dhara, domaining is like any other business or investment, it changes constantly depending on social, economic, and legislative changes. With regard to ICANN authorising the new extensions (which is what I am assuming you are referring to) this will have little to no impact in the short term (i.e 0-2 years), in the medium term (2-5 years) it may affect certain markets within the domaining sphere somewhat, but these are likely to be high-end domains and high-value advertising niches (insurance, banking, real estate, etc.), rather than low-middle ranking domains. As for the long term (5+ years) I would not like to give an opinion based on anything but a gut reaction, and even a gut reaction tells me that again it will not significantly alter the market.
The reason that I see high-end domains and high-earning niches being affected more than low-middle ranking names is that these domains by there very nature are valued in the $xxx,xxx - $xx,xxx,xxx range, this therefore means that to start up a 'private' suffix becomes 'more' viable with regard to cost than it obviously does with lower-middle ranking domains.
A lot is being said about new geo-suffixes, here I see a few may be proposed and supported by individuals or groups of 'angel investors', but I do not see a threat to geo-gTLDs at all, the history of .la supports this. The suffix .la although being the national suffix for Laos was acquired and marketed fairly widely to the circa 9-10million people of Los Angeles as 'their' suffix, it has failed miserably to be taken as such. (This failure to get .la accepted may 'though' be due to very poor marketing, but that does not change the outcome.)
All in all I see no problems caused by the new gTLDs to the majority of the domaining market. Yes it is a change in the environment but not a massive change that will result in the culling of areas of the market.
Just my 2 cents.