Following up on TheDomains covering the AP story run in USA Today and numerous other publications – “Internet braces for ‘.Vegas’ and other not-coms” – here are a couple other mainstream articles I haven’t seen highlighted by domainer blogs, with brief excerpts and links to the full article:

Washington Post – Internet braces for new Web site addresses beyond .com

“The new system could bring innovative branding opportunities and allow all sorts of niche communities to thrive online. But businesses worry that they will have to spend a lot to grab their brand names before others do. New suffixes could also create confusion among consumers.”

NPR – Beyond ‘.com,’ Names For Antarctica, Urdu And More

“An expansion plan before ICANN on Monday would streamline procedures for creating names and allow for an endless number.

Just as names get added, names can disappear. Yugoslavia’s “.yu” is gone, as is East Germany’s “.dd.” There’s no longer an “.um” for the U.S. “minor outlying islands,” which include the Midway Islands. Websites there can use “.us.” Following East Timor’s independence, “.tl” transitioning from “.tp.”"

Reuters – “.brands” approach with Internet name shake-up

“Brand owners will soon be able to operate their own parts of the Web — such as .apple, .coke or .marlboro — if the biggest shake-up yet in how Internet domains are awarded is approved.”

“The move is seen as a big opportunity for brands to gain more control over their online presence and send visitors more directly to parts of their sites — and a danger for those who fail to take advantage.”

Forbes – Should ICANN Be Adding More Generic Top-Level Domains?

An editorial by Alan C. Drewsen, Executive Director of the International Trademark Association.

“The introduction of new top-level domains could offer potential new business and online opportunities to organizations, in that brand owners will be able to apply for .brand name, which could enhance their control over their online presence.

Yet despite ICANN’s elaborate plans, evidence of demand for new gTLDs is scant and consumer reactions to gTLDs that have been introduced over the past ten years have been weak, with low levels of user adoption. More importantly, companies now must be prepared for the significant costs that this program will bring to their business.”


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.