Chris Messina thinks there is a revenue opportunity in branded namespaces –
For a mere $50 minimum donation ($25 for students), you can own a limited edition URL and profile from Creative Commons that identifies you to the world and provides a compelling revenue opportunity for the non-profit foundation.
Do people really care that much about their namespace from a I'm hip, I'm in this namespace – IMO this won’t convert to a big enough revenue opportunity to care about.
There is only a revenue opportunity if your namespace is soooo attractive and people will use it as their primary identity (being one of many secondary identities means it soon will become irrelevant) but I’m just not sure how many there are and how sustainable it is.
I don’t want multiple identities/addresses to show my affinity with multiple organizations, and I certainly wouldn't pay for it. e.g. (simplified to email addresses) angus@goseahawks.com and then in the basketball season I become angus@stormvip.com.
With all that said, if the namespace is attractive enough and the identity is unique/easy, sure – I’d probably pay (e.g. angus@aussie.com) – but I would only pay for one.
last thought - How well did Skype selling fashionable area code numbers e.g. 212 (Manhattan) numbers to people in not so hip places?
I think you're right Angus. It would have to be a pretty compelling namespace for me to move my entire identity over to it, even if it was free.
I wouldn't want to sum up my entire life in a domain name, be that a charity/organisation I support, my company/employer, or even a particular social network I use.
The one system I wouldn't mind is a government/country namespace. As a Brit, it'd be a nice value-add for a country that's facing a lot of opposition over its proposed identity card scheme (dave.houlbrooke@id.uk?)
Well, maybe Manhattan didn't work because nobody cares to pretend they are from there: either you have a hip flat where people can crash, or you are just someone who can hang there, be it because you crash at a friend's or commute from hell (but who cares?). However, if not hip, certified membership could be interesting: doctors, alumni, CPA could use a namespace to manage their professional identity if need be for instance. Selling it might only work for specific cases, like Tru.com certifying that you are single, but it makes sense. I still thing the big market is in selling very secure, very convenient or structured authentification, say for disabled people who can't type but can click, and might have an able relative whom they can call when help is needed.
I just found out that Microsoft offers a nearly identical product... where 3rd parties can co-brand the hotmail experience at https://domains.live.com ..but I don' t see the point of encouraging users to sign up for accounts that don't have any contact information in them...
Also, why would anyone want a hotmail account, when the UX is more flexible and better at yahoo IMHO
I think monetising "namespace" is actually possible, not based on hipness, but based on providing assurity and authority of the name space (i.e. that your digital identity is guaranteed to be who you actually are) and where all your digital presence can be linked to (akin to a digital passport). I want people to know who I am, and equally, I want them to know who I am not. I would be willing to pay to assure people that I am who I say I am and that everyone else with the same name is not me.