RGaetano writes:>As an example, there will be no way
to convince or oblige commercial companies in the travel business to migrate from
their current .com into a future .travel.<
As I've said so (too?) often...
1.
It is in the company's best interests.
a) It proves it is the real
company, not a poser.
b) It will aid in producing more accurate searches.
c) It will reduce cybersquatting.
d) Browsers could be set to highly
trust content from such domains.
e) The cost to the company would
not be onerous.
f) and a host of other reasons, with no apparent
downside.
2. If they have a current .com they keep it and connect to their new
site in some fashion until they no longer consider it necessary.
>rather than
straight-jacketing the DNS into something it was not designed to do.<
The DNS
was designed to be differentiated, otherwise there would only be one TLD. Existing
differentiation may have made sense in the '80's, now we need further differentiation,
and it might as well be logical as illogical, it might as well be designed in a way
to get rid of existing problems as to ignore them.
>In other words, chartered TLDs
will never be able to provide successful competition to fully open TLDs because they
have to bear the additional cost of screening.<
The existing chartered TLDs don't
seem to have major problems with this. It is not impossible to believe that a company
would be willing to pay more than $15-$70 for a chartered sLD name that is their
rightful home and addresses or solves a host of existing or perceived problems.