Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen [C]onsumers -- your customers -- on the other hand, will (rightfully so) see these realms as the home of spam and doorway pages, typically run by foreigners, on the wrong side of the tracks, as it were. But hey, good luck with all of that

I think your logic here is baseless and flawed.

The new gTLDs are going be costly as compared to the cheap annual rates (for the first year at least) as was the case with gTLDs like .info that were used for spam with some keyword association.

Spammers buy large amounts of cheap throw-away domains as the domain FQDN name (as well as associate IP adresses) gets blacklisted or deindexed fast -- spam domain names are highly perishable items.

That said, you are correct that Domaineers are not enthusiastic about speculating in what over time may be more than 500 approved new gTLDs. I think Domineers are concerned about the possibility of the lessening of the value of their portfolios by the availability of new desirable names in the new gTLD strings -- dilution of assets. There will be a severe downward spiral of long held premium names' values. Once developers see that they can get desirable names in the new gTLDs the questions of SEO value will become immaterial by content relevancy.

The new Registries being applied for in the new gTLDs, notwithstanding the trademark gTLD applications, e.g.; .google, .ibm, .ford, .citi, .hyatt, et. al, are investing over $1 million dollars each as successful applicant -- and that is just to open the doors for business. The additional start up costs for marketing and registry services will equal that in the first year or two.

In overview, collectively: The new gTLDs will be a $1 billion+ venture capital investment. Assuming it has not been well thought out is foolish ...