.web will now launch soon?

[hugegrowth]

.web has a shot at becoming a solid second choice to .com, probably similar to .net in popularity. I'd join the landrush trying to get a few generics. but it wouldn't replace .com

 

[acesfull]

Truth is there will not be any close second to .com, unless they scrap the current domain system and replace it with something totally new, which likely won't be close to happening any time in the next 10 years. Considering the possibility of a new Internet system (the grid?), whenever that may be, its most likely the hardware and software would be replaced, maintaining the current domain system.

There is not a shortage of good .coms, only a shortage of people who are not willing to pay end-user prices. There is no need to add new TLDs, or introduce "unlimited" TLDs, however the more they add, the more confusion they create, making .com even more valuable.

Also, consider, if and when new TLDs are introduced, pricing may be determined by the operator of that TLD, making top-tier generics in those new or custom TLDs very expensive and not a good domainer investment... remember .TV pricing?

 

[whirl]

.web is not as good as .com

 

[Meridian66]

I wonder if someone could register www.web? Then you'd have http://www.www.web, the World Wide Web Web.

I wonder if someone could register www.web? Then you'd have http://www.www.web, the World Wide Web Web.

Or better, register wide.web, then you could have http://www.world.wide.web, the World Wide Web World Wide Web.

 

[hysteriaweb]

As with all extensions there will be a great deal of hype, good to reg domains early and than flip. After a while the hype will die down and the domains will decrease in value. (.com) is the only extension with a true investment value.

 

[Rubber Duck]

Frankly, I think most people are missing the point. The real momentum behind this was the Introduction of IDN TLDs and the general expansion of TLDs was largely a sop to xenophobes to allow this to happen. However, I believe ICANN too have largely missed the point, as it is not the TLD which the Chinese, Japanese and Russians are really having problems with. It is the second level, which has in any case been there for a while. Paste an IDN.com into a field of Chinese text and then do the same with a Chinese IDN.IDN. Not difficult to see which stands out the most. Dot com is an established global brand. It is bigger than Coca Cola every market in the World. Every keyboard has the Latin Characters to produce it.

The only really solid argument for producing IDN.IDN is the incongruity of Right to LeftLanguages with Left to Right extension like dot Com. Yes, the Arabs, Iranians, Pakistanis and Jews need it. Of course if the case had been put forward on this basis alone, it would not have happened for another 100 years as the system is still very much still US-centric even though things are slowly changing.

What ICANN should have focused on is forcing out access of browsers that won't support Unicode characters. When IE6 attempts to access the DNS it should be kicked backed. It should be kicked backed because its presence is stiffling innovation in much of Asia. It should, however, also be kicked back because it is a security nightmare that only still exists because of the monopolistic position which Microsoft has unfairly gained in the browser market, and the total distain it is has subsequently shown for its customers.

ICANN should enforce Browser Standardisation as a prequalification for access to the Internet. Software writers should be forced to meet mimimum requirements before their browsers are given access to the Internet's addressing system.

As for dot Web, probably no harm in it, provided it is not infringing the Intellectual Property rights of existing TLD owners, but not really going to rock anyone's World. What people haven't noticed is that the presumption of renewal on New TLDs also infers the same on the Existing TLDs. It would seem that never again will Verisign have to compete in a beauty contest for dot Net or be challenged over their entitlement to run the dot Com registry.

 

[acronym007]

Frankly, I think most people are missing the point. The real momentum behind this was the Introduction of IDN TLDs and the general expansion of TLDs was largely a sop to xenophobes to allow this to happen. However, I believe ICANN too have largely missed the point, as it is not the TLD which the Chinese, Japanese and Russians are really having problems with. It is the second level, which has in any case been there for a while. Paste an IDN.com into a field of Chinese text and then do the same with a Chinese IDN.IDN. Not difficult to see which stands out the most. Dot com is an established global brand. It is bigger than Coca Cola every market in the World. Every keyboard has the Latin Characters to produce it.

The only really solid argument for producing IDN.IDN is the incongruity of Right to LeftLanguages with Left to Right extension like dot Com. Yes, the Arabs, Iranians, Pakistanis and Jews need it. Of course if the case had been put forward on this basis alone, it would not have happened for another 100 years as the system is still very much still US-centric even though things are slowly changing.

What ICANN should have focused on is forcing out access of browsers that won't support Unicode characters. When IE6 attempts to access the DNS it should be kicked backed. It should be kicked backed because its presence is stiffling innovation in much of Asia. It should, however, also be kicked back because it is a security nightmare that only still exists because of the monopolistic position which Microsoft has unfairly gained in the browser market, and the total distain it is has subsequently shown for its customers.

ICANN should enforce Browser Standardisation as a prequalification for access to the Internet. Software writers should be forced to meet mimimum requirements before their browsers are given access to the Internet's addressing system.

