Get Ready for Limitless Domain Names
Tech : JR
Posted: June 26, 2008

The Internet’s regulating organization has just approved a proposal to create an unlimited number of customized top-level domains. That means URLs will no longer be restricted to .com, .net, or .us-style suffixes; instead, anyone can apply to have any letter combination become a reality.

Snagging a new name won’t be a simple procedure, however: ICANN will first require proof of a “business plan and technical capacity,” meaning you have to have thousands of dollars of server and router-type equipment to get through. A thorough review process will then make sure the suffix is not offensive and does not infringe on anyone’s intellectual property. The names are also expected to cost a minimum of $100,000 and as much as half a million, so the rush may not be as widespread as some have feared.

The change will go into effect next year, with registration opening in April and the first new names going live toward the end of the year. Once approved, nearly anything could be possible — .microsoft, .mcdonalds, .tech — you name it.

The ruling comes right as current domain registration is hitting a new landmark. Go Daddy has just reached an Internet growth record, becoming the first registrar with 30 million domain names under its belt.

The registration of RulesOfSaving.com pushed the company over the line today. It’s a milestone in a strong year for domain registrations: Go Daddy alone says it’s now registering, renewing, or transferring about one domain name per second, with a whopping 72 percent predicted increase in sales this year compared to last. The trend, its execs say, represents positive news for the entire web-based business industry.

“These numbers really demonstrate how the Internet is alive and well, even in these rough financial times,” Bob Parsons, Go Daddy CEO and founder, commented.

One can only assume the introduction of custom top-level domains will lead to even more growth in 2009 — even if the added activity is limited to big business.

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to our RSS feed or follow us on Twitter. Thanks for visiting!

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • E-mail this story to a friend!
  • Fark
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • TwitThis
  • Kwoff


Tags

Related Post

  • No Related Post


Viewing 3 Comments

Trackbacks

close Reblog this comment
Powered by Disqus · Learn more
blog comments powered by Disqus
View this post on FriendFeed
  • June 26, 2008 at 11:56 am AJ Batac
    this just opened up doors to domain squatters. where's the policy for control? who will now control getting domains like {your_brand_here}.suck?
  • June 26, 2008 at 11:57 am Czar Derek Peterman
    "Once approved, nearly anything could be possible — .microsoft, .mcdonalds, .tech — you name it. "
  • June 26, 2008 at 12:02 pm Mark Trapp
    AJ, ICANN is just licensing TLDs to companies with proven business plans and technical ability. All the ICANN rules, like trademark disputes, still apply. If someone registered techcrunch.suck, TechCrunch still has the right to arbitration according to ICANN's trademark dispute policy.
  • June 26, 2008 at 12:10 pm AJ Batac
    @Mark - thanks for the insight. It does take years for disputes as far as my experience goes. What's wrong with the existing TLDs? Why do we have to open more them? As a startup, this will be additional costs if you really want to secure that business name.
  • June 26, 2008 at 12:12 pm Jamie
    it makes sense. x.Apple is more useful than Apple.x/x
  • June 26, 2008 at 12:15 pm Cl Attr
    This is a totally crazy idea. DNS is a hierarchical database. If anybody can throw some random stuff into that system it'll be messed up. Slow connections, sometimes no connections at all.
  • June 26, 2008 at 12:20 pm Jamie
    @ Cl Attr... "anybody" can't...
  • June 26, 2008 at 12:37 pm Mark Trapp
    The way DNS is structured, there really is no good reason, other than control, to limit TLDs. The system is designed to handle unknown TLDs with ease: just ask the root servers about anything you don't know yet. As long as a TLD owner has to register with ICANN, who runs the root servers (or at least provides the information to the root servers), there shouldn't be any issue with having a whole bunch of new TLDs, at least on an architectural level.
  • June 26, 2008 at 12:39 pm ron k jeffries
    I feel old because I am baffled why this is a good idea. total domain chaos ahead. .com will remain the gold standard. wait, "gold standard" is so NOT 21st century.
  • June 26, 2008 at 12:41 pm Mark Trapp
    Oh, from an end user's perspective, this is going to be a non issue. How many people even know .biz or .name or .aero or .travel are even valid TLDs? There's no equity in any TLD beyond the original ones like .com, .org, or .gov, and adding more of them isn't going to change that. Most people think "Hey it's a link. What do you mean, I don't type .com? .com means internet!"
  • June 26, 2008 at 12:49 pm Ricardo Vidal
    Did anyone else notice they will cost a minimum of 100K a pop!?
  • June 26, 2008 at 12:51 pm Stefan Hayden
    boooo... this is way too expensive. Only the rich domain squatters will get rich now. We need to protect the poor every day domain squatter struggling to put domains on the table.
  • June 26, 2008 at 1:17 pm John Frost
    Anybody want to start a non-profit with me that will raise money to buy TLDs and then give them back to the people. That way companies that think they own common words won't have a monopoly on them ( .people for instance or .coke, .time, .web, the list goes on )
  • June 26, 2008 at 1:56 pm Tim Hoeck
    eww..people are going to have weird ass tlds. Whatever... what do i care? Oh, except it's going to make my reps job much more fun with customers asking all day 'how do I get .somecooltld?', then we have to explain it all.. lovely.
  • June 26, 2008 at 2:09 pm JR Raphael
    @AJ, Mark is absolutely right: The new custom names are actually going to be regulated FAR more strictly than current standard names are. It sounds like it'll be an enormously involved process to get one -- not to mention an investment of $100,000 to $500,000 and the ownership of expensive business equipment -- so it'll most likely be mainly giant corporations and large-scale businesses buying these up.
  • June 26, 2008 at 2:12 pm JR Raphael
    With that being said, I've gotta agree with Mark and Ron that it's still a pretty bad idea from an end-user perspective. We haven't even reached the point where the general public understands that everything isn't .com. Some of the non-tech folks are just starting to grasp the idea of .net, .org, and a few other common suffixes -- but even those can be pushing it for the computer ignorant crowds. Throwing in an endless amount of random variations will only confuse the hell out of everyone and further muddle the playing field. Imagine trying to figure out the difference between apple.com, buy.apple, apple.buy, apple.tech, and apple.store. Now imagine your mother trying to figure out that difference. It's going to be a mess.
  • June 26, 2008 at 3:27 pm Mitchell Tsai
    I love how you can date a movie shot if you see a ".com" or ".org" somewhere. Wondering what the next big change will be. Probably when semantic stuff works (some time in 2186) we will just connect in mysterious ways (ala read our mind to figure out which "John Jackson" we were trying to calll...
  • June 26, 2008 at 5:45 pm AJ Batac
    @JR Raphael, didn't say he wasn't. ;-)
  • June 26, 2008 at 6:48 pm JR Raphael
    @AJ, didn't mean to imply that you did. :-) In any case, it'll certainly be interesting to see how this all pans out. I can't say I'm personally looking forward to it -- though inquisitr.inquisitr does have a nice Doublemint-esque ring to it...
  • June 26, 2008 at 6:51 pm AJ Batac
    Touché
  • June 26, 2008 at 11:40 pm Paul Montgomery
    I can't wait for .oz to become more popular than .au.

Add a comment on FriendFeed