The end of .com ? Yes ? No ?

[lordbyroniv]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7468855.stm

[Leading Names]

No. Set up/Running costs will be prohibitive for 99% of businesses.

- Rob

[lordbyroniv]

Agreed,

also it sounds to me that they are just replacing the TLD

You wouldnt be able to just type www.coke and land at Coca Cola website would u ?

You'd still need something between the www. and the tld

I think users would get confused

I too think .com will be king for awhile to come

Just thought the article was interesting regardless

any other opinions?

[Seraphim]

At the rate the market is being flooded with new extensions, kinda seems like all rivers will eventually lead to the ocean >>> domain.anything

I would say when, not if. Probably well down the road, but who knows.

[simon]

clear NO

[DNP]

LOL No

[Focus]

Everyone is typing in .com as we speak (type)

The past & present is the best indicator of the future.

[Varchar]

I don't think so...

[hina]

While companies will be able to secure domain names based on their intellectual property easily, some domain names could become subject to contention and a bidding war.
Dr Twomey said: "If there is a dispute, we will try and get the parties together to work it out. But if that fails there will be an auction and the domain will go to the highest bidder."

Oh, wow.

[staffjam]

The only person winning out of this is Google. Domainers certainly won't be the winners.
But if it does go through, i can see an initial stampede - Confusion - then a rush to quality, and what is that - the faithful old .Com.
Still i can forsee a problem with parking revenues, so i guess development is the smartest road to take, but with google in the driving seat there, they will have to be well developed.

[theinvestor]

.com forever!




















.ca 2nd

[rentdn]

.com will always be a king , I can't imagine myself to type www.google without .com

[Domagon]

Perhaps the reporter misunderstood / was misinformed? From my understanding, with a few exceptions, the new IDN TLDs will be simply aliases to current TLDs. ICANN and company has been working on that for awhile.

Adding many thousands, let alone millions, of real (as opposed to say IDN aliases) TLDs would stress the root servers, and create a huge single point of failure for custom-vanity TLDs.

Many ISPs / resolvers cache the root server addresses and the corresponding TLD zone data, so if the roots are unavailable / busy or whatever, it's generally a situation that can be worked around - that won't be true in a custom-vanity TLD situation. The upshot being that traditional, popular TLDs would end up being more reliable in such instances.

And from a business aspect, such a scheme would in essance be a monopoly far worse than Internic ever was - because the root would directly be serving resource records (ie. name server addresses) for end-user domains in the custom-vanity TLDs.

Bottom line, in my view, is custom-vanity TLDs (a glorified keyword system) is unlikely to happen anytime soon, if ever.

Ron

[Yofie]

No other extension has really affected .com domain values. Offering domains like these to companies, just makes these companies spend more money and keeps ICANN smiling to the bank.

If this does happen, I see .com become MORE valuable, because people do not like change. They already know the .com .

Now if this was a No Extension deal.... that might be interesting. Pizza, Shoes, Dating etc... All you do is type a Name into your browser and were brought to the site, that would effect .com prices.

[flamewalker]

This is just silly... people have been predicting the end of the reign of the almighty .com for years...

[Acro]

I can't wait for the Internet to become like the Matrix Now, that's the future.

[Domagon]

After reading Yofies post, I did some testing and it appears that even current wildcarded TLDs, such as TV, require at least one character and dot in front of the TLD name.

Ie. TV doesn't work, but anything.TV does. Similar is true in other TLDs ... I was unable to get any TLD, including those I know for sure are wildcarded, to resolve by itself.

In short, users would likely still be forced to enter some prefix, such as www. in front of such TLDs...

Adds extra effort, and confusion ... ie. a user sees www.EXAMPLE ... some will type in www.EXAMPLE.COM while others will do the exact opposite when seeing the real www.EXAMPLE.COM and only enter in www.EXAMPLE ... and others will simply be left wondering which site is which - or will current vanity domain owners automatically get first dibs, but I digress. What a potential mess!

Ron

[MrDude]

I cant see http://flowers etc happening, what happens to intranets who use http://server? what about http://localhost? http://computername etc? It would clash with millions of intranets and networks around the world, computers are configured so if it has no extension, its part of the network

[Seraphim]

Originally Posted by theinvestor

.com forever!

I'll toast to that!

[acronym007]

1000% NO

More extensions will only drive up the value of .com. Even if it's for vanity, let's face it, if you own the .com you own that product or service.

Let's say 1000 new extensions come out tomorrow, would you still not want to own realestate.com?

.com is the gold standard by which all others are measured against.