Chris wrote:
>Personally, I'm not entirely clear what the "for" case is for a
>tm.au domain.  Not that it's really a burning issue at the moment,
>but are we really likely to see a marketing campaign involving
>http://mycoffee.30.tm.au?  Is the Australian public going to end up
>memorizing the numerical trademark categories?

Chris, I'm just using the .tm.au as a talking point to flush out
real issues.  The issues it raises are similar to any other new 2LD
that might be considered.  Its also one area that theoretically
could be viable - ie there might be some real demand for it.  Might
not be either, I know

Me:
>>Perhaps one of the criteria for another 2LD should be it shouldn't
>>add to the stability problem.  In that case .tm.au looks like one
>of >the more viable options - if we were to build in the rule that
>the >domain name always goes with the trademark owner.

Larry wrote:
>For instance Acme could be a computer trade mark and a clothing
>trademark.  If there was only one .tm.au domain then wouldn't we
>still have the first-come-first-served problem?

I was actually raising a separate issue - that of 'stability' of 2LD
names when the nature of the domain name user changes.  The
'uniqueness' of a domain name user is a separate issue, and in fact
much easier to deal with - because its fundamentally unsolvable, so
its simpler not to try.  Its very difficult to find any area where
only one organisation is using a name.  Take education as an
example.  Randwick Primary and Randwick High and Randwick Private
and Randwick TAFE might all like .randwick.edu.au.  They can't all
have it.  There are tens of thousands of educational institutions in
Oz, so there's gonna be some similar names.  So .tm.au is no
different from .com.au or .edu.au in this respect.  Unless we only
create 2LDs with a criteria so specific that the organisation is
unique (and those criteria are awfully hard to find - can anyone
think of one?), at some stage the 'first in, best dressed' principle
MUST apply, even if some other criteria are used first and have been
met.  The lower the level of domain the EASIER it is to develop a
criteria to get uniqueness.

The issue of stability is in general a much more difficult issue to
resolve - just look at my earlier comments about what if a govt.
department is privatised?  But it may be easier to specify a 2LD
which doesn't add to the stability problem, than it is to have a 2LD
that doesn't have the uniqueness problem.

>Is the domain name a "name" or an "address"?

Well, the domain already has a number address.  But those don't roll
off the tongue or stick in the mind easily for non-computers.  The
reason for a domain name must therefore be so that its more
meaningful than the number that already exists.  So its an address,
and the reason for having it:  'cause its easier for a person to
use/remember than a number.  The big question is - just how far do
we go solving this problem of easy to use names and in trying to let
organisations have exactly what they want - where do we draw the
line and compromise.  And of course, how do we manage the process?
>If it is an address (like a street address or a telephonic
>address/phone number, etc) then it doesn't need to bear a direct
>relationship to the company name.

Except that many companies are doing with the phone exactly what the
internet domain name systems does - making it more memorable by
getting numbers like 13COKE for their national numbers - its funny
how people find names easier to use than numbers.

George wrote:
>Our friends from the commercial sector will be able to confirm the
>number of SMEs in Australia, forseeable growthrates of
>internet-presence, and the like and I really do suggest that
>.com.au is not going to be 'full' measured against .COM for a large
>number of 'internet-dog' years.

Somewhere between 500,000 and a million is the answer for number of
businesses.  But I don't think there's going to be enough to
saturate .com.au.  I don't think the argument 'we need another 2LD
because the existing one is full' is really valid.  I think we
would have to find a better reason than that.

David wrote:
>If you create a new 2LD under .au, whose main purpose is to handle
>name clashes, then it is likely to be under utilised.  If it is not
>widely known and used, then companies are likely to avoid using it,
>because the naughty people that use DNS as a search engine (ie: the
>company's potential customers) aren't likely to try a strange
>domain unless they have seen other companies use it.

>In short, unless a new 2LD can acheive a critical mass, most
>pragmatic companies are more likely to stay within com.au (even if
>they have to accept a sub-optimal variation on their name in some
>cases).

An interesting issue.   Would I rather have my exact company name
under .biz.au, or something derivative from my company name (and
possibly one of several similar sounding ones) in .com.au?  Hmmmm -
I don't think this is easy to answer - and I'm not sure there's a
right or wrong answer either.  If you polled 100,000 companies you'd
get different answers over time.

Regards, Mark


 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*  Message From : HUGHES, MARK          *
*  Location     : AUSTRALIA-CCA HDQ     *
*  KOMAIL ID    : N17503  (CCAMCQN1)    *
*  Date and Time: 07/14/97  14:45:31    *
 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *