ICANN threatens to change the rules of the domain name game

You may be used to typing in top-level domains (TLDs) like .com, .net or .edu when heading to websites, but the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) hopes to change that with a decision to open new TLDs for registration, according to today’s Wall Street Journal.

Under the new rule, ICANN would let anyone with $50,000 to $100,000 register any TLD they want, so for example, our web address could become venture.beat, rather than venturebeat.com.

The WSJ has more on what the decision may mean for regular consumers and businesses, but there are also a couple ways it could change the Internet landscape for startups — most notably, domain speculators like Demand Media and Marchex (NASDAQ: MCHX).

Those companies, and other speculators, have plowed billions of dollars into millions of hot domain names, sometimes backed by high-profile investors like Oak Investment Partners or, for Marchex, public shareholders. The idea is generally to buy up lots of obvious domain names, like business.com, which held an early sales record at $350 $7.5 million. Most good names that are auctioned get less, but still routinely receive six figures.

Those domains are worth so much because of a kind of traffic called type-in traffic, which is distinct from search traffic from Google or linked traffic. Right now, if a web surfer — especially an unsavvy one — wants to find, say, exchange rates, they might type exchangerates.com in hopes of finding an exchange calculator (they’d be disappointed).

Although the strategies of the two companies are different (Marchex, notably, wants to build out a locality-based content business), they both rely on one crucial assumption: that the dominant TLDs, primarily .com, continue to be the first thing people type in when they’re looking for something, whether it’s exchange rates or Disney.com. So what happens if ICANN manages to reeducate Internet users, and popularize sales of new TLDs?

The simple answer is that a lot of speculators will lose a lot of their own, and their investors’ money. While Demand and Marchex might be able to build up viable content portals around sites like chicagodoctors.com, the money they plowed into those names will be meaningless — as well spent on chicago.docs or chicago.dr, or any other name you can imagine. The game will become even more about search, type-ins traffic will wither.

There’s a strong counter-argument to ICANN’s action having any real affect on .com, though. There are already dozens of top-level domains, but they are thinly used, even purposed ones like .mobi (for mobile phones). The introduction of more TLDs over the years has not seen sales of hot domains diminish, which by extension probably means speculators are making as much as ever. In a recent post on his blog, legendary domainer Frank Schilling said he’s confident in .com:

“[T]his will do little to quell the desire for meaningful .com, net and CC TLD names. Corporate IT departments overwhelmed by the task of managing existing .com typos simply won’t be up to the challenge of managing a corporate GTLD such as .COKE or .IBM. … The failure of former would-be contenders such as .travel, .biz and .pro to satiate demand for coveted names, shows us that adding more skim milk to the mix will not stop the cream from rising, and that cream is .com.” (Schilling’s emphasis.)

That may hold true, or it may be that ICANN has finally found a way to shift attention from .com, with the possibility for new TLDs that are actually meaningful or logical.

And a final argument is that it does seem unreasonable that 10 or 15 years from now, we’ll still be typing .com in for every major website. The Internet is a place of rapid change, and at some point, .com will start seeming archaic and unnecessary. But any real change would require a massive re-engineering of the web’s user-interface, at the very least, so it’s hard to imagine what those changes might be from here.

By the way, if you’re interested in a good read about the domain name speculation industry, check out WSJ reporter David Kesmodel’s brand-new book on the subject, The Domain Game. He opens with a look at Schilling, and goes from there. Kesmodel’s a good reporter.

Next Story: Roundup: Virgin Mobile acquires Helio, Starbucks to stop music sales and more
Previous Story: Radio tag company Alien Technology raising another $40M

Bookmark and Share

Tags: , , , ,

Photo of Chris Morrison

About the Author, Chris Morrison

Chris Morrison writes about cleantech and environmental issues for VentureBeat, with occasional forays into gaming and semantic technology. He got his start writing about tech for Business 2.0 magazine, but quickly realized new media was the ticket when that institution closed its doors in 2007. Chris has also covered public equities and regulatory issues. He originally hails from southern Virginia, graduated from Evergreen State College in Washington, and now lives in San Francisco.

  • UltraClay
    I have the solution to the pollution; let Top Level Domain Name Servers offer spelling corrections for what's in its database? For example, try just typing in "google" in your URL field, and notice how it takes you to google.com automatically? So, wouldn't it be great if the DNS had spellcheck? You type in a domain name, and if you get it wrong, you get a list of options to choose from.

    Better yet, how about typing in NO extension? Less is always more, ya know?

    -Omar in DC.
  • No extension would be great. But having multiple domains in the first place has pretty much nixed that idea. If three different people own dumb.com, dumb.net and dumb.org, who wins the toss-up for just being dumb?
  • AJ
    spell check is already available at OpenDNS
  • I think this new proposal will break up the Internet as we know it, and how we get information. Instead of domain names, we'll be reduced to buying expensive keywords like "My.Space" instead of "MySpace.com." While it'll save heavy kitters millions of dollars, those are people who are ready to shell out big money for names like business.com, etc. I don't see myself making any profit off this, so down with ICANN!

