Enjoy unlimited access to all forum features for FREE! Optional upgrade available for extra perks.
Daily Diamond

Domaining, A Risky Business

Status
Not open for further replies.

carlton

Internet Real Estate
Legacy Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2004
Messages
931
Reaction score
0
DeluxeNames.com said:
... In real estate, if the market crashes, at the end of the day you still own land or a building or both. That's something you can touch, see, and live in that will still have some value.
Domains are not quite as tangible as earth beneath your feet, but they exist within the massive, and real (tangible), business infrastructure of the internet. Good domain names are accelerators of business opportunity because they are an integral component of what makes business work (and work efficiently).

Navigation of the internet is overwhelming dependent on language and the most simplistic, clear means of communicating a need or idea. People type in "dogs" when searching for dogs (be it Google or direct nav). It's the most simple, clear and unambiguous option available ... and thus a good domain exists on a much higher plane of value than any derivative.

DeluxeNames.com said:
If the domain system as we know it is replaced, at the end of the day you own nothing at all.
Now you're worrying for nothing. :clap2:
 
Domain Days 2024

Duckinla

DNF Addict
Legacy Exclusive Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2006
Messages
1,911
Reaction score
0
Condominiums/apartments might be a better analogy for domains than land. There is no land to own, only the building. They are there for the foreseeable future but no one expects a condominium to be there forever. There are many different developments to choose from (.com, .eu, .us, etc) and the best units in the most popular developments will demand the highest prices.
 

WhoDatDog

Level 8
Legacy Gold Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2005
Messages
2,156
Reaction score
85
It's about the least risky business I have ever seen. If you have been in the domain business for any period of time and you can't make a living then you probably need to stop buying names. I am trying to figure out how someone could not be successful in this buisiness, but I guess if you don't know the difference between poker and pokers, or real estate and real estates, then you should probably find another career/hobby. Most people keep their good names and try to sell their mistakes...if you can make money on your mistakes then you are pretty good. If no one is contacting you about your best names and offering to buy them, then it is safe to assume that those names aren't as good as you thought.

Don't try to re-invent the wheel. Study the high-end sales and find a way to get a portfolio-defining name. Instead of buying 1,000 crap names you can buy a few very good names...names that could sell for anything.

End-users never ask for traffic stats, so stop trying to buy good traffic names for fifty bucks. If the traffic was that great you would be paying fifty thousand. A name that gets a legitimate 10 type-ins per day is a very good name...all of the other traffic could be gone tomorrow... type-ins will always be there.

If you think that the best dotcoms are too pricey, then you just need to figure out how to raise some more money. The best dotcoms are the beautiful women of the world, and everybody wants them, but not everybody can play in the big-leagues. The minor-leagues are all the other extensions....these are the fat-girls of the world....nice face, nice personality, but not quite ready for prime-time, and they all pale in comparison to the dotcoms. If you haven't made money in dotcoms then how are you going to make money in other extensions? It's good to dream, I guess. And if you are making money in dotcoms then why would you want to invest in other areas unless you had an advantage there?

Keep it simple, but think outside of the box just enough to stay ahead of the game. Sell your worst names and keep your best names. Your worst names could be someone else's best names for a period of time...until someone else inherits them as they work their way up the ladder.
 

Dale Hubbard

Formerly 'aZooZa'
Legacy Exclusive Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2003
Messages
5,578
Reaction score
91
The internet is consumer-driven. The consumer is reliant on his/her ISP provider for DNS that can resolve these 'new' Dotworlds domains, or as it is now, the consumer can download a small client that will resolve them. If the world's ISPs decide to include Dotworlds' zone files in their DNS, then the whole system would work 'out of the box'. As indicated above, if the likes of AOL take it on, then it would most likely snowball. Initiatives like new.net, unifiedroot and Dotworlds have a very good chance of success. Note that Tiscali now offer unifiedroot resolution.

This is a space to watch very carefully IMHO.
 

Beachie

Mr Flippy Returns..
Legacy Exclusive Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2002
Messages
2,003
Reaction score
8
March2005 said:
Being “fat” is not necessarily a bad thing; anyway what about this:

http://www.internet2.edu/about/

since we are talking about possible futures.
As far as I'm aware, Internet2 is simply improving protocols (which includes the development of IPv6) and bandwidth technology and utilization. Although the name is misleading, they are a group, not a network. I recall reading an Internet2 release which commented on the media mis-representing Internet2 as "another Internet". From the Internet2 FAQ:

Internet2 is not a separate physical network and will not replace the Internet. Internet2 brings together institutions and resources from academia, industry and government to develop new technologies and capabilities that can then be deployed in the global Internet. Close collaboration with Internet2 corporate members will ensure that new applications and technologies are rapidly deployed throughout the Internet. Just as email and the World Wide Web are legacies of earlier investments in academic and federal research networks, the legacy of Internet2 will be to expand the possibilities of the broader Internet.

They also run DNS just the same..
 

nrmillions

DNF Regular
Legacy Exclusive Member
Joined
Apr 6, 2006
Messages
1,026
Reaction score
1
It is practically a guarantee that domain names as we know them now will eventually be replaced by something else. This could be 10 years from now, 50 years from now, or 300 years from now. Technology is always changing. Eventually the whole concept of a computer could be replaced by some technology that we cant even imagine would be possible yet. It is risky to buy domains but all investments are a risk. If I had the money I wouldnt exactly go out and buy a 1 million dollar name with the hopes of hanging onto it for 20 years to sell it for 10 million. I will still continue to buy names. I think buying names for reasonable prices with the plan to sell them in less than 10 years would be a safe bet for the moment.
 

DeluxeNames.com

Level 4
Legacy Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2003
Messages
198
Reaction score
0
This Wall Street Journal Article is very relevant to this topic. It is found here (only if you have a subscription: http://users2.wsj.com/lmda/do/check...B113763907007950547.html?mod=home_page_one_us
But if you don't have a WSJ subscription, found here:

"More than a decade after the Internet became available for commercial use, other countries and organizations are erecting rivals to it -- raising fears that global interconnectivity will be diminished.

German computer engineers are building an alternative to the Internet to make a political statement. A Dutch company has built one to make money. China has created three suffixes in Chinese characters substituting for .com and the like, resulting in Web sites and email addresses inaccessible to users outside of China. The 22-nation Arab League has begun a similar system using Arabic suffixes.


"The Internet is no longer the kind of thing where only six guys in the world can build it," says Paul Vixie, 42 years old, a key architect of the U.S.-supported Internet. "Now, you can write a couple of checks and get one of your own." To bring attention to the deepening fault lines, Mr. Vixie recently joined the German group's effort.

Alternatives to the Internet have been around since its beginning but none gained much traction. Developing nations such as China didn't have the infrastructure or know-how to build their own networks and users generally didn't see any benefit from leaving the network that everyone else was on.

Now that is changing. As people come online in developing nations that don't use Roman letters -- especially China with its 1.3 billion people -- alternatives can build critical mass. Unease with the U.S. government's influence over a global resource, and in some cases antipathy toward the Bush administration, also lie behind the trend.

"You've had some breakaway factions over the years, but they've had no relevance," says Rodney Joffe, the chairman of UltraDNS, a Brisbane, Calif., company that provides Internet equipment and services for companies. "But what's happened over the past year or so is the beginning of the balkanization of the Internet."

The Internet, developed by U.S. government agencies beginning in the 1960s, uses a so-called domain-name system, also called the "root," that consists of 264 suffixes. These include .com, .net, .org and country codes such as .jp for Japan. The root is coordinated by a private, nonprofit group in Marina del Rey, Calif., called the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers or Icann. This body works under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Commerce, which set up the organization in 1998.

CAST YOUR VOTE


1
Question of the Day:2 Does the U.S. government have too much control over the way the Internet is run?Having a single root is central to the universality of the Internet and critical to its power and appeal. Key servers that are part of the root system determine whether the suffix of an Internet domain name is on the official list. If so, the message is directed within milliseconds to the administrator of each suffix for further routing. In the case of .com, that administrator is Verisign Inc.

A single root helps ensure that when people type in a Web address such as www.amazon.com, they all end up at the site of the Internet retailer no matter where in the world they are or which Internet service provider they use. All addresses must use one of the 264 domain names. Any changes must be approved by Icann and ultimately by the Commerce Department. Alternative roots form the basis for rivals to the Internet.

As the Internet's role grows around the world, some are uneasy with the notion that a U.S.-based body overseen by the U.S. government has sole power over what domain names are used and who controls each name. Other countries such as China also say Icann is too slow in forming domain names in non-Roman languages, hindering the development of an Internet culture in those countries.

Concern about U.S. oversight increased last summer when the Commerce Department persuaded Icann to postpone the approval of a new domain-name suffix to be used for pornographic Web sites, .xxx. The department said it had received letters of complaint from Christian groups. While other countries also opposed the name, critics cited the incident as evidence of Washington's influence.

The matter of control came to a head last November at a United Nations summit in Tunis, where the U.S. delegation fought off demands from more than 170 countries to give up unilateral oversight of Icann.

More than half of the Internet's users today are outside the U.S. Governments increasingly are interested in how the Internet works. Brazil, for instance, collects much of its tax revenue online. "The Internet has become a critical part of our lives," says Abdullah Al-Darrab, Saudi Arabia's deputy governor for technical affairs. "These policies should not be left to a single country or entity."

U.S. officials counter that the Internet is too valuable to tinker with or place under an international body like the U.N. "What's at risk is the bureaucratization of the Internet and innovation," says Michael Gallagher, the Department of Commerce official who administers the government's tie to Icann. Mr. Gallagher and other backers of Icann also say that the countries loudest in demanding more international input -- China, Libya, Syria, Cuba -- have nondemocratic governments. Allowing these nations to have influence over how the Internet works could hinder freedom of speech, they say.


Others argue that a fragmented Internet is a natural result of its global growth and shouldn't be terribly harmful. Governments already control what their citizens see on the Internet by blocking some sites, making surfing a less-than-universal experience, notes Paul Mockapetris, who invented the Internet's domain-name system in the early 1980s.

Icann's master database of domain names is preserved in 13 "mirrors" -- servers that automatically copy any changes made to the original database. The duplication makes the system robust in cases of attack or failure. Ten of the 13 mirrors are in the U.S.; the others are in Amsterdam, Stockholm and Tokyo.

Operating the 'F Root'

A nonprofit organization headed by Mr. Vixie operates one mirror called the "F root." Working without pay or contract from Icann, he runs his mirror from the basement of an old telegraph office in a brown stucco building with a red, Spanish-tiled roof in Palo Alto, Calif.

Located between a Walgreen's drugstore and an art gallery, the F root building looks unimpressive, but it plays a critical role in the flow of Internet traffic. Powerful servers inside a locked, metal cage translate Internet domain names into a series of numbers, called Internet protocol addresses, helping users find Web sites and send and receive email. Mr. Vixie's center handles about 4,000 queries a second from several continents.

Mr. Vixie, a high-school dropout, was a precocious programmer, helping while still in his mid-20s write the domain-name software now used on most servers. He now runs a company that services the software. He helped build the F root in 1994 when he was 30 and helped foil an attack by hackers in 2002 that hampered all the mirrors except his and one other. Later he came up with a way to bolster the system by replicating the function of the 13 mirrors at other servers.

Now Mr. Vixie is turning his attention to what he feels is an even greater threat to how the Internet works: fragmentation.

Last June, Mr. Vixie emailed Markus Grundmann, a 35-year-old security technician in Hannover, Germany. Mr. Vixie was seeking information about the Open Root Server Network, or ORSN, which Mr. Grundmann founded.

