Ye, but you might wanna make sure and wait for another member to confirm it as I am not very confident. Better yet, why don't you email the iPage guys because they can answer your iPage question better...
To find the best investment you have to go against the crowd and find something that is underated. To find the worst investment you go against the crowd and find something that you think is unrated but isn't or it is unrated but you don't know how to monetise it..
.com is always the safest investment and therefore the best..
One thing to ask when buying a HostGator is "Would anyone develop this domain? Why?".
Another thing to take into consideration is that a lot of people would want to keep secret the info on what is the best HostGator to invest in. Better to have more time to buy more at bargain prices...
Thanks mate that is something I had not really considered...
I am not sure what to think about .TVWell, two things I am sure of - $25 per year is a lot more than a .$7 .COM, and the extension has been around long enough that there are not many gems out there for reg fee. I have heard that BUD.TV is being promoted by Budweiser and I can see why they would like it, but I do not really see how most names would work with the extension. But a lot of people here really like .TV, so there might be some opportunities there that I can't see..
I like short domains. They are flexible - for example, there is a lot of uncertaintity on what type of end-users will use .MOBI. With a 3 letter .MOBI or a LLLL.COM that is not a word you are independant of any specific market segment. If there is growth, you will be on board...
I normally don't do cctlds but this year I invested in .mobi and .tv. In my opinion .tv is a wiser investment as 2007-2009 is going to be the year for video and live streaming.tv funtions as a great vehicle to operate alongside the .com. I have been seeing alot of great names selling well below market value especially for an extension that is at the cusp of greatness. So .tv is my recommendation- ride the wave...
LLL/NNN .mobi seems to be doing well and they get more valuable with time; it's been less than a year and they already sell for high $xxx on SEDO. Will .mobi bust? It might but ATM LLL/NNN .mobi seems to be a wise investment. I recently picked up one...
My opinion would be to invest in the IDN's , kinda late to hand reg.
But you can find some really nice bargains in the After market.
Also check out.
At the T.R.A.F.F.I.C. East conference in October, Schumacher introduced an extension rating system similar to the stock market’s Buy – Sell – Hold ratings. Schumacher currently has Buy ratings on .info, .us and other major ccTLDs and.
He rates .com, .net and .eu as Holds (.eu was downgraded from a Buy rating in October). Schumacher advises selling .biz, .cc, .ws and .tv..
Mr Schumacher must be out of his mind for putting .tv in "sell category" and .eu in "hold". Should be the opposite...
I believe they should both be in "hold", with an upwards trend...
I agree with you. If he played the words as frequently as some of us do on here, I'm sure those two would be reversed. I did the exact opposite of what he said in the article in almost all extension. I've been doing it as such:.
Buy .tv .com .info .es.
Hold .mobi .net .org.
Sell .eu .cc .ws Sell IDNs due to the restructuring IDN.IDN ext. being IDN also (coming soon from what ICANN said)..
Dude please read up on IDN.IDN before you post things like Restructuring. If you have been following IDN's or make a pit stop at IDNF you can see we are all celebrating..
This was just posted today as the outcome of their testing in December was revealed..
ISPCP Notes Marrakech ICANN Meeting.
IDN Technologies Workshop.
Tina Dam Status Update on ICANN IDN Activities.
In May, ICANN staff discussed the input they recieved on the TLD label experiments.
And started to generate a new plan for testing IDNs in the root. The staff went to other,.
External experts to help develop a revised plan. In June, ICANN staff revised the.
Proposed plan for presentation to stakeholders and developed a process for finalizing the.
Revised test plan..
The IDN program plan has several projects that are planned separately but that have.
Technical and operational test.
The overall goal of the technical and operational test plans is to demonstrate that the.
Insertion of IDN strings into the root has no appreciable negative impact on existing.
Resolutions. Further consulting with IETF and SSAC will be done to make sure the.
Proposed test plan meets this goal..
The proposed test plan includes interrelated milestones where some of the activities run.
NS records based on Punycode.
Perform tests in laboratory setting.
Perform operational process test.
DNS Root Name Server test.
DNAME Resource Record testing.
Analysis of functional and practical implications.
There is a proposed process for finalization of the new plan for testing. This process will.
Not be made public until later in this meeting..
John Klensin On the Current State of IDNs.
What people started to realize when initial implementations took place is that the original.
Technology is not completely correct. This is true from both a technical and policy point.
Of view. The state of IDN deployment is such that we probably have once chance to get.
Klensin focused on issue identification rather than resolution during his talk..
The IAB did a report to identify issues and, in some cases, propose possible solutions..
Some issues do not have solutions inside the DNS..
Klensin said that an IDN is one label in an HostGator name that consists of multiple labels..
The original character set is built on the elderly ISO 646..
IDNs are solution to the problem of better mnemonic value for names in non-Latin.
Scripts. This does not address content availability, connectivity and access, user friendly.
URLs or the ability to understand each other's languages. The DNS only allows for exact.
Matching not "close enough" or "do you mean" options. The DNS is case sensitive in.
