Return to newtlds Forum - Message Thread - FAQ

Username: fnord
Date/Time: Sun, July 9, 2000 at 4:44 PM GMT
Browser: Microsoft Internet Explorer V5.5 using Windows 98
Score: 5
Subject: charters

Message:
 

        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.

     

d_d@email.com - email without ICANN in Subject: line is blocked


Message Thread:


Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy