Of all the useless TLDs

BUGGYWHIP.COM is not available.



PUSSYWHIPPED.COM is not available

Any of them float your boat?

Of course it's business ... When awarded, these new registries must provide registry services, https://www.icann.org/resources/page...-2014-01-29-en DNSSEC schemas, protection of the DNS, and of course marketing to registrars and the public at large -- bottom line the startup costs are $2 million +. So, there is a substantial investment here. The are also financial responsibilities considered by ICANN.

There is no evil intent in the new gTLDs. The new gTLDs are about opening up name space accross multiple TLDs. And of course, making money in the process.

Think of the scenario of these new extensions like this: Many individuals (or entities) can register the same name as a DBA in many counties of a state and incorporate the same name in different states. This is just a regulatory schema and has nothing to do with branding, and legally: everything to do with trademark. Domain names are very similar in schema, each registry acting as the local governing body, ICANN being the world Internet name governing body -- that is ICAAN's charter as a NGO is in essence. One main difference, domain name ''court'' being binding arbitration in the matters of dispute resolution, with trademark being one of three factors that the complaint must establish or overcome in order to prevail.

I am not aware of any registry going bankrupt so the name holders interests haven't been jeopardized. There have been a few registrars go belly up but their customer accounts in the end were transfered to other registrars.

So, what is the problem really?

The days of modern browsers defaulting to a .com extension, notwithstanding the user's history library containing that name, are long over ... The browser defaults to the search engine that is its default. So, that fallacy is immaterial.

I think a lot of the fuss is fear of the revaluation of all the domain names held in investment speculation -- too bad every dog has his day.

The other objection is name value dilution. The domain names making you money may be jeopardized by this -- that is a fair argument. However, if the name you used was making you enough money, you would have spent the few thousand to trademark that name that you do business under, guaranteeing your exclusivity, then it would be protected from registration by others in these new gTLDs.

If you somehow branded the .com part of you business name on the Internet: Verisign thanks you ... Verisign is who owns the .com gTLD in your name you lease -- not you!

Is the glass half full or half empty? The players are going to play and the whiners will continue to whine -- nothing new about that ...

Don't buy in then -- you can laugh at all of us in 3 years ( or lament ) ... No skin in the game no loss or gain ...

Or Trademark your name. We own our name in many of the old gTLDs and many ccTLDs -- now our trademarks prevent just what you imply -- no one can register our name in the new gTLDS.
When you rely on keyword generic names that cannot be trademarked you will always be on someone's lunch menu.

Life is a shit sandwich -- the more bread you have the less shit you have to eat I guess ... Relying on a common law trademark when any real branding (or income) is involved is lunacy.