Return to New TLD Agreements Forum - Message Thread - FAQ

Username:	challenge
Date/Time:	Fri, October 26, 2001 at 11:28 PM GMT
Browser:	Microsoft Internet Explorer V5.5 using Windows NT 5.0
Subject:	Overlap
Message:
You are talking from your position as a technology adopter and not an end-user. All that talk about WEB competing with COM, to who's benefit? Us, people who had a hard time registering a meaningful name that attracts users. Those same users who will get ultimately confused as to whether they should visit the COM, WEB or NET or all three to find what they are looking for! Plays very nicely into the hands of an aggregator or an indexer and this way you most definetly render extensions absolutely useless. I bet you anything the day you see ICANN approving 10 new general purpose TLDs is the day Microsoft or Verisign or whomever announces a brand new indexing system that does away with TLDs altogether. That's what RealNames is pushing for and we are playing well into their hands. By creating confusion, we are doing nothing but inviting big brother into the yard. I say steer away from .COM and build extensions that make better sense and that is why I cited ORG and GOV as the two most meaningful extensions. INFO should have fit in that same niche had it not been for the complete lack of vision on ICANN's part. Again we come full circle to my problem with WEB and the fact that it does nothing but bang heads with COM, BIZ, NET and beyond.

Message Thread:

• Realistic expectations and a .INFO valuation model — challenge, October 26 @ 3:37 PM (2/29)
• .INFO — S. Hudgens, October 26 @ 5:28 PM (0/0)
• Quite Right — richard_henderson, October 26 @ 5:14 PM (2/27)
• .info is a boon...... — onmove, October 26 @ 7:53 PM (3/7)
• You just described the use of every TLD on the planet .... — cgrady, October 26 @ 10:36 PM (0/0)
• kindred spirits - I am in agreement with above posters - but — antipodes, October 26 @ 10:30 PM (1/1)
• I have not forgotten about the appalling arse they made on purpose — spot, October 26 @ 10:56 PM (0/0)
• I agree! — cambler, October 26 @ 8:01 PM (1/3)
• How many more TLDs would you like to see added to the root? As many as new.net are pushing for? — spot, October 26 @ 10:59 PM (1/2)
• How many? — cambler, October 27 @ 1:16 AM (1/1)
• Yes, I agree with the 1 apiece recommendation, and that is my main grumble with new.net — spot, October 27 @ 3:02 AM (0/0)
• The argument for fairness — challenge, October 26 @ 6:23 PM (1/18)
• Fairness — S. Hudgens, October 26 @ 7:03 PM (1/17)
• Logic — challenge, October 26 @ 8:08 PM (1/16)
• Overlap — S. Hudgens, October 26 @ 8:58 PM (2/15)
• I Agree! NO OVERLAP! — Timberstone, October 27 @ 5:33 AM (0/0)
• Overlap — cambler, October 26 @ 9:10 PM (1/13)
• Yes. — S. Hudgens, October 26 @ 9:36 PM (1/12)
• Overlap — challenge, October 26 @ 11:28 PM (2/11)
• Overlap is irrelevant — cgrady, October 27 @ 5:19 PM (0/0)
• Banging heads — cambler, October 27 @ 1:20 AM (2/9)
• urr... — InternetAdvocate, October 28 @ 10:01 PM (1/1)
• Shows you how long ago I left LA! — cambler, October 29 @ 4:15 AM (0/0)
• Wrong again — challenge, October 27 @ 4:29 PM (3/6)
• Don't belong? — cambler, October 27 @ 6:08 PM (1/1)
• TLDs selected in November 2000 — Jim Fleming, October 27 @ 6:20 PM (0/0)
• No overlap = monopoly — cgrady, October 27 @ 5:46 PM (1/2)
• Monopolistic... — InternetAdvocate, October 28 @ 10:04 PM (1/1)
• You're right — cambler, October 29 @ 4:17 AM (0/0)
• Where should .WEB people be ? — Jim Fleming, October 27 @ 5:32 PM (0/0)

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy