[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
> grouping.  

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. 

Jeff Trexler
Asst. Professor 
SMU School of Law
3315 Daniel, PO Box 750116
Dallas, TX  75219
(214) 768-4243

Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.