Return to New TLD Agreements Forum - Message Thread - FAQ

Username: dtobias
Date/Time: Fri, November 23, 2001 at 2:27 PM GMT (Fri, November 23, 2001 at 9:27 AM EST)
Browser: Netscape Communicator V4.61 using Windows NT
Subject: Non-Sequitirs


"In regards to New York's MTA...they don't even have their website properly configured...try MTA.COM without the "www." part and one gets page not found - so much for a good example of a .INFO site."

Ummm... how, exactly, is an alleged misconfiguration of a .com site in any way evidence of how an unrelated .info site is a "bad example"?  It's like saying that you found some spoiled apples at a grocery store on Fifth Street, and thus it proves that a different grocery store that's on Fifth Avenue can't be trusted to sell oranges that aren't spoiled.  (That's taking "comparing apples and oranges" to a new level...)  Anyway, there's no Internet standard that says that any website address needs to function without the "www." hostname (or *with* it, for that matter).  It's perfectly legitimate to set up a website under whatever hostname you want, though "www" is traditional.

"Also, take a look at who owns ain't the New York's MTA. Illustrates well, that even if the .INFO domain one wants is available, they will almost be forced to also register the domainINFO.COM version too in order to protect themselves from domain name speculators and traffic brokers."

Ummm, again...  how exactly does an example of somebody who's using a .info site without owning the corresponding "" site "prove" that one is forced to own both names?  Is this supposed to be an "exception that proves the rule"?  I own black pants, but don't own a  matching black shirt -- this proves that owners of black pants need to also own black shirts, right?


Dan's Domain Site:
Link: Dan's Domain Site

Message Thread:

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy