On Mon, 11 Dec 2000, at 10:12 [=GMT-0800], William X. Walsh wrote:
> Monday, December 11, 2000, 5:48:00 AM, you [meaning I] wrote:
> > On Sun, 10 Dec 2000, at 23:32 [=GMT-0800], William X. Walsh wrote:
> >> Sunday, December 10, 2000, 10:11:24 PM, you [Joe Baptista] wrote:
>
> >> > or register in the original dot biz ..
> >>
> >> > http://www.biztld.net/
> >>
> >> > getting confusing - no?
> >>
> >> No, not at all. biztld.net is just a toy level domain setup this last
> >> summer by some alt.roots people. It has no standing.
>
> > Will the ICANN .BIZ have 'standing'? I guess, it will remain just as
> > upstart as .CC, .NU, .WS and (...) .MU.
>
> Who says those are upstart?
I did.
> They are valid ccTLD domain names under
> the IANA/ICANN policy recognizing 2 letter codes in the ISO 3166 list.
True. But not to the point. Which was: they are perceived as 'upstart'
for a business or other serious website etc.
> They are a part of the legitimate process, just like the ICANN
> approved .biz will be.
Upstart = !illegitimate. It is quite legitimate to start a business at
WALSH.MU. But if it is a great idea, why didn't you register it? It is
still free... Even two-letter names are available in .MU. Why is
that? What is your answer? Mine is: Nobody wants to look like
an upstart.
Naturally multimillion marketing dollars may change perceptions. They
didn't so far with any of the ccTLDs marketed as a gTLD.
--
Marc Schneiders (rest in header)