Mr. Grundmann at first thought the email was fake. He was surprised that a pillar of the U.S.-led system would want anything to do with him. He explained to Mr. Vixie that he set up ORSN in February 2002 because of his distrust of the Bush administration and its foreign policy. Mr. Grundmann fears that Washington could easily "turn off" the domain name of a country it wanted to attack, crippling the Internet communications of that country's military and government.

Mr. Vixie says he has no interest in making political statements but he agreed last September to work with Mr. Grundmann by operating one of ORSN's 13 mirrors. Mr. Vixie has also placed a link to the once-obscure German group on his personal Web site.

The moves roiled the Internet community of programmers and techies of which he is a prominent member. Vinton Cerf, one of the founders of the Internet, says he asked Mr. Vixie on the phone, "What were you thinking?" Says Mr. Cerf: "I don't think it's helpful to give visibility to a group that is fragmenting the Internet."

Mr. Vixie says he sees the European effort as a check of sorts on the Icann system. The U.S.-backed group will be more likely to act in the global interest if it knows that users have an alternative, he says.

Twelve other computer scientists -- mostly in Germany, Austria and Switzerland -- have agreed to help run the new root. Close to 50 Internet service providers in a half-dozen European countries now use ORSN.


For the moment, that is merely a symbolic step. The domain names in ORSN's directory are identical to those in Icann's. Users of ORSN get routed in the same direction as they would have if they were in the Icann system and can communicate with the same Web sites. ORSN doesn't create or sell its own domain names. If it did, Mr. Vixie says he would quit immediately. But if ORSN disagrees with a move taken by Icann, it could refuse to follow suit.

"The Internet is a child of the U.S. government," says Mr. Grundmann. "But now the child has grown up and can't stay at home forever."

Choosing a Suffix

A company called UnifiedRoot, based in Amsterdam, has taken things a step further than ORSN. In late November, the company began offering customers the right to register any suffix of their choosing, such as replacing .com with the name of their company. The price is $1,000 to register and an additional $250 each year thereafter.

The company has established its own root and signed up Amsterdam's Schiphol Airport, among other companies, according to Erik Seeboldt, UnifiedRoot's managing director. These companies can use their own brand name as a domain name to create addresses such as arrivals.schiphol, he says. Users of UnifiedRoot can also access all sites using Icann-approved domain names such as .com, but Icann users couldn't go to a .schiphol address, he says.

"We want to bring freedom and innovation back to the Internet," says Mr. Seeboldt. The Internet service provider Tiscali SpA, which has five million subscribers in Europe, and some of Turkey's largest service providers use UnifiedRoot's naming system.

Some countries with non-Roman alphabets are also taking matters into their own hands. China has created three domain names in Chinese characters -- .zhongguo, .gongsi and .wangluo -- and made them available for public and commercial use inside China only.

Similarly, Arab countries have in the past 18 months experimented with country code domain names in Arabic, distinct from the Icann system, says Khaled Fattal of Surrey, England. Mr. Fattal is head of Minc.org, a nonprofit organization dedicated to making the Internet multilingual.

"There is no such thing as a global Internet today," says Mr. Fattal. "You have only an English-language Internet that is deployed internationally. How is that empowering millions of Chinese or Arab citizens?"

Icann is responding to the criticism. At its last meeting in December it took steps to enhance the role of foreign governments in its decision making and accelerated the development of non-English domain names.

Paul Twomey, the chief executive officer of Icann, says the divisions reflect cultural differences between nations that operate under a strong government hand and those, including the U.S., that put more trust in the private sector. "We are more comfortable with messy outcomes that work," says Mr. Twomey, who is Australian. "But we need to integrate other values and languages into the Internet and make sure that it still works as one Internet."

That's not enough for some. "We would like the process to speed up," says Li Guanghao, the head of international affairs for the China Internet Network Information Center, in an email interview. The center allocates Internet-protocol addresses in China in conjunction with the Icann system but is also developing the non-Icann Chinese character suffixes.

Mr. Vixie says he joined ORSN to make clear his view that such efforts will continue unless Icann becomes more inclusive. "I realize that this could help unleash the hordes of hell," he says. "But I hope it will make people wonder: 'What if there are more of these?"
 

Beachie

Mr Flippy Returns..
Legacy Exclusive Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2002
Messages
2,003
Reaction score
8
Users aren't likely to break away from the "main" Internet. What would the benefit be for them cutting themselves off from the millions of functional sites?
 

March2005

Level 5
Legacy Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2006
Messages
406
Reaction score
0
I think that people will use the main Internet for some things, and other computer networks for other things.

Maybe thinking about radio would be helpful: AM, FM, CB, XM, SIRIUS; or the difference between television, cable television, satellite television, and high definition television.

Some share the same equipment, some have the same content.
 

carlton

Internet Real Estate
Legacy Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2004
Messages
931
Reaction score
0
Beachie said:
Users aren't likely to break away from the "main" Internet. What would the benefit be for them cutting themselves off from the millions of functional sites?
Excellent point. China (and other countries) developing their own country-specific internal net will not damage the necessity of a primary, global internet. The internet is so well established at this point ... the momentum is irreversible.

An English-speaking internet would be (and is) easily self-sustaining as evidenced by its incredible growth since the net's inception. The most important development need now is the ability for a user to effectively filter out/reject content they may not want: porno, email spam, pop-up ads plus the ability to create air-tight security and the ability of law enforcement to quickly pinpoint internet hackers and other internet crimes for prosecution. Penalties for various internet crimes should be severe and well publicized.
 

MJM

DNF Member
Legacy Exclusive Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2004
Messages
198
Reaction score
0
Internet users come online because afterall this is the "information superhighway". From endless entertainment, to products at their fingertips...sort of. Webmasters? Both small and large who entertain/stimulate this little world for these users online, provide content or a product of some sort. Be it out personal interest/hobby, or for revenue.

It's a nice balance. I don't think the same storeowner who provides convenient shopping for visitors online wants to lose business. Nor does Greg the music reviewer really want to venture off to the forbidden path with his fan site - so he can completely ostracize himself/limit the same audience he has tentatively been trying to impress/amass with his site from day one (who isn't consumed with traffic stats? etc). All in all, I think we stand safe in that regard.

Although, I did like this line:

"The Internet is a child of the U.S. government," says Mr. Grundmann. "But now the child has grown up and can't stay at home forever."
 

Beachie

Mr Flippy Returns..
Legacy Exclusive Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2002
Messages
2,003
Reaction score
8
DeluxeNames.com said:
This Wall Street Journal Article is very relevant to this topic.
I want to address some of the issues with these "alternate roots" from a technical perspective, as no-one seems to have commented yet. I’ll try not to make it too dry, and I’m sure it’s worth a read if you have the time;

For those of you unaware, the process of resolving a domain name into an IP address (and thereby making it functional) involves the client PC (you sitting at home) contacting your local ISP's nameservers. Unless they have the domain record cached from a previous lookup, they will almost always forward the request to one of 13 root servers. These root servers are operated by 12 organizations (Verisign operate two), and are referred to as A-root thru to M-root. The root servers are "authoratative" for the global top level domains .COM, .NET - they will respond giving your computer the upstream DNS servers responsible for the domain you are trying to connect to (the nameservers of your host that you enter when you register a domain). This master database is sometimes referred to as the zone file. If the extension that you're attempting to lookup is not a .COM or .NET, it will forward the request to a server upstream that is authoratative for that top-level extension. For example, Afilias maintain servers for .ORG and .INFO, Neulevel maintain servers for .BIZ, and of course there are many CCTLDs..

The key concept here is that there are 13 root servers, operated by 12 distinct organizations (private, public, military and universities) and, like the roots of a tree, everything else is above them. All DNS requests ultimately come through those servers, although any of the 13 servers may randomly respond to your request – they are all mirrors of each other.

Here lies the problem with alternate roots. The WSJ article mentions ORSN, an alternate root operating from Germany, and Mr Vixie the operator of F-root, who has chosen to mirror ORSN’s root servers. Unless all 12 organizations choose to mirror ORSN’s zone file, your chances of resolving one of their extensions are 1 in 12. In real terms, if you give out your new ORSN domain name to clients, only 1 in 12 requests will actually work – the other roots will respond with “Non-existant domain”.

So, can ORSN convince all 12 organizations to mirror their zone? Considering two of the operators are ICANN and Verisign, who have a vested interest in not doing so, it’s highly unlikely. Other operators include NASA, DOD, and the US Army Research Laboratories, so draw your own conclusions. I should add that ORSN are not actually intending to add new extensions - they are merely providing an alternative non-US based root for the legacy extensions, but the points above are valid for other companies attempting their own roots.

What about other methods used by some alternate roots, like browser plug-ins? These work fine for forwarding web addresses in supported browsers, but http is only one of dozens of common protocols used on the net. For example, a browser plug-in won’t deliver email so, although you can tell your clients your fancy web address is www.chocolatechip.cookies you can’t have [email protected] as your email address unless all the mail server developers decide to adopt their alternate method of resolution. Bearing in mind there are dozens of mail server products, based in Windows, Linux and other operating systems, this is also highly unlikely to happen. All of which is irrelevant, unless you get millions of private mail server operators to upgrade their systems. In addition, phoning your hosting company and buying a hosting server (even with cpanel, ensim etc) to try to host chocolatechip.cookies just won’t work without large changes to the OS and web server software that requires that the domain you type in the browser reverse-resolves to it's IP address. Plug-in's that simply forward still require that you own a real-world domain that you can forward to.

Another major problem with privately run, deregulated roots is there is nothing to stop an unlimited number of companies doing the same thing in competition. What happens if I register chocolatechip.cookies with one root, only to find my competition beat me to chocolatechip.cookies at five other competing roots? My clients are going to have a heck of a time trying to see the content of my website, and in all likelyhood, might see my competition – it’s typo domains without the typing mistakes! One of the benefits of the current, centralized system (and I’m sure the source of Vint Cerf’s “fragmenting the Internet” comment) is that at least you know who is responsible for any given extension. Deregulate that, and all hell breaks loose.

China’s reasons for creating it’s own root is obvious: censorship. Nothing surprising there. Russia and some Arabic states are probably no real threat to the domaining industry as a whole either – they can hive off their extensions, but they aren’t likely to be widely supported outside their respective countries.

In summary, here's a real world example; you open a cafe in a building on Main Street. There's a hundred thousand pedestrians walking past every day. However, the only entrance to your cafe is through the twelfth floor window. Eleven out of twelve of your customers fall to their deaths trying to climb up. To confuse the matter, there are five other identical cafes all on the twelth floor with exactly the same name. When the occasional customer finally gets to your cafe, they find you only serve HTTP lattes, and there's no email sugar or FTP milk.
 

DeluxeNames.com

Level 4
Legacy Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2003
Messages
198
Reaction score
0
Beachie said:
I want to address some of the issues with these "alternate roots" from a technical perspective, as no-one seems to have commented yet. I’ll try not to make it too dry, and I’m sure it’s worth a read if you have the time;

Chris, thank you very much for posting this, it's domainers like you that make DNForum great. Youre knowledge of the backbone of the internet is very impressive. What you said makes perfect sense and I will sleep better tonight.
 

Beachie

Mr Flippy Returns..
Legacy Exclusive Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2002
Messages
2,003
Reaction score
8
This is interesting: Mr Vixie in a June 2005 blog entry saying, "The folks who claim to have made multiple roots work are scam artists and they’re trying to sell you the London Bridge and if you check carefully you’ll see that the tradeoffs they’re willing to make in order to get the appearance of multiple-root functionality are not going to be acceptable to anyone without their particular bridge to sell."

http://www.circleid.com/posts/putting_multiple_root_nameserver_issue_to_rest/

And a good reply from Jothan Frakes at the bottom. Bear in mind though, that although Mr Vixie is supporting ORSN, it is just an alternative legacy root - no new TLDs..

Good summary from Vixie's own website here:
http://fm.vix.com/internet/governance/orsn-participation.html
 

NameYourself

DNF Regular
Legacy Exclusive Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2004
Messages
1,074
Reaction score
67
Also as I've said in the recent DotWorlds post, this kind of thing needs to be governed by one main body (there needs to be one main, consistant set or rules, one main internet for everything to work together globally).

Also, true and as I have mentioned before is that point about multiple companies all sprouting up to offer similar dotworlds services if one of them were even to begin to catch on.. why not have 100s or even 1000s of companies offering to create your own domains needing their browser plugin. How many versions of the same name can you get? And how many more places will you have to register the exact same name with tomorrow? There is no way it can work unless 1 single system dominates as is the TLD system currently governed by ICANN. Can someone overtake the system already in place and get everyone in the world to install their specific plugin? I VERY HIGHLY doubt it, and I am speaking of this objectively.

If something like that even began to take off, I would expect governmental (ICANN) pressure and regulations to put a stop to it. I doubt any of these browser services will even come close to capture a fraction of a single percent of the internet market to begin with in the first place though. Even in the future if something like this takes off, there will need to be a global consistancy, a global governance which right now, is ICANN.
 

Beachie

Mr Flippy Returns..
Legacy Exclusive Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2002
Messages
2,003
Reaction score
8
NameYourself said:
Can someone overtake the system already in place and get everyone in the world to install their specific plugin?
Agreed. A system like UnifiedRoot could work if they had universal buy-in from ISPs, who made the necessary changes to their DNS config, however, the issue of multiple alternate roots is still there.

What if AOL decides to support SomeRootService Inc and my domain chocolatechip.cookies is registered with AnotherRootService Inc? AOL have the power to cut my AOL customers off or drive them to my competition. What are the legal implications of that?

My gut feeling is that the average user doesn't want to know about too many domain extensions. There are so many alternative GTLDs and CCTLDs out there, and none have been spectacularly successful. I thought .KIDS.US was in with a chance, considering the potential backing of thousands of schools, but it seems confined to a mere 60 or so sites. Recent additions like .PRO have been a flop. The last thing people want is to have to think about an unlimited number of extensions.

I'm starting to wonder if the traditional media is getting a little nervous about the Internet eating into their space. It's no secret that advertising dollars are moving rapidly from print media to online. There seems to have been an increasing number of high-profile negative articles aimed squarely at the Internet. Click fraud (a legitimate problem), cybersquatting (mistargetted at domainers in general - the source of their advertising competition's traffic), and now an article in the WSJ about DNS?? My feeling is they're hunting for ways to panic the advertisers.
 

plato1

Level 2
Legacy Platinum Member
Joined
May 11, 2006
Messages
25
Reaction score
0
Good bedtime reading this stuff


For example, a browser plug-in won’t deliver email so, although you can tell your clients your fancy web address is www.chocolatechip.cookies you can’t have [email protected]ies as your email address unless all the mail server developers decide to adopt their alternate method of resolution.

Just to add that you can have addresses like [email protected]ies (if you get a domain like www.chocolatechip.cookies) although there are some limitations to using this email system , it is not dependent on the browser plugin.

PS re the points about duplication...or too many choices etc etc...taking this from a real-world standpoint, what if there could only be one Main Street in the world. The fact that there are Main Streets in Every Country....every city ....evey town ....does not worry people. Are we really going to be panicked and confused.....but you said Main Street....WHICH Main Street. Now life will never be the same

This is perhaps not the best comparison and may lead to some "XXZZ???!!" responses....but you get my drift....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

The Rule #1

Do not insult any other member. Be polite and do business. Thank you!

Sedo - it.com Premiums

IT.com

Premium Members

Premium Members

MariaBuy

Our Mods' Businesses

UrlPick.com

*the exceptional businesses of our esteemed moderators

Top Bottom