I think Harry has it all wrong! New TLDS are sorely needed
and the public is demanding them NOW ! Here are some problems with his reasoning:
are many good two word domains still unregistered under
>the .com extension and
numerous ones under the .net extension.
>Most of the good two word .com names
registered have not even
>been developed into sites! This is also the case for
>number of one word .com domains. There are several "add ons" to
>name that aren't quite the same as adding an extra word. Examples
are in common usage for .com include: e, e-, i, i-, online,
>web, cyber, my,
etc.. Therefore, the net effect is to end up with
>up to ten times as many domains
possible and these "add ons"
>fuction to a large extent as a substitute for new
top level TLD's.
This sample that Harry left is a PERFECT argument for why more
TLDS are needed! I don't want a "DLD" (Dash Level Domain). There are too many "my-company-name.com"
domains as it is! The dash is not the way to solve this problem. And the use of the
letter "e" or "i" ?!?!? GET REAL! I wonder if Harry works in the marketing department?
Most marketing people think the letter "e" and "i" is great! This is SO passe that
they have started web sites ranting against the letter "e" in front of something
to look cool and hip on the Internet. If you want a buch of people to laugh at your
and never visit your site - just add the letter "e" in front of it! (see link below)
as far as "Good names" left in .com? Yeah if you want to pay USD $3,000,000 for one
like 'loans.com' otherwise you get "quokka.com" or "bid4less.com", or use up to the
full 67 characters and come up with something like "Ihaveasiteonthewebthatyoushouldvisit.com"
-- RIDICULOUS! There are not any good, short, easy-to-remember names left that
can be purchased for under $100. If you don't believe me: try finding one! I dare
you to! (it has to be a real word!)
>These "add ons" apply to .net to a much lesser
>therefore less names are registered with .net and even less would
>be for any other TLD added. The other point I wanted to make was
of the domains that have been registered under the .com
>and .net extensions
are presently not developed as active web
>sites and have mostly been registered
for speculative investment.
>These inactive domains are available for sale and
>be of sufficient supply for new internet companies for several
I don't buy
the line that we should "purchase all three to keep your competitors from getting
them". That is the problem with ".net" and ".org" now. Since there was no enforcement,
or restriction - the domain is completely meaningless. You can find "porn.net" or
how about "sluts.org" ??? The problem is that ".net" should never been a substitute
for ".com" and ONLY commercial entities should have been allowed to register in ".com"!
If we would have introduced hundreds of new TLDs years ago - this problem would not
exist today. The NSI monopoly has you completely brainwashed into believing that
there are plenty of good names out there and that when you find one - you should
also snatch up the ".net" and ".org" version too so that no one else can get it.
But what benefit is that to anyone? (except for NSI??)
What is wrong with adding
NEW domains? The reason that speculators are snatching up domains is that there is
an "artificial scarcity" that has been created by com/net/org being the only ones.
The prices are a perfect example of a free-market economy in a capitalistic society.
If the demand is extremely high - the prices go up! Now, if you suddely opened the
floodgates and introduced 500 new names why would I want to spend $3,000,000 on "loans.com"
when I could buy "home.loans" or "loans.bank" or "personal.loans" or "loans.now"
or... (etc) With new competition there would not be as much speculation going on
- and the prices would come back down to earth where they belong.
So I disagree
with you Harry - new TLDS are needed NOW !!!