James and all,
James Santagata wrote:
> At 08:13 PM 3/25/99 +0000, Jeff Williams wrote:
> > Bob and all, This report is nothing new and there has ALWAYS been an
> >opportunity for
> >any organization/company to compete heads up with NSI should they have
> > Some are and have tried with relative
> >lack of success, as NSI has done a good job of branding .com in
>
> I fail to see how NSI has created anything. Did they create this
> popular Tld or inherit it? (Actually we all know that the popular Tlds
> were invented by Al Gore while taking a break while he invented the router).
They definitely helped create it. Nice joke here with respect to Al Gore
though... >;) He really has stepped into it, as they say...
>
>
> Seriously, though, you state that they have done a good job branding ".com",
> and while there is no arguing the popularity of .com, the reality is that
> the mass of people DO NOT see ".com" as a trademark or branded
> service/product
> of NSI.
Thai may or may not be true, of that I am not sure, so I cannot comment
one way or another. It is true however that the registry data in which these
.com DN's are registered IS NSI property.
>
>
> It seems you are confusing popularity of a tangible/intangible with the
> association of said tangible/intangible with the provider of that item.
I don't think that I am completely. If you are referring directly to
.com, .net, .org, and .edu, than you may or may have a point here.
As it relates to the registry function of those gTLD's, you do NOT have
a valid argument as it is clearly established that NSI owns the data
related to those gTLD's as part of the Registry function of DNS.
>
>
> It is much more likely that the desireability and demand for the ".com"
> Tld has been created from the halo effect of successful companies that have
> used ".com" (Yahoo, Amazon, eBaye, Microsoft, et al). That these companies
> chose .com over .edu, .org is not from any "branding" or yeoman's work
> done by NSI discussion.
I think that this is not entirely accurate either,as the evidence is plainly,
IHMO the reverse to what you are stating here, and the fact that those
companies that you mention *Choose* the .com name space for a
reason, that being that it is associated with commercial internet
enterprise, hence the gTLD mane of .com to begin with.
>
>
> This, coupled with the fact that some other countries, such as Japan have
> highly restrictive requirements for registering a domain name, has lead to
> .com becoming a highly desired domain name space.
Japan's choices are of course their own affair, and counter to true
market competition. However Japan has a rather long history of restrictive
trade and competition practices, doesn't it?
>
>
> For instance, Japan (it may have changed recently) had erected a number of
> hurdles for a company to register a domain name in the .co.jp domain name
> space. These included much higher costs ($1,000?), proof of incorporation
> in Japan as either a Yugen Kaishi or Kabushikigaisha (much more expensive to
> incorporate in Japan, w/capital requirements), and no more than ONE
> domain name registered per corporation. That is, Toshiba, could only have
> toshiba.co.jp, making it impossible to obtain tecra.co.jp for their computer
> products or toshibacopier.co.jp for copier products, etc, without special
> approval from the Ministry of Telecommunications & Posts (i.e., bribery). And
> who in their right mind would want to work with the Ministry of
> Telecommunications & Posts? That's about the only thing I can think of
> that's worse than working with NSI.
>
> James Santagata
>
>
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
