Ian, it's true that Associations have tremendous leverage and credibility, and could well promote the adoption of the likes of .com.au. However, in the context of this discussion you are inferring that each association should have its own 2LD which would be adopted by its members, thereby creating a new market. If so, your assumptions have seductive simplicity, but are invalid for several reasons: - Member businesses are frequently members of multiple associations. The sort of business that is prone to be a member of one organisation frequently joins up with others. To which should they give their priority? More importantly, which others should they exclude by adopting the 2LD of one? - Members who are Internet-aware already have a domain name, thus their membership would have no impact on them adopting additional 2LDs - Businesses become members for identified business reasons, and their adoption of membership services that cost money is also driven by direct business benefits. 2LDs per se do not provide direct benefits, thus fall into that category. - There have been many attempts to create web-centric business networks, services, associations, directories and portals - call them what you will - the vast majority of which have utterly failed. Why should merely offering 2LDs be the solution where all else has failed? - Those Associations that already promote the adoption of domain names and a website still report insignificant take-up, even where free domains (read sub-domains) are provided. Why should new 2LDs overcome that demonstrable apathy? I've had (and continue to have) some experience with Associations and my position is unchanged. Put simply, give businesses a valid reason to have a domain name, and they'll do it. The existence of a new 2LD certainly isn't that reason, and that holds true with or without the participation of Associations. To repeat my oft-used analogy - A domain name is like a car number plate. Persuade consumers to buy a car, and the numberplate market automatically follows. Ron Stark > -----Original Message----- > From: Ian Johnston [mailto:ian.johnston§infobrokers.com.au] > Sent: Saturday, 27 September 2003 1:45 PM > To: DNS > Cc: Ron Stark > Subject: [DNS] New 2LDs and Associations (was [DNS] > Nomination for auDA board.) > > > I don't share Ron Stark's generalised views about new 2LDs > (see below). > > Let me explain why. > > Associations (industry/trade/commerce/employer) were > interested in establishing new 2LDs, e.g. retail.au and > pharmacy.au. Many have thousands of small business members, > including third generation members. Members have belonged to > their associations for decades. Collectively, members of > individual associations turnover $billions and employ thousands. > > Associations have well established networks within and across > industries. They have long established channels of > communication to help members with their businesses, > providing them with valued, regular information services > covering, for example, taxation, industrial relations, > superannuation, occupational health and safety, insurance, > government regulation, supply chain management development, > telecommunications, e-commerce, and business, consumer and > environmental protection, e.g. auDA consumer alerts on domain > name scams. > > Associations run businesses that deliver a diverse range of > services on a national basis to their thousands of members, > e.g. superannuation funds, industry-wide auctions, and > vocational education and training. > > Associations are trusted organisations (trusted by their > members and consumers), with massive resources under their > management and long established national and international > reputations. > > Associations have, over many years, successfully used their > networks and resources to manage and market many goods and > services to their members. They has established business > relationships with their members. They have created demand. > > Associations are potentially well placed to market > industry-based 2LDs to their thousands of members. They are > capable of creating trusted 2LDs in .au. They can create > demand for .au domain names. > > auDA and the "domain name industry" (if they choose) can > engage associations to further their respective objectives. > > The "domain name industry" is well placed to use the existing > networks of industry associations to promote greater > awareness and uptake of .au domain names. There are few, if > any, organisations in Australia that could do this as cost > effectively as associations. See > <www.setel.com.au/smeforum2002/fp/FP09.htm>. > > > Ian Johnston > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ron Stark [mailto:ronstark§snapsite.com.au] > > Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2003 4:35 AM > > To: dns§lists.auda.org.au > > Subject: RE: [DNS] Nomination for auDA board. > > > > > > Once again reinforcing my point that coming up with new > 2tld's is not > > going to motivate the market for new registrants. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Mark Hughes [mailto:effectivebusiness§applications.com.au] > > > Sent: Friday, 26 September 2003 10:02 PM > > > To: dns§lists.auda.org.au > > > Subject: RE: [DNS] Nomination for auDA board. > > > > > > > > > > There are around 320 000 .com.au's registered, out of some 3.5M > > > > ABNs registered, ergo 10% penetration of the available market. > > > > > > The potential market is far, far greater than 3.5M. Under the > > > existing rules, the market could be as large as, say, 100 million > > > com.au domain names. > > > > > > > > > Under the existing rules you can register: > > > > > > a) one or more domain names for a commercial entity > > > b) one or more domain names for any brand / product / > service that a > > > commercial entity provides > > > > > > > > > > > > The existing policy specifically allows domain names for > products / > > > services, etc, and also says 'there is no restriction on > the number > > > of domain names that may be licensed by a registrant'. For more > > > details see: > > > > > > * http://www.auda.org.au/docs/auda-2002-07.txt > > > * http://www.auda.org.au/docs/auda-2003-07.txt > > > > > > > > > Regards, Mark > > > > > > Mark Hughes > > > Effective Business Applications Pty Ltd > > > +61 4 1374 3959 > > > www.pplications.com.au effectivebusiness§applications.com.au > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ron Stark [mailto:ronstark§snapsite.com.au] > Sent: 26 September 2003 4:01 PM > To: dns§lists.auda.org.au > Subject: RE: [DNS] Nomination for auDA board. > > There are around 320 000 .com.au's registered, out of some > 3.5M ABNs registered, ergo 10% penetration of the available market. > > TLDs are saturated - there are so many .COMs that it's near > impossible to come up with a new name. They therefore have > no option but to add new TLDs. Here in Australia we have > such a low penetration that it's folly (imho) to come up with > more 2LDs - particularly in the expectation that it will > somehow increase demand. > > My point, though, is purely a business one - why expend > effort to create a tiny closed market when there's already a > huge open one already waiting to be developed. > > Ron > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ron Stark [mailto:ronstark§snapsite.com.au] > Sent: 26 September 2003 3:28 PM > To: dns§lists.auda.org.au > Subject: RE: [DNS] Nomination for auDA board. > > > ... to which the obvious question is what proportion of the > available market do they represent? It's simply not good > business to invest in developing a market for .005% when > there is 90% to be had. > > Ron > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Deus Ex Machina [mailto:vicc§cia.com.au] > > Sent: Friday, 26 September 2003 3:20 PM > > To: dns§lists.auda.org.au > > Subject: Re: [DNS] Nomination for auDA board. > > > > > > what about business whose prefered domains are taken? > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ron Stark [mailto:ronstark§snapsite.com.au] > Sent: 26 September 2003 3:11 PM > To: dns§lists.auda.org.au > Subject: RE: [DNS] Nomination for auDA board. > > My mantra - there are perhaps 10% of businesses entities that > are eligible to have a .com.au domain name, who actually have > one. Coming up with a new variant on 2LD's is tantamount to > suggesting that devising a new business type (say CC as well > as Pty Ltd) is suddenly going to increase the number of > businesses registered. > > It's a nonsense, of course. > > Equally, there wasn't exactly a rush to register .id.au's either. > > The core issue is the need to give potential registrants a > (valid) reason to have a domain name in the first place. > Introducing new name types does nothing except degrade the > whole domain name business. > > Ron Stark > > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > ------------- > 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. >Received on Fri Oct 03 2003 - 00:00:00 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sat Sep 09 2017 - 22:00:07 UTC