Comments on: FTC chief says most new gTLD bids are “defensive”

By: McGaz

McGaz — Wed, 16 Jan 2013 22:00:25 +0000

Saying the “most” of the applications are defensive is a very pessimistic way of looking at it. I don’t think that is the case at all.

For brands, I think it will create a great marketing advantage and also make things easier for consumers. Some of the lock-down attempted on gTLDs by the likes of Amazon are a bit dodgy and it will be interesting on what outcome those applications receive.

As for confusion, search engines and browsers are already directing people to sites much easier with things such as integrated URL/Search bars and auto-complete options. It becomes rarer and rarer to actually type in a domain name.

We’ll find that most people use the search engines to find sites and any confusion will last a relatively short period of time.

I don’t see fraud increasing either. Most fraud uses fake links which have similar domains, but not the real domain. There will be no difference between using a new gTLD which is fake in comparison to a .com or .ru, etc fake address.

I think the argument, from the article at least, is weak.

By: Tom Brackey

Tom Brackey — Sat, 05 Jan 2013 17:20:27 +0000

+1 Cash on the barrel head is usually a pretty good indicator of corporate sentiment.

By: Peter LaMantia

Peter LaMantia — Fri, 04 Jan 2013 15:52:33 +0000

It is evident that brands are, for now playing defense, defined as; ‘apply now – think later’, due to uncertainty on new gTLD program implications.
Their councils have recommended applications be completed and so they did. It seems only a handful of the business, product and marketing folks have applied their mental cycles due to extended and uncertain timelines. These leaders are thinking quarterly results, so any planning and action on gTLDs rightly drops down the priority queue until the timelines firm up.

All said, some brand thinkers will start digging in now. A few, who lead by their own wits vs self-serving agency pitches will see it as an innovation opportunity to differentiate and execute something really neat to advance the brand.

Most will soon recognize that playing defense against phishing and fraud with 1000+ new TLDs, can only be solved through a .brand registry play. “If it isn’t .brand, beware.” The alternative to protect by registering 1000s or tens of thousands of brand related second level domains is pure folly.

It’s going to be a dynamic new sandbox with untold turns and discoveries.

By: Jon Nevett

Jon Nevett — Fri, 04 Jan 2013 15:01:40 +0000

Kevin, Do you think that the argument that most brand applicants applied defensively — to ensure that another applicant wouldn’t get their TLD, but they really don’t want to use their TLD — discredited by the fact that most of them recently voluntarily paid ICANN more to participate in the Draw to have their names available first?

By: gpmgroup

gpmgroup — Fri, 04 Jan 2013 11:44:55 +0000

And, if you had hungered for that illusive ‘innovation’ and had applied for .domainincite you would have to type much faster to feed not only yourself but also your new $25,000 a year partners

By: Kevin Murphy

Kevin Murphy — Fri, 04 Jan 2013 07:17:12 +0000

You know, the only reason I write this blog is to defend against hunger…

By: gpmgroup

gpmgroup — Fri, 04 Jan 2013 00:50:23 +0000

Brand or Generic it’s defensive, if it is just to prevent others from using it to compete.

It’s also defensive if it’s just to see if there is any chance of other new gTLDs gaining any traction.

It is also defensive in the event that some gTLDs do gain some traction with consumers in years to come but offer no tangible additional benefits and are simply, used to duplicate / recreate existing services and marketing in a much more expensive marketplace.

(i.e. $185,000 + $25,000 per year compared with $10 per year for a .com)

By: Kevin Murphy

Kevin Murphy — Thu, 03 Jan 2013 22:27:09 +0000

By the dictionary definition of “defensive”, maybe. Not in the sense it’s usually used in the domain business though.

By: andrew

andrew — Thu, 03 Jan 2013 21:18:01 +0000

I’d argue many generic applications from brands are defensive, e.g..baby