Neustar is in the business of helping brands with their .brand new gTLD domain name extensions. The company recently introduced a series of webinars aimed at decision makers responsible for implementing and managing .brand domain name extensions.
I want to share a video that was posted by Neustar “which paints a picture about the potential of .brand TLDs.” There are probably companies who applied for their .brand extension or companies that are considering an application for a .brand, and this webinar series is aimed at convincing these companies of the utility and marketability of .brand domain names.
You are welcome to share your thoughts in the comment section.
I don’t totally agree with the messaging in the video. The example (around 1:18) of a long .com url being able to be changed by using a .brand isn’t exactly a game changer. A company can easily use Whatever.Brand.com as they can use Whatever.Brand. If they needed to have a super long url, they would likely need to have a similarly long url for the .brand (like Whatever.Brand/etcetera).
That said, I do see the utility in having a .Brand extension, but I would imagine mid to large companies will still need the matching .com to avoid confusion.
Lots of high profile brands, including McDonald’s, realised it wasn’t worth it to run new gTLDs.
https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/gtld-registry-agreement-termination-2015-10-09-en
https://www.namepros.com/threads/list-of-retired-new-extensions.991424/
1) End-users can be fooled with .COM homograph attacks.
2) End-users WON’T be fooled with .BRAND homograph attacks.
Reason for this is simple: operator of a .BRAND controls domains registered.