*yawns*

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael-Pappas [mailto:auda§michael-pappas.com]
Sent: Friday, April 26, 2002 1:25 PM
To: dns§lists.auda.org.au
Subject: RE: [DNS] RE: auDA to consider new names for .au


> On Fri, 26 Apr 2002, Saliya Wimalaratne wrote:
>
> The general case was started those who make $x profit per domain (i.e.
> those that sell them) - elementary maths tells us that if x > 0,
> increasing n will increase x. That is, the more names that are sold,
> the more money the seller makes.
>

That's all well and good, but as you previouly said most have multipul
registrations 2+ so generaly this is currently not correct. I have not got
latest stat's but I know our (Click'nGo!) registrants of single names are
less than 5% of all our names. (This being across all domain spaces)

>> To protect your names you only need the combination of two... I
>> service
>
> Actually, this is completely wrong. To protect your DNS name you only
> need *one* name (and, of course, to keep it registered). That is, to
> protect 'foo.com' you only need to register 'foo.com'.
>
> Trying to map 'foo' to an identity is the problem, because 'foo' isn't
> a DNS entry (foo.com is). Essentially, the justification is prevention
> of 'passing off' of 'foo' - the problem with this is that the DNS is
> not the place to do it.

I see what you are saying and you are right the protection of 'foo' as a
business name and trandemark is the key.

If www.foo.com is one company and www.foo.com.au is another then you have a
hole in protecting your customer base... if the .au is left off or is
entered by mistake then it's possible that you will loose business to a
competitor.

Rather than trying to protect all levels you can concentrate on one
specific level of meaning and run marketing and public materials in this
manner.

>
>> I'm also presuming that you are referencing ICANN as the DOT... If I'm
>> wrong let me know..
>
> "." == root level domain. There's only one. There are proprietary
> extensions that are put out by 'alternate root servers' but that's a
> whole 'nother argument that I'm not going to get into here (and I hope
> nobody else will, either).

If "." is root then following it would mean .au names only.. or anything.au
and everything.au.. not sure I got what you mean...

>> I'm also gald that you can make assumptions on my vested intrests...
>> Just to let you know the number of domain names that is registered
>> help us all.. more names, more money for the companies that provide
>> the services, more services that are avaiable, the more names that are
>> registered. And in the end it gives the auDA more to do the things
>> that we all want for the .au domain space...
>
> This is not a self-fulfilling prophecy.
>
> Domain name registrations cost money. Registering (n) domains at $x per
> domain costs $nx. If only 1 domain is required, $(n-1)x is extra
> expenses for the producing entity that need to be funded by sales of
> the product.
>

I would like to think that business would only need 1 domain names to
protect their intrest but this is a pipe dream.. sorry.. naming rights are
big and much bigger than one name in one space.

> The *extra* money ultimately has to come from somewhere: and at the end
> of the day, it comes from you (by 'you' I mean the consumer).

And at the end of the day it also comes back in the way of registry
payments to the auDA. Other wise why bother at all, we should just go to
the alt root system.. which we don't have to deal with that much here.

> The number of domain names that is registered helps *those who make
> money from registering names*. In fact, I would suggest that
> registering multiple names for a single entity in the general case
> actually does more harm than good:
>

An example of this would be good.. I don't see how it hurts the single
entity... if done right it can only help in my mind.. other wise it seems
that you are questioning the current registants who own multipul domain
names and business names to protect there commercial intrests.

> it implies to other organisations that they need to act similarly
> it restricts the number of choices for subsequent registrants
> more choices means more confusion for the end-user
>

Which is why I maintain that 2 names can be sufficient for these people who
feel that they need to compete with organisation that own 100's of domains.
Not consfusing my any means. They feel that they do... and it's about
proceting the single name "foo" as your example.

>> > That's not good for anybody apart from those whose business it is to
>> > sell domain names. Anybody who has such a vested interest need not
>> > reply to this thread :)
>
> (because all they're going to do is try to justify increasing their
> 'base level' of service: 'you must register n domain names, n > 1')
>

Sometimes that need arises form the needs of protecting business names
trademarks and Intelectual Property. For me I want to see this increase but
with this where needs to be a choice that can eaisly followed and is
uniform.

And still with this one names is ok for some but the majority is more, thus
the status quo is maintained.

Best Regards,

Michael-Pappas.




---------------------------------------------------------------------------
List policy, unsubscribing and archives => http://www.auda.org.au/list/dns/
Please do not retransmit articles on this list without permission of the 
author, further information at the above URL.  (311 subscribers.)