On Mon, 11 Dec 2000, at 10:47 [=GMT-0800], William X. Walsh wrote:
[And I before:]
> > My contribution to this discussion wasn't about that :-) All I said
> > was that .BIZ would be perceived as an upstart TLD.
>
> I don't agree with that. There has always been a disparity between
> the ccTLDs and the gTLDs, such that even ccTLDs that imitated gTLDs
> were seen as "second class" domains.
Yes, but not ccTLDs in their own countries, AFAIK. Not in any case
where I live. On the contrary, one is expected to have a .NL to do
business with consumers here.
> I don't agree that this would be
> the case with new gTLDs created in the ICANN process, especially in
> light of the wide coverage of the decisions (I even saw coverage of
> ICANN's decisions by CNN and Foxnews, and of course MSNBC, but they
> have always covered "net" news more than the other 2 cable news
> networks.
Good point. Though press coverage can't do it all. Didn't see much of
it myself here. Of course horror stories about the land runs when .BIZ
etc are launched, bringing down whole networks, may attract more
attention than an ICANN Board meeting.
> I don't think that the issues that plague the "open" ccTLDs will carry
> over to the new gTLDs. The public has always understood the
> difference to some degree.
Recently I spoke to a lady of approx. 35 with a graduate degree, with
a job as PR officer in a University, incl. playing webmaster over a
small website, who did not know what .ORG was. Maybe we shouldn't
overestimate the public.
--
Marc Schneiders (rest in header)