What it stores, but the matching and queries are case-insensitive..
There is a strict administrative hierarchy in the DNS. The aliasing system is very.
Inflexible (for instance, it cannot do: "see this and see also"). Names in the real world are.
Made up of languages, dialects and scripts. With regard to name and character matching,.
Humans are far better than the DNS. The DNS doesn't have enough information to even.
Try most typical approaches..
IDNA encodes IDNs into DNS. The first step is to take a Unicode string and make it into.
Another Unicode string using a technology called nameprep. The nameprepped unicode.
Is then made into Punycode (which looks like a classical ASCII name)..
There are few outstanding technical problems. Only one major browser does NOT.
Support IDNA. Other applications do not support IDNA (mail clients, etc.)..
Using IDNA is a problem:.
There is the problem with character spoffing and similiarities. This is something.
That cannot be fixed techically and it is difficult to design policies that help for a.
Great number of cases..
Transcription from written form is difficult to do in an unambiguous way..
Human and DNS expectations do not match..
When characters get more complicated than ISO 646IRV the solution requires the.
Use of tables. The character list inevitably expands over time. Matching new and.
Old characters, and new and old tables, is going to be version sensitive..
There are global issues related to transcribing URLs a rule that says there should.
Be one script per label does not fix this..
The proposed "variant" model works like this: within a given domain, collect the labels.
That contain similar characters, register one and then block all the others: all of them.
Must be registered by the same organization. This is happening in China, Japan, and.
Korea. Note that the "variant" proposal only has impact on storage, not on queries..
There is a proposal to have separate matching trees for different languages. This is.
Unlikely to work at lower levels in the zone because there will be differences in the names.
Stored in each zone. This will, possibly, pose problems for interoperability..
Making nameprep interoperable across unicode versions is also difficult. If nameprep is.
Not stable then it is not strictly upward compatible. Migrating from one version of.
Unicode to another is hard because the mapped names will be different..
According to Klensin, the IETF needs to do a full IDNA review. This will include a.
More restrictive nameprep and a mechanism for backward compatibility with older.
Versions of Unicode..
Klensin said that several changes have to be made. These changes may invalidate now-.
Valid names. Any prefix change would be radical and would require software changes.
And careful study. He also noted that there will be new kinds disputes and dispute.
Resolution issues. Decisions by registries imply registry responsibility. Technically, each.
Registry can have different policies about permitted names in the IDN space..
IDNs in the TLDs.
Naming and Delegating Decisions in IDN TLDs.
Multiple Labels for the "same" TLD.
Coding and Presentation questions.
Klensin claimed that we need to reduce the permitted character list in the future. Also,.
We need to update to Unicode 5.0 and do this in a very general way. Also, Klensin asks.
That there be analysis of non-DNS and above-DNS solution..
Thomas Narten IDNs from the IETF Point of View.
The IAB has published a "Review and Recommendations for Internationalized Domain.
Names (IDN)." This was finished last week. (approved by the IAB on June 23).
At the upcoming IETF meetings in Montreal, this will be a topic in the applications area.
Meeting. In those meetings the IETF will discuss what it will do with regard to questions.
In the IDN document..
The DNAME specification is in RFC 2672. There is some deployment experience with.
This in the DNS, but nothing depends on it operationally. Simultaneously, much work has.
Been done on DNSSEC during the same period. During discussions, many "what.
Happens when DNAME is in use" came up. As a result, the IETF is reopening work on.
The general IETF observation, however, is that it may not be broken..
Michel Suignard Microsoft and Implementation Notes.
IDNA status at Microsoft includes appropriate drivers being provided by platform.
Services in Windows XP and Vista. There is support for the IDNA RFCs in lower level.
Software this will be used in IE7 and in the forthcoming version of Outlook..
Microsoft has worked hard to allow a user to specify a locale of their choosing and then.
Support characters for that country. Microsoft also supports the concept of mixed scripts..
This is very common in Japan. The problem is preventing homograph spoofing attacks..
Microsoft says that IDNA cannot support improvement beyond Unicode 3.2 this means.
That certain languages and scripts are not supported. There are also scripts that are going.
Through a major revision since Unicode 3.2. Microsoft also notes that there is no serious.
Security threat mitigation..
Microsoft suggests that the community should:.
Extend support to Unicode 5.0 or even future versions of Unicode.
De-emphasize the role of the complex IDN nameprep process.
Focus on the output list instead.
Restrict problematic characters from the IDN namespace.
Standardize the IDN namespace as an ISO 10646 character collection.
Establish script based guidelines for constituencies with worldwide reach.
The guidelines for success, according to Microsoft, are a worldwide name space, multi-.
Script environments, and a secure environment..
Ming-Cheng Liang TWNIC EAI (Email Address.
The format of email addresses is local-/search?q=cache:...dtd&site=icann..
.com >> Safest investments, all such investments are for long term gain..
.net >> A bit short term, growing rapidly..
.biz, .us >>> Market is growing at a good speed. They are like midcap stocks. I like NNN HostGator names for both. I have a feeling that .us will be next to .net in a few years time...