First of all, I think the Team Schilling vs. Team Schwartz debate is a great idea, I hope they’ll make the video available after the conference because interesting debates are always good for the industry.

Both sides present arguments which have their merits and through this post, I’d like to basically share my 2 cents about one of them (I’ll gradually write posts about various other arguments from both sides, one at a time):

Aren’t there *already* alternative gTLDs, from dot net and dot org to dot travel?

This argument is in my opinion flawed because it disregards the quantitative element.

Yes, there are alternatives right now but you can’t compare the current situation to what we’ll be dealing with when hundreds upon hundreds and then thousands upon thousands of new gTLDs start appearing.

You just can’t.

Even if individually, none of them will come close to the top 3 (dot com/net/org), they will still have a huge impact through quantity alone.

There are about 15 million dot net domains right now.

Will one of the new gTLDs come close to this number?

I don’t think so, at least not during the first 5-10 years, not even those that will offer domains for free or at very low prices.

But what if, 5 years from now, there will be 10,000 new gTLDs with an average of 10,000 domains each?

In that case, forget about the dot net example, such figures would bring us close to the number of dot coms currently registered.

What if 10 years from now, there will be 50,000 new gTLDs with an average of 10,000 domains each?

I’m sure dot com registrations will go up during that ten year period as well but still, at my hypothetical number of 500,000,000 new gTLD domains, combined new gTLD registrations would probably surpass dot com registrations at that point.

What if 15 years from now, there will be 100,000 new gTLDs with an average of 10,000 domains each?

You get the point.

Even if none of them will come close to challenging the position of dot coms, the sheer volume of new gTLD registrations will gradually make more and more people become accustomed to new gTLDs.

Right now, if you ask a random person to name *one* gTLD aside from com/net/org, he or she will probably be clueless.

But after such people are gradually exposed to more and more gTLDs, that will change.

It’s inevitable.

Not tomorrow, not next year but as time passes, even the less Internet savvy people will become familiar with new gTLDs.

Therefore, I’d say the quantitative argument is one of the most important ones you should acknowledge.

It doesn’t matter if you’re bullish or bearish on new gTLDs.

If you want to do well, you have to stay away from invalid arguments.

And through this post, I hope I managed to explain that in my opinion, the “Aren’t there *already* alternative gTLDs, from dot net and dot org to dot travel?” one is deeply flawed because it disregards the quantitative element.

As of this point, I’ll gradually analyze other arguments (both in favor of new gTLDs and against new gTLDs) in order to help you guys make informed decisions.

I won’t tell you what to think.

That’s your responsibility.

If you want good results, you have to learn to think for yourself.

Read as many opinions as possible, analyze arguments from as many sources as possible but at the end of the day, the burden of drawing the right conclusions in undoubtedly on your shoulders.