Hi David

I think you've made some telling arguments in your email causing me to agree
with you again.  Yes, I'd say the one-steel.com was worth registering.  I
didn't explicitly state that in my first email but I did say so in my reply
with:

> ] As far as the .net and .org, I can register them both for about A$50.  I
would
> ] