news Symantec Wins .SECURITY Over Donuts and Defender Security

[News]

Symantec Corporation (NASDAQ;SYMC) has won the rights to operate the new gTLD .Security beating Donuts and Defender Security.

The intended future mission and purpose of the .SECURITY gTLD is to serve as a trusted, hierarchical, secure, and intuitive namespace provided by Symantec for its consumers. Symantec is committed to moving forward with a .SECURITY gTLD application; however at the time of filing this application, there has not been enough time, and currently there is not enough market information available, to fully analyze and evaluate all potential use case options.

Full article: http://www.thedomains.com/2014/11/27/symantec-wins-security-over-donuts-and-defender-security/

 

[vivaldi]

Hopefully they will use it in the right way, if they do there is just a matter of time until a broader acceptance of new gTLD's.

 

[N-A]

@vivaldi , I don't see much difference in Symantec owning the gTLD over Donuts. However, a few things do stick out.

It appears that Symantec will only sell 45,000 domain names (which isn't a lot if we're speaking good generics or defensive registrations) and maintain those figures for over 6 years. (Please correct me if I interpreted that wrong.)

One major thing that could set them apart from others is the .security influence that they have gained over the years since 1991 with many loyal customers.

Yet, achieving this would be a difficult feat. I believe that the registry should provide Symantec signed SSL certificates for each domain as they will only be selling 90% of the 50,000 they applied for (45k). Though, looking at their SSL certificates, they don't come cheap.

The cheapest certificate they provide is $399, but with that also comes with a big trust factor from people who immediately recognize Norton or Symantec. Obviously they could charge less, but they are using that money for insurance purposes because they do provide a $1,500,000 warranty in the event of a loss.

This is unlike GoDaddy which provides $100,000 in protection. However, GoDaddy standard SSL certificates range from $45 to $70.

If Symantec provided a cheaper certificate with reduced warranty protection, I could see them achieving their 45,000 goal in 6 years.

With that being said, I could only see it if they charged $50 (a reduced "standard" they may not want to do) to $1500 (the highest price of their SSL certificates) per year for the domains which comes with SSL, some form of website scanning security like GoDaddy's SiteLock Website Security (their "Vulnerability assessment", except included on all domains) and other security measures like improved Domain Name System Security Extensions (DNSSEC) that can easily be signed and put into action in any registrar that is going to sell this gTLD.

It's a heavy blow, but if a computer security company is going to own a gTLD that shout's "we're secure", they should put more into it than just a domain name to back it up.

At that point, I could see larger companies using a .security domain for various purposes, obviously not rebranding from a .com to a .security though.

On the other hand, I think they butchered that before they even bid on this gTLD in December and thought it through after I believe they were the first company to state antivirus software is dead while still actively selling it.

 

[vivaldi]

@vivaldi , I don't see much difference in Symantec owning the gTLD over Donuts. However, a few things do stick out.

It appears that Symantec will only sell 45,000 domain names (which isn't a lot if we're speaking good generics or defensive registrations) and maintain those figures for over 6 years. (Please correct me if I interpreted that wrong.)

One major thing that could set them apart from others is the .security influence that they have gained over the years since 1991 with many loyal customers.

Yet, achieving this would be a difficult feat. I believe that the registry should provide Symantec signed SSL certificates for each domain as they will only be selling 90% of the 50,000 they applied for (45k). Though, looking at their SSL certificates, they don't come cheap.

The cheapest certificate they provide is $399, but with that also comes with a big trust factor from people who immediately recognize Norton or Symantec. Obviously they could charge less, but they are using that money for insurance purposes because they do provide a $1,500,000 warranty in the event of a loss.

This is unlike GoDaddy which provides $100,000 in protection. However, GoDaddy standard SSL certificates range from $45 to $70.

If Symantec provided a cheaper certificate with reduced warranty protection, I could see them achieving their 45,000 goal in 6 years.

With that being said, I could only see it if they charged $50 (a reduced "standard" they may not want to do) to $1500 (the highest price of their SSL certificates) per year for the domains which comes with SSL, some form of website scanning security like GoDaddy's SiteLock Website Security (their "Vulnerability assessment", except included on all domains) and other security measures like improved Domain Name System Security Extensions (DNSSEC) that can easily be signed and put into action in any registrar that is going to sell this gTLD.

It's a heavy blow, but if a computer security company is going to own a gTLD that shout's "we're secure", they should put more into it than just a domain name to back it up.

At that point, I could see larger companies using a .security domain for various purposes, obviously not rebranding from a .com to a .security though.

On the other hand, I think they butchered that before they even bid on this gTLD in December and thought it through after I believe they were the first company to state antivirus software is dead while still actively selling it.

The key-factor the way I see it is that (from a new gTLD investors point of view) they should integrate their services on this extension and only sell to security companies regardless of its a guard or to a Wordpress security plugin. It makes sense what you say and they would be wise following the requirements needed to actually demand real security for this gTLD.

Yes antivirus is dead according to them but that don't mean security is.

Given this, I think they could do a better job than Donuts can with this gTLD and above all spread the gTLD awareness if used this way. So Donuts fail to win this extension might as well be their gain.

 

[N-A]

Given this, I think they could do a better job than Donuts can with this gTLD and above all spread the gTLD awareness if used this way. So Donuts fail to win this extension might as well be their gain.

You may be right, but they have a lot to prove as a gTLD registry. Whereas .security would just another gTLD for Donuts that is more than capable of handling a dotWhatever and just focusing on profits.

Having a .security domain on a WordPress installation doesn't make it secure. What would is actual security provided by Symantec for having a .security name. Whether this did come in a form of a SSL certificate, a WordPress plugin that beats all else in its category, etc. they need to provide something more than just gTLD if their goal is only 45,000 domain names as suggested.

I only see them making it if they sell their .security gTLD at a costly enterprise level, solve-all solution. Realize now, Symantec earns $7 billion dollars a year in revenue. Even if they sold it their gTLD at $2500-$5000 a year, it's peanuts to them having that little of registrations. With what they would ultimately have to give for true peace of mind and security, they would be reducing their revenue stream dramatically. It would come in the form of indirect and direct costs running a registry as they would need to give nearly all services away with a .security and employ more people that are knowledgeable in almost every product line to handle around 40,000 customers in a newly created registry department (that is if they could sell it).

Though, it could be put to practical use as a loss-leader to sell every computer inside the companies convinced a .security will do them good as they could very well purchase mega-licenses.

The only way I see this achieving its ultimate success; rather than home security companies, etc. owning one for vanity purposes (Home.Security - which is probably what Donuts would be going for), is providing SSL, DNSSEC and many other services with an influential name and a huge warranty.

 

[vivaldi]

You may be right, but they have a lot to prove as a gTLD registry. Whereas .security would just another gTLD for Donuts that is more than capable of handling a dotWhatever and just focusing on profits.

Having a .security domain on a WordPress installation doesn't make it secure. What would is actual security provided by Symantec for having a .security name. Whether this did come in a form of a SSL certificate, a WordPress plugin that beats all else in its category, etc. they need to provide something more than just gTLD if their goal is only 45,000 domain names as suggested.

I only see them making it if they sell their .security gTLD at a costly enterprise level, solve-all solution. Realize now, Symantec earns $7 billion dollars a year in revenue. Even if they sold it their gTLD at $2500-$5000 a year, it's peanuts to them having that little of registrations. With what they would ultimately have to give for true peace of mind and security, they would be reducing their revenue stream dramatically. It would come in the form of indirect and direct costs running a registry as they would need to give nearly all services away with a .security and employ more people that are knowledgeable in almost every product line to handle around 40,000 customers in a newly created registry department (that is if they could sell it).

Though, it could be put to practical use as a loss-leader to sell every computer inside the companies convinced a .security will do them good as they could very well purchase mega-licenses.

The only way I see this achieving its ultimate success; rather than home security companies, etc. owning one for vanity purposes (Home.Security - which is probably what Donuts would be going for), is providing SSL, DNSSEC and many other services with an influential name and a huge warranty.

I like the idea of a costly enterprise level solution, why not host secure intranets for big companies. With their reputation, knowledge and brand it would not be impossible. However until I'm not on Symantec's payroll I won't go further into these ideas

Going to an interesting scenario to follow, I don't know anything about their innovation and creativity. Might as well just end selling them as regular domains for all we know.