< >
I understand what you are saying, however I disagree with your approach
to new TLDs. .COM, .NET and possibly .WEB do appear to be very similar. What differentiates
them is how they market their name and business. Lets say I run an entertainment
business primarily as a "clown". I need a catchy name to stick right? Okay clown.com
is gone clown.net is gone also, and so is clown.org! What to do? clown.web - maybe
even clown.biz or clown.site? They aren't available yet, but I hope they might.
I
really don't care if the TLDs are hard to differentiate because I am a "clown", and
I want it to be a short memorable name. Clown.co-op doesn't work for me. Neither
does clown.travel, but clown.web does beautifully!
Why should the original "clown"
.COM, .NET, and .ORG have the monopoly to the "clown" name exclusively? When you
look under the yellow or white pages for "clown" you will probably see several names
listed. Okay, with that same logic shouldn't someone be allowed to let their fingers
do the walking, and type in i.e., clown.com, clown.net, clown.org, clown.web, etc
to find the same type of services? Suppose clown.com sucks? Then I might type in
the .NET address, or the .ORG. I believe all generic names like "clown" should be
available to all - that is why I support several new TLDs being chosen because it
allows someone with a business to attain a name they might otherwise have no chance
in getting because all the good names were taken long ago.
If you ever watched
SNL you will know what I am talking about. Have you ever heard of clownpenis.fart?
It's all the person could come up with seeing he waited too long to register a business
name. The episode was not about a clown - I just used it as an example above to try
and get my point across, that we need more generic names so businesses can have fresh
opportunities to register better names for their business.
We need more generic
names, i.e. .shop and .web
Shawn Kelly