Comments on: ICANN threatens to change the rules of the domain name game

By: edhardy622

edhardy622 — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 10:04:36 +0000

British law student sues Abercrombie-Fitch for disability discrimination.
http://www.abercrombieshop.us

By: business partners game

business partners game — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 06:21:01 +0000

[...] and Numbers ICANN hopes to change that with a decision to open new TLDs for registration, accordinghttp://venturebeat.com/2008/06/26/icann-threatens-to-change-the-rules-of-the-domain-name-game/Toys &amp Games : business partner Information ZoomInfoAbout ZoomInfo: Founded in 1999, ZoomInfo is [...]

By: zechs.com versus .3icks - Neue TLDs der ICANN « Kassenzone - Commerce, Mobile, Technologie

Tue, 15 Jul 2008 20:10:16 +0000

[...] zu kurz! Bei Slashdot ist die Stimmung auf die ICANN zumindest in den Kommentaren sehr bescheiden. Venturebeat steht der Sache etwas offener gegenüber (”Das Internet ist so schnell – wen kümmert morgen [...]

By: Abdul

Abdul — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 19:13:08 +0000

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...)

By: .yournamehere: Changing the Face of the Internet

.yournamehere: Changing the Face of the Internet — Sun, 29 Jun 2008 18:03:24 +0000

[...] have failed to catch on in mainstream usage, leaving .com to continue to dominate domain demands. VentureBeat reports that these changes may threaten the domain speculators the most if ICANN is sucessful in [...]

By: dgulbran

dgulbran — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 18:14:30 +0000

15 years from now, I better not be *typing* anything…

By: Jojo

Jojo — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 13:08:34 +0000

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".

By: ICANN Proposes Sweeping Changes to TLDs | Techno Portal

ICANN Proposes Sweeping Changes to TLDs | Techno Portal — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 06:17:47 +0000

[...] prices for .com domains. This is surely going to upset a lot of speculators, as Chris Morrison also points out on VentureBeat. Right now, speculators can hoard interesting domain names and auction them off for millions of [...]

By: Sam I Am

Sam I Am — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 06:12:55 +0000

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

By: Steve Baba

Steve Baba — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 04:10:28 +0000

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

By: Steve Baba

Steve Baba — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 03:21:02 +0000

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.

By: Chris Morrison

Chris Morrison — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 21:21:34 +0000

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.

By: Steve Baba

Steve Baba — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 20:59:05 +0000

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

By: Richard Ward

Richard Ward — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 20:57:18 +0000

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.

By: New Top Level Domains - ICANN | Live Crunch

New Top Level Domains - ICANN | Live Crunch — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 20:32:22 +0000

[...] ICANN threatens to change the rules of the domain name game [via Zemanta] [...]