Missing the trick

[mole]

Something I would like to share, for the benefit of flex (are you from Singapore )

I belong to what they call the b2b professional white-collar industry. I have been getting a lot of interest in .biz from the people I talk to in my profession. I have also received quite a few emails from people with interest in my .biz names. I explain that this is part of my mega portal business project and leave it as that. I don't intend to sell my names to anyone, and selling .biz names is really risky business that can be used to convict bad faith.

People in my industry instinctively understand the biz word. Perhaps I've lost sight of other more B2C views (which admittedly is not my kettle of fish). There is very little lateral thinking permeating the key domain players today. Just like in the early 90s for .com, when we should all have squirreled all the best names before the infamous dotcom boom. Perhaps they have been burned by scams like .tv, .cc, .fm, .ws blah blah blah all nothing more than small fishing and tourists islands in the Pacific.

Its a vicious cycle, old beliefs feeding on old beliefs. I have no problems with that, since we all need to make money somehow, and quickly, to pay that next month's rent.

-- mole circa June 2002 (screenshot archived)

 

.tv and .fm are 2 tld's that are descriptive - so I'm wondering how you consider them a scam and yet are an avid new.net supporter who essentially do the same thing but without the 100% visibility?

 

[mole]

Yes, I agree that Tuvali and The Federal State Of Micronesia are very descriptive.

My point there was that .biz is not the ccTLD for Bermuda Triangle. It's a gTLD, similar in level to .com.

If you need to discuss about New.net, you are welcome to continue this discussion at their board

 

Nice deflection mole

.tv and .fm sure seem similar to .mp3 - referencing the country they relate to is like saying "new.net" is descriptive, its irrelevant.

Given you said it here, why not continue to discuss it here? Surely you don't need support from other people to explain the position you stated yourself?

 

[mole]

I don't rely on deflections, safe This is Dan's board, and talking about domains here is A root based, I believe?

 

Where did you read that this was just an a root forum?

I guess you don't want to go anywhere with what you said, thats fine with me - just seems strange is all.

 

[mole]

I wanted to talk about .biz on this thread, safe. Seems strange you are trying to detract from that

 

You already know my views on .biz.

Your view that those cctld's are a scam is new ground and I am still interested to hear your differentiation.

 

[mole]

Oh okay.

.tv
.ws - Western Samoa
.fm
.cc - Cocos Island
.cd - Democratic Republic of Congo

These were ccTLDs that were promoted as taking on meanings beyond their original root assignments. tv - television, .ws - world site/web site, .fm - radio frequency modulation, radio stations, .cc - credit card, .cd - compact disc. When they sold these extensions, there was hardly a mention on their websites that those were actually country codes.

Consumer misrepresentation constitutes a scam. I have no problems with ccTLDs directly since this makes up the internet geographic addressing system.

http://www.iana.org/cctld/cctld-whois.htm

 

So its the fact they were an existing entity being remarketed as something else that you disagree with - which I can understand

In commercial roi terms, the "descriptive" cctld's are surely a better value purchase than a similarly "descriptive" tld in a limited visibility namespace.

I know new.net make it clear on their site how they have limited visibility (yet you still get people complaining that they didn't see it - their fault imo) but it would seem to me that you actually get more from your purchase from a remarketed cctld than you do with an nn domain.

 

[mole]

This actually happened to me about the time .ws was launched over 2 years ago. They sent me an email stating they were the first domain to come out after .com, .net and .org. I bought into that story Then I starting reading on internet boards about this scam that was going on, and that many thousand applications were happening. That is was not World Site, but Western Samoa.

The internet is full of scams. I believe New.net was true to principle on offering an alternative to ICANN's botched decision on the new gTLDs. Sure it was opportunistic and a direct challenge to ICANN. I'm a sucker for the underdog.

Had ICANN decided to introduce .shop and .xxx in the last round, things would have been very, very different.

.info and .biz are fine as new gTLDs with targeted usage potential. ICANN deliberately, it seems, did not want to launch a gTLD that would rival .com directly. Had catchall .web been approved in 2000, I think a lot of people would be singing a different tune about .com.

 

.web would have been an interesting new tld for sure, and I do hope it makes its way into the root.

having smaller companies use an alternative to .com is great for the matching .com holders as it gives a very solid chance of a sale as they grow (you already see this with cctld holders and .net holders) and I'm sure we'll see it with .info and .biz too.

the more new gtld's icann release the more dilute the noncoms become. I wish icann would release thousands tomorrow

 

[mole]

You are missing the plot entirely, safe. gTLDs have big business respectibility, and ICANN doesn't seem destinied to release any more gTLDs soon what with the fiasco and DoC scrutiny.

Unfortunately, only 2 of the 7 gTLDs made some commercial sense, with only 1 of the 7 being fully unrestricted.

Sure, companies will still want .com as it is the corporate standard, but when push comes to shove, don't expect them to bend to ridiculous prices for those names.

 

[mole]

For example, $500,000 for media.com? :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

 

its a matter of perspective i guess.

to me $10k for media.com is more ridiculous than $500k

but when you consider the relative quality of 2 word domains that companies continue to pay 5/6 figure sums for - 500k seems a pretty realistic sum.

 

Originally posted by mole
You are missing the plot entirely, safe. gTLDs have big business respectibility, and ICANN doesn't seem destinied to release any more gTLDs soon what with the fiasco and DoC scrutiny.

I still havn't seen big business respecting anything other than .com and cctld's - maybe I missed something because .biz and .info are gtld's and they don't seem to be held in anything like the same regard as .com

Has anything changed since we discussed this last time and mta.info was the only thing that was used to support the viewpoint?

 

[mole]

Sigh Like debating with eyes that do not see, ears that do not hear, a brain that does not wish to evolve

http://www.infoawards.info

 

thats the evidence?

I think I'd prefer to rely on dollar transactions and media penetration as my benchmark, but thanks for playing :laugh:

 

[mole]

Huh? Making money again? Okay, okay, I'll play your game. You know mahk right, safe?

I am getting 1,200 uniques a day at concert-tickets.us

Not because US is any good as an extension, but we have learned how to manage and direct traffic into the right niche...

Mahk

 

Yes I know mahk, are you really suggesting that the tld's he is using is the reason for his success?

btw, if you reread what i said - i did say that .com and cctld's I could understand. I also recall mahk on new.net say how he got x hits to his tickets.inc site and then he qualified it in a later post by explaining how he pointed his .coms to that site to generate those hits (along with seo).

fortune 500 examples would be better.