The new TLD application process contains within it some respect for existing strings and communities with TLDs, so I don’t see 22M new plasmaTV TLDs. I also believe that the pricing in the current round of 185k+ for an application would thin that number out substantially, most likely to 0 – I have yet to be approached by someone with aspirations to apply for DotPlasma (or DotBooHooHoo for that matter).

I agree that time and use of new strings would potentially reduce typos.

I agree that the domain becomes the brand and the brand becomes the name. It is fair to say that a short, memorable name is the best situation for a branding. <word>.<service> or <service>.<word> or <service>.<brand> is much more brandable and memorable than .com. And in the case that the service in question has some standards, certifications, or qualifications, having the domain with that extension might be an element enhancing consumer trust or the basic psychology of the buyer.

The goal is quality in this process.

If it is the case that a neighborhood chooses that it has billboards and advertisements, great. If not, that’s OK too. Ultimately use and adoption of the TLDs will be driven by the attraction of the visitors to typing them or trusting them when seen in search engine results. Like EDU or GOV sites ranking better, the hope would be that attraction to use and have links to these new TLDs would result in similar results. The point is that neighborhoods would police their own and enforce their own standards so that the user experience is a quality one and so that new TLDs will prove value.

All I can say is,

Well – ain’t that a friggin shame.

To use examples and emphasis the need for new TLD’s because something is already registered is shallow and hollow.

Google returns 21,900,000 sites using PlamaTV.

Ask yourself -

By your very own rationale, are there to be 21,900,000 domain extensions so every one can have Plasma TV keyword domains?

You set up a scenario being:

PlasmaTV.eco is taken, PlasmaTV.green is taken, Plasma.tv is taken; therefore we need dotPlasma.

Of course not – that is not what you mean.

But your rationale of “need” because a name is already regged does not necessitate the “need” in multiple extensions just because, boo hoo hoo – someone got before me.

So kill your rhetoric for necessity based on something already being taken in .com or any other extension feeding the need for more domain extensions.

That is a ridiculous, unfounded, unsupported, and crybaby(ish) sounding reason.

Stick to your points and stick to your guns of need being founded on the domain name becomes the brand and the brand becomes the domain name.

That in itself is a wonderful argument in this new century and new path of domaining. A product, brand, service, movement embeds itself into the internet user as being the OFFICIAL defacto site.

Doing such, in time renders typos and TM squatted domains useless in worthless as the internet user goes directly to the products’ source.

No redirect, no need for search, just type in the URL. Tightly held domains by the client will ensure “authorized for company use only” and lock out all non-authorized users.

So kill the “need for new because someone else already has it” points.

I cringe to think that we will have 21,900,000 one-of-a-kind “plasmaTV” extensions based on your argument “for”

I spoke with the author of the whitepaper and have the following as an answer, so that someone can reasonably re-construct the results.

This was taken from February 2009’s release of the VeriSign Domain Industry Brief, a quarterly document.

To explain how he arrived at the number, on page 4 of that report, the following percentages of domain use in COM/NET form a ’spidering’ of the 90M domains in existence at the time:

• 24% One Page Sites
• 64% Multiple Page Web Sites
• 12% No Web Sites

If you eliminate the 12% with no websites, the following are the results:

• 27.3% One Page Sites
• 72.7% Multiple Page Web Sites

Although ‘Multiple Page’ is loosely defined, many of the parked page providers have search pages or multiple pages at their destinations (laregely to qualify the semantic intent of the visitor’s preferences, and thus “improving” the quality of the ad served so that it has relevance).

There is also a reasonable argument to offset it that the single page number includes simple placeholder websites that are only one page deep, but if we were to simply round 27.3% to the nearest ten for simplicity, we arrive at ‘about 30%’. It is not too terrible a stretch to state that there might be a reasonable percentage of the multi-page that are ppc or parked, so let’s use whatever number that might be to neutralize any adjustment made for single page websites that were non advertising.

QED

-Jothan

At pages 7 and 10, you write that about 30% of .com names are parked. Could you direct me to your source? Thanks!