Simon Hackett wrote: > >>As I said before, my main problem with your proposal is the inconsistency > >>of having two commercial domains which do essentially the same thing. If I > >>want to find Microsoft Australia, it seems logical to look at > >>www.microsoft.com.au. To have to check www.microsoft.biz.au seems rather > >>redundant and would probably mean most companies would go for both. > > No, you read their URL on their products, or on their TV adverts, or on Not true. I frequently locate organisations by guessing a URL. VERY FREQUENTLY. This practice is so widespread that organisations choosing unconventional URLs for their homepage find themselves registering the conventional structure as well. (home.netscape.com springs to mind.) There appears to be an inconsistency in what you are arguing. On the one hand you are suggesting that what your domain is called is of no importance at all, whilst on the other, registry services require some demonstration of your entitlement to the name that you are registering. If indeed the name is of no importance, then why require any proof of anything. Why not allow me to register ibm.biz.au without any demonstration of my "right" to use that name. I don't yet see the middleground. (One component of your URL is significant, but the rest is not?) So it seems that you can argue (a) that the name is important and therefore that the 2LD IS important or (b) that the name is not important, in which case you should allow anyone to register anything, or perhaps you should simply require the use of names like 123-456-789.acn.au. In human affairs, naming IS important: the name of an infant, a street, a nation, a project, a brand of peanut butter, whatever. I believe that making an attempt to keep the naming sensible is worthwhile. I acknowledge that a (tiny) proportion of commercial organisations in Australia have names in wierdo domains, but the vast majority have chosen to use com.au, even despite the long delays that held up requests when Mr. Elz was running the com.au registry on a volunteer basis. > funding the overheads required to support your database entry. Just be > careful about confusing database entries with rights to a name outside of > the Internet world. It is a mistake to pretend that these things are indpendent. The very fact that registries require some attempt to demonstrate your right to use a name before allowing registration demonstrates this. Anyway, there is another point. If the names themsevles are not important, if it is not worthwhile to try to get to the point where competing entities can maintain the one address space, why then bother with joint/multiple administration of the biz.au namespace? Why not create biz.au and bozo.au and administer them seperately? If the move towards joint administration of a namespace is worth anything, why not do it with the widely accepted domain for registering commercial entities in Australia. Simon, there's a lot in this post. To avoid the creation of a flame, I suggest that the one useful response that you can make to this posting is to explain why it is that you think that the third from the right component of a name is important whilst the rest are not, or if you do not think this, what you do think about the policy of most registries of requiring an applicant to demonstrate a right to use a name in the real world before registration. -- - Raz "It often upsets a man's God fantasies to have (Misquoted? from ) someone shoot down one of his helicopters." (Ben Elton's "Stark" )Received on Thu Dec 05 1996 - 15:03:25 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sat Sep 09 2017 - 22:00:02 UTC