As for dot Web, probably no harm in it, provided it is not infringing the Intellectual Property rights of existing TLD owners, but not really going to rock anyone's World. What people haven't noticed is that the presumption of renewal on New TLDs also infers the same on the Existing TLDs. It would seem that never again will Verisign have to compete in a beauty contest for dot Net or be challenged over their entitlement to run the dot Com registry.

Dear Mr. Rubber Duck,
While I value your contributions to this forum, personally I feel you are borderline on having a breakdown. You cannot inject IDN into every conversation, this topic, as with many others has nothing to do with IDN. I have IDN's, I like IDN's but your position as the mouthpiece for all IDN issues is not healthy when you do this. It's healthy when you are on topic, in the right place, at the right time but not in every thread regardless of the topic. It simply does not fit here. I hope your listening and don't take this the wrong way or offensively. I hope you hear what I am saying.

 

[Ehsan]

lol for gods sake Rubber Duck forget IDN's at least in one thread , you start LIKE :thank you but i think IDN IDN IDN IDN IDN IDN

 

[broe-foe]

They are long gone and so is our money.

Hi Brian,

Our money may be long gone, but the contract between IOD and its customers remains. If IOD, Chris Ambler, or John Frangie are tied to any entity winning .web, then I'd opine that IODs "registrants" from 2000 and prior would finally be able to get some consideration from or for their .web "registrations."

You're welcome to PM me or send email, check your email Inbox from two years ago to find our last correspondence . Chris probably lurks in these forums, so I'd imagine he would come out of the woodwork soon, on this issue, although I've sent him a couple of emails recently that he hasn't responded to.

 

[Rubber Duck]

Dear Mr. Rubber Duck,
While I value your contributions to this forum, personally I feel you are borderline on having a breakdown. You cannot inject IDN into every conversation, this topic, as with many others has nothing to do with IDN. I have IDN's, I like IDN's but your position as the mouthpiece for all IDN issues is not healthy when you do this. It's healthy when you are on topic, in the right place, at the right time but not in every thread regardless of the topic. It simply does not fit here. I hope your listening and don't take this the wrong way or offensively. I hope you hear what I am saying.

If you had actually read the policy adopted by the ICANN Board, that enables the introduction of New gTLDs, or even the statements from Dr Twomney which are very much watered down for an English Speaking audience, you would know this has everything to do with IDN.

lol for gods sake Rubber Duck forget IDN's at least in one thread , you start LIKE :thank you but i think IDN IDN IDN IDN IDN IDN

Yep, that is just about what it says in the policy statement adopted by the ICANN board if you actually care to read it!

 

[acronym007]

If you had actually read the policy adopted by the ICANN Board, that enables the introduction of New gTLDs, or even the statements from Dr Twomney which are very much watered down for an English Speaking audience, you would know this has everything to do with IDN.



Yep, that is just about what it says in the policy statement adopted by the ICANN board if you actually care to read it!

I read it..... This thread is about .web, not ICANN and not IDN. We're not talking about ICANN's policies in this thread. Read the title of the thread again. I'm trying to help you but you're too defensive.

 

[TechQueen]

.WEB will be a huge contender for .NET but never for .COM which will retain its throne.

 

[Rubber Duck]

This thread is about the implementation of a New gTLD under the ICANN's recently adopted New gTLD Policy. How can you possibly have a sensible discussion about whether or when dot Web will be available without full reference to that policy document. Nobody who thinks of themselves as a potentially successful domainer should be making any new domain investments without being reasonably conversant with the document and its sister document for the Fast Track Introduction of IDN ccTLDs. If domainers do not follow the policies of the governing bodies their are going to be a lot more instances of domain purchases that make no sense, and burn huge holes in your pockets. You are not going to learn this stuff at TRAFFICS. Unless you get a grip on what is actually going down your investments are going to be as worthless as Flowers.mobi. You are also not going to learn this from the popular press who are confused about the distinction between domain names and IP addresses. For those who need some help the links are here:

http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htm
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-partb-01aug07.htm
http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/idnc-wg-board-proposal-25jun08.pdf

The answer on when is provided here:

http://icann.org/topics/new-gtld-anticipated-timeline-jun08.pdf

But expect the IDN ccTLDs to come first because in many instances the landrush has already happened as they have been paired with the existing ccTLDs. This is true of dot CN dot TW and dot HK. It is also highly like to be the case for dot KR and Dot JP, and probably for dot IN as well. So the when is basically quite a bit after IDN.IDN ccTLDs.

As for pushing IDN, when was the last time any of you actually saw me advertising an IDN for sale on a forum for which I did not control the Domain Name. If you are accusing me of spamming rather than promoting debate, then lets see the evidence! Let's have a real debate about who is pushing agendas here.

Frankly, my main concern is the fact that the Industry is being dragged into disrepute by a whole raft of pump and dump campaigns on worthless TLDS. This is only likely to increase as the numbers of new TLDs being brought online increases exponentially. Experienced domainers and those with a legitimate vested interest in this industry should be doing far more to ensure that information being received by new entrants is generally sound and not a lot of hype from a bunch of snake oil salemen.