[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [wg-b] famous names
then if a .biz, .firm; .co;
> .telecom; .internet;
> .wireless; .cable is introduced . . .
> Probably generates a lot of disputes and
> lawsuits--all unproductive
> expenditures of money, and frustrating to everyone
> concerns, including the
> consumer who is just looking for a business, or NGO
> to get information or
> conduct a transaction.
I agree--business or internet-related generics like
.biz or .firm or .co would essentially duplicate the
.com regime, I think--and necessarily lead to
replication of the same territorial boundaries, simply
with different TLDs.
> IF instead, other approaches are taken; a better
option might be adding
> chartered gTLDs, like
> .med; law; .store. . . . And, if these TLDS have
> charters, like .edu,
> then two things will happen, I speculate: one, there
> is "new space" for
> those entities who are in those areas. Companies who
> don't fit the charter
> wouldn't have to proactively register to protect
> their brands; and consumers
> can be gradually acclimated to an approach which is
> similar to what they
> experience in physical space in finding resources
> via a sort of functional
Add to that the commonality with linguistic
experience--the address becomes a clearer mode of
signalling for both the provider & the consumer. And
for the company seeking to protect its brand,
addresses such as pepsi.med would not only be
incoherent, but would confuse consumers & in certain
circumstances might potentially diminish the value of
the brand. A similar principle would hold true in
more overtly noncommercial domains (.union, .ngo,
.nonprofit). Given the semantic pressures in this
direction, I think this is the track along with TLDs
might most naturally evolve.
SMU School of Law
3315 Daniel, PO Box 750116
Dallas, TX 75219
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.