Categories: News

Chris Dannen of FastCompany blogged his thoughts on the pending release of new TLDs . Dannen feels that the release of the new domain extension will spur a rebirth of cybersquatting.  Too bad Dannen, like many others, has bought in to the idea that cybersquatting equals buying and selling domain names or merely owning more than one domain.  He cites an example of an Iraq War veteran and friend of his who bought up and sold domain names to supplement his income. I’m not sure what this friend of his owns but the act of buying domain names and selling them is not really cybersquatting.  Cybersquatting is illegal. Speculating on domains is not. Owning thousands of domains is not. Selling domains is not.

Dannen also buys in to the message that seems to be one propelling the introduction of new TLDs forward “the Web is running out of memorable domain names.”  Highly unlikely given the number of TLDs we currently have, language variations and made up words and names that are created every day.  Even the name ipod, a name he uses in his piece, meant nothing a mere 7 years prior.

Cyber squatters will suddenly have billions of new domain names to purchase for only a few dollars — no longer will they have to rely on buying domains more expensively secondhand. Trademark infringement suits will balloon from tens or hundreds of domains to thousands and tens of thousands.

Jason Kincaid of TechCrunch follows up to the FastCompany piece, essentially stating that nobody really cares about all these new extensions.  Sure there will be squatters and speculators grabbing up a bunch of domains and it may keep the lawyers busy. We can however look at the history of the latest and greatest new TLD and see that this game is pretty much played out.  A new TLD needs an audience and type-ins and a reason for people to gravitate to it.

As Kincaid points out, people generally don’t navigate to these new TLDs through typeins contrary to what Dannen seems to be saying. The new TLDs are not recession proof in our opinion either.  How well are those .mobi aftermarket sales going right about now?  The Fortune article by Paul Sloan talking about domains as recession proof is clearly dated, given the downward trend that all in the domain space have been feeling.

Tags: , , , , , ,

7 Comments

Tanya Chadwick

December 30, 2008 @ 7:12 pm EDT

So what is “TLD”? I took the time to read the entire post and I follow you on twitter…is it a pre requisite in everything I read to already be in the “know”?
As to what your article or post is covering, I was interested as I personally own 28 domains and have spent way too much on them already.
However, I do not feel any more enlightened.
I look forward to future posts that may address those of us that are not in the “know” but do still have an interest in your topics.
Most Sincerely,
Tanya
http://twitter.com/tascer

Adam Strong

December 30, 2008 @ 7:36 pm EDT

Tanya to answer your question the TLD is generally the domain suffix. TLD stands for Top Level Domain. A quick google will of TLD leads you to the wikipedia definition here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top-level_domain

Example the .mobi is a newer gTLD (global TLD) while .com is an older gTLD
.co.uk is a ccTLD (country code TLD) for the united kingdom.

Thanks for following and reading. I think a trade publication generally makes some assumptions of its readers, therefore it may include jargon or acronyms in the story and our writing may assume that our readers are versed in the domain business. Sorry if we confused you. I think most of our readers wouldn’t want us to spell out everything acronym or define things in every story. We’ll try harder though to accommodate both.

[…] FastCompany And TechCrunch On New TLDs and Cybersquatting | Domain … Posted in Uncategorized on Dec 30th, 2008, 6:21 […]

RegFeeNames.com

December 31, 2008 @ 6:03 am EDT

We really dont need more domains ext – It shall only bring trouble!

Cybersquatters and more trouble to the industry!

Regards,

Robbie

nichive

January 2, 2009 @ 1:59 pm EDT

I read an article regarding pending publication of the new TLD; for it come along with great pro and cons regarding the regulations; and I wonder, why did they think about it in the first place, if they’re going to argue alot about it?

Michele

January 3, 2009 @ 9:13 pm EDT

Adam
Maybe a glossary of terms would help?

Michele

UFO.ORG

January 12, 2009 @ 6:16 am EDT

Let’s face it; all as the Trademark holders have to do (and that’s every major corporate) is say to Google/Yahoo/MSN please do not index these domains.

And it’s well and truly game over. Cybersquatting only works were it feeds of some value having been previously created, if there is none then that is it. If Google and others also said, we won’t accept the placement of adverts onto all these additional extensions then it’s another nail in the coffin for the leeches. Just maybe, what is left over is a green field where some minor people can just have a hobby site… Although what registrar is going to settle for that.

I’d like to see a clear statement from the big guys that they will only index the (historic) Tlds and major country ccTlds on the .com version of their search engines. They need to show they are good corporate citizens where possible.

RSS feed for comments on this post · TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply