Re: [ga] more tlds = more competition in my opinion, was: Re: Election...

["kidsearch" <kidsearch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Comments made below

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Karl Auerbach" <karl@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "kidsearch" <kidsearch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, August 13, 2006 4:53 AM
Subject: [ga] more tlds = more competition in my opinion, was: Re:
Election...


> kidsearch wrote:
>
> > more tlds = more competition in my opinion.
>
> We need to be somewhat careful in the formulation.
>
> There are several things to remember.  First is businesses expend
> enormous amounts of their energy and money building brand name
> recognition.  And in the non-commercial context, it is an equally
> intensive effort to build an internet name.
>
> So, once we plant our feet into a given TLD, for many of us,
> competition, at least among TLDs, ceases.

Thats true. However as the words you want cease to exist in one TLD, its
nice to have the option of going with the same word in another TLD that
makes sense for your business or website. And not picking ccTLDs either.
That wasn't really the idea behind ccTLDs. They are a poor substitution to
ICANN creaing more viable gTLDs and some sTLDs. I care more about the words
before the TLD as long as I'm not picking articles.museum or articles.aero
of which neither makes sense.

>
> Now, let's look at the competition issue in two ways, before the initial
> registration, i.e. the planting of our feet and the beginning of the
> road to build a brand, and then after that planting.
>
> When a person is shopping for among TLDs, there are many aspects that
> could distinguish one from another - for example, why should IBM have to
> buy ibm.com for merely 10 years?  Do any of us think they will go away
> in a decade?  No, they, as should the rest of us, have the opportunity
> to buy a name for as long as we think our business will last.  (ICANN
> has foreclosed that kind of product offering, although I have it in my
> TLD, .ewe.)

I agree. I have domain names I would only reg for one year, but some that I
would take the max.

>
> On the other hand, some folks only want short term things - like to
> announce a series of plays or an election - why should they have to buy
> something for an entire year (although one could quite reasonably ask,
> given the relatively low prices, why not?)
>
> Equally, TLDs could distinguish themselves by some offering special "TLD
> integrity" services - that they will engage in highly conservative
> practices to give a high degree of assurance that the TLD will remain
> operable for a long period of time no matter what happens (e.g. a major
> depression a la 1929.)
>
> Of course for this to be effective, the customer needs to be able to
> know the terms in advance and to lock them in, almost certainly for a
> price, for the duration.  Today, with "consensus policies" it's hard for
> anyone, customer, registrar, or registry, to know what will be in the
> contracts tomorrow.  I believe that one of the reasons that Verisign has
> been so uncomfortable with ICANN is that it must be hard to steer that
> company when it is unclear what it will be able to do, or will be
> prevented from doing, from year to year.
>
> So much for TLD competition before the customer makes the choice.
>
> After the customer, like a mussel, binds itself and its fate to a given
> TLD (or, in the case of a mussel, a rock or pier) inter-TLD competition
> becomes something that is largely irrelevant to the customer - in many,
> perhaps most, cases it is economically infeasible to change to a new TLD.
>
> Here it becomes a matter of expectations - that the contract terms be
> honored.
>
> There is a special case, those people who were locked into TLDs before
> there was a time (assuming that time has even yet occurred) when there
> is a fair choice among TLDs for those who have not yet chosen.  I know,
> that my names, names dating from before 1994, that I had one choice -
> .com.  I share this boat with lot of others - perhaps millions of others
> - and we do deserve protection against a completely unregulated .com
> that can change terms on us.

Agreed and well-said

>
> --karl--
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.10.9/417 - Release Date: 8/11/06
>
>