Interesting People mailing list archives
IP: A Closer Look at the New Domain Names
From: David Farber <farber () cis upenn edu>
Date: Fri, 06 Jun 1997 09:09:24 -0400
I am still in the country and will be till 1025 pdt tonight. I agree with Donna but am glad I will be off line for a while :-) Dave From: hoffman () colette ogsm Vanderbilt Edu Subject: A Closer Look at the New Domain Names To: farber () cis upenn edu Dave: Are you still in the country? If so, can you forward this to the list? See you in Palo Alto later this summer! Finally! Someone has decided to admit that the IAHC is a good example of boys behaving badly, but there's a more important story here than just wishing these folks would grow up. Frankly, I've become increasingly dismayed that no one has yet to mention how utterly stupidthe proposed new Internet domain name plan is. It's a disaster waiting to happen from a BUSINESS perspective. The new top level domains .store .firm .web .arts .rec .nom .info were generated by organizations with little apparent business (or common) sense. No offense, but These guys might have technical expertise, but apparently understand little about consumer behavior, the nature of emerging and existing markets and industry structure, or how businesses function in the real (or virtual!) world. The IAHC - International Ad Hoc Committee - representing a number of Net standards organizations (e.g. Internet Society, Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, Internet Architecture Board, International Telecommunications Union, World Intellectual Property Organization, and International Trademark Association), was responsible for drafting this ridiculous plan. Where did they come up with these names? What do these top-level domain names MEAN? The opportunities for consumer and business confusion are enormous. If this group had any grasp at all of the value of a brand name, they would not have selected top-level domains with such ambiguous and overlapping meanings. The naming issue has received some attention in the media, but only in the context of the political squabbling between IAHC, the EU and Network Solutions over who ought to be in charge. But this is a red herring! The real issue is what a disaster the adoption of these seven new top-level domains will be for commercial efforts on the Internet. While we may need new top-level domain names to handle the enormous growth of commercial sites on the Internet, my feeling is that the folks with the commercial interests need to get involved in this before it's too late. Imagine you're a Web start-up: which top-level domain do you choose? Under the proposed system, you'll have to select MORE THAN ONE to make sure you have all bases covered. This is grossy inefficient and just plain stupid. And you're likely to get sued anyway... The proposed system is rigid, lacking in precision, ambiguous, confusing, and subject to trademark violations. It reflects a remarkable naivete about the nature of commerce, online or otherwise. If these new top-level domains are adopted they have the potential to create enormousproblems for the developing commercial infrastructure. Imagine the extra burden on search engines as consumers try to figure out how to find anything (hard enough already in our simple world of .com for commercial!). What's the difference between XYZ.financial.info and XYZ.financial.firm? (.info is for "information services" and .firm is for "businesses or firms") Should I name my start-up fun.startup.rec or fun.startup.store (I sell goods, but they're entertainment-oriented and .rec is for "recreational or entertainment" sites and "store is for "businesses offering goods"). Will consumers know how to find me? Especially if I can't afford a big advertising campaign right away? What if I have an established physical business? What's the best top-level domain for my virtual offerings? It's important that we put aside petty concerns and start t tackle these kinds of importantstrategic and consumer behavior concerns. We need to begin with a discussion of the *commercial* benefits and limitations inherent in a system being proposed for commercial names. For example, I haven't seen the IAHC (or anyone else) discuss what these new names MEAN and or lay out how a reasonable person might go about selecting one of these new domains. The discussion to date has been inadequate and juvenile. It's time for the Net and its denizens to grow up. Best, DLH ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~ Professor Donna L. Hoffman hoffman () colette ogsm vanderbilt edu Owen Graduate School of Management 615-343-6904 voice Vanderbilt University 615-343-7177 fax Nashville, TN 37203 129.59.210.109 CU-SeeMe Project 2000: http://www2000.ogsm.vanderbilt.edu/ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ******Remember 19 June in San Fran****** Look at http://www.eff.org/fillmore
Current thread:
- IP: A Closer Look at the New Domain Names David Farber (Jun 06)