    I think I'm going to blog about this. I'm mad as hell.
  • The Domain Name Business.com did NOT sell for $350 million dollars or even more commonly reported $7.5 million dollars. The domain name was sold for stock, whose claimed value was $7.75 but was actually cashed out at $2 million dollars when the entire business was sold for $350 million. The seller told this to Newsweek.

    But speculators, dreamers who want to believe that their domain names are worth millions repeat fake press releases.

    Remember Pizza.com which “sold” for millions. Go to Pizza.com and it’s still owned by the same person with the same cheap website on it. No, Pizza Hut or Dominos did not buy Pizza.com. You were fooled by someone putting out a press release to get some links. Likewise, go to Vodka.com and see if you think the site is owned by some mysterious, unnamed Russian billionaire or some fool speculator.

    There are next to no domain names selling for $100,000 plus.

    But Chris Morison, don’t feel bad about such an incorrect report. The NY Times, Washington post and LA Times all falsely repeated may times, without checking, claims that ABCDE.com sold for millions.

    For more information see my online book on domain names at www.seemly.com
  • Thanks, Steve. Almost amusing that I put that in, considering I knew better a few months back. Funny, the tricks memory can play.

    I'd disagree that there are "next to no" domains selling for over $100k, though. About 43 sales exceeding that figure are listed so far for this year. Even if half were untrue (and some are listed under private sellers) that seems like a significant number to me.
  • From the man who bought Business.com and Newsweek
    http://www.newsweek.com/id/44957/page/2

    That's a lot better than the $7.5 million you paid for business.com.

    The $7.5 million was a stock deal that we did in 2000 when Internet companies were fairly highly valued. When we did our refinancing in 2004, that stock was revalued and we redeemed it for $2 million in cash. So it was $2 million.

    And how many "sales" have a listed buyer saying why he paid a million dollars for a domain to put up Google ads. NEXT TO NONE.

    Oh I forot to plug my domain name www.Shrewd.com which I just SOLD for $10,000,000 dollars. Any free links for setting a "record" are appreciated. And if anyone wants to offer me $11,000,000 or even a 1/100 of that contact me.
  • I don’t like to review books that I have not read, but book The Domain Game, from the search inside feature on Amazon looks like a self published book from a reputable reporter.

    He likely got it right in that many people are making money on domain names by collected expired domain names with some traffic and making a few dollars per name off of Google ads. A few dollars per domain name times thousands of domain names adds up.

    He likely got in wrong in that recipes.com and chairs.com are “some of the most valuable” Web addresses. If recipes.com and chairs.com are so valuable, why are they third-rate sites with pay-per click ads. Most likely the owner thinks they are valuable, worth millions, fellow speculators think they are worth millions, not to them but to some big company, but no one has paid or made a real offer in the 6 figure range. Of course buying a name for $70 in 1998 and selling it for $30,000 is still a good but rare investment, but it’s not millions.

    But why pay $20 for a bad book on domain names, when you can read my free ebook on domain names at www.seemly.com
  • Sam I Am
    Saw this referenced at http://www.SubliminalMessages.Com and wanted to add that I think that this ill thought out decision will only help establish .COM as the King of the Cyber Hill.

    As the author points out, we've had the option of .travel, .aero, .museum, .mobi and .biz for years now. Oh, don't forget .coop! Know anyone or any organization of substance that utilizes one of those ? Betcha don't.

    So, now there will be more of them. Big whoop. Everyone will still want a .Com if they hope to be taken seriously.

    Just my $0.02
  • Jojo
    This sounds stupid and dumb to me. Your average user is not going to know what to type (or be able to remember sites he has been to). What was ICANN thinking?

    btw1: There is a magazine for domainers. They have a website here:
    http://moderndomainer.com/

    btw2: Please don't point to WSJ articles in your stories. Their articles are not free. When I click on the link in your story, I get: "The Page You Requested Is Available Only to Subscribers".
  • dgulbran
    15 years from now, I better not be *typing* anything...
  • Abdul
    I've to agree with your final thought that even two decades from now, we will still be typing dot.com in our web browsers! I think ICANN's move will plug us into a much bigger mess and provide a free leverage for cybersquatters to operate. Even in saying that they charging exorbitant fees for these new TLDs to thwart cybersquatters will just not suffice. As someone rightly pointed out, it's a mess ICANN will have to live with and not us: Now ICANN Must Live With Its Mess ( http://www.internetevolution.com/author.asp?sec...)
  • edhardy622
    British law student sues Abercrombie-Fitch for disability discrimination.
    http://www.abercrombieshop.us