Return to tldapps Forum - Message Thread - FAQ
Username: |
hunter |
Date/Time: |
Fri, October 27, 2000 at 3:47 AM GMT |
Browser: |
Microsoft Internet Explorer V5.0 using Windows 98 |
Score: |
5 |
Subject: |
How does the applicant propose handling multiple people with the same name? |
Message: |
|
I believe that the time is right for a personal name registry, however I do not believe
that this proposal addresses a serious issue which is that of inclusively - it cannot
offer EVERY applicant a memorable personal address. How will the registry
offer a memorable address to multiple people with the same name? There are over 10,000
people in just the UK with the name 'John Smith', how many of them could have a .nom
address.Clearly, 'John Smith' is a worst case name, but in the UK there are over
100 people sharing even the 40,000th most popular full name. Since the US shares
a similar nameset to the UK I would guess that even with the introduction of middle
initials and forenames there will not be enough names to go around. The application
for .NAME by Global Name Registry proposes 10 options, but of these only options
1, 7, 8, 9 look usable (are formats surname.middlename.name, middlename.surname.name
or forename.middlename.name actually attractive?) and options 2 and 3 exacerbate
the problem by overloading other names (ie if 'Steven Martin Anderson' is allocated
'steve.martin.name' or 'martin.anderson.name' then all that has happened is that
the options remaining for someone called 'Steve Martin' or 'Martin Anderson' are
reduced) Whilst nicknames can be used to increase the number of available domain,
these will only really be attractive to young people. Those over 30, or those who
want to use their personal domain in their professional lives are unlikely to want
to use nicknames. I believe that this is a key issue because if a .nom or .name
registry can only offer an attractive domain name to the first handful of individuals
with each name then
a) it is not a global naming resource open to all b) there
will be a fast 'land grab' when the registry is opened up because there will demonstrably
only be a restricted number of attractive domain names Could Core please explain
how it proposes to address this. Thank you
|
| |
Message Thread:
- .nom Application by CORE Internet Council of Registrars Moderator, October 7 @ 10:11 PM (15/49)
- Support for the .NOM proposal from CORE JMB, November 5 @ 7:06 PM (0/0)
- Questionable financial & business capabilies griffiths, November 5 @ 5:02 PM (0/0)
- Exellent CORE application for .NOM kasia, November 4 @ 4:11 PM (0/0)
- Few Positive Points in Regards to CORE Application sharjeel, November 3 @ 6:44 PM (0/0)
- Question... PHXbird, November 3 @ 5:45 PM (0/0)
- Support to CORE .nom proposal RETEVISION, November 2 @ 8:49 AM (0/0)
- CORE application is good for the Internet ksoussi, November 2 @ 1:07 AM (1/1)
- How does the applicant propose handling multiple people with the same name? hunter, October 27 @ 3:47 AM (1/4)
- CORE should be required to accept due process in US ALLDNS, October 22 @ 5:20 AM (1/1)
- Why is CORE Hiding Its Financials? Need2Know, October 20 @ 5:42 PM (0/0)
- CORE's application for .NOM now online! nike, October 19 @ 10:25 PM (0/0)
- Proposition to ICANN, Applicants & Internet Community Pistoff, October 18 @ 6:23 PM (0/0)
- CORE's proposal for .NOM nike, October 17 @ 2:04 AM (0/0)
- Why don't CORE stop Pre-registrations for .nom, from it's CO-Founder Knipp.de? Rebeka, October 16 @ 6:24 PM (2/4)
- Is CORE Nonprofit or FOR Profit.....Please Respond..Someone from CORE....... Gregory W. Krajewski, October 14 @ 4:01 AM (2/24)
Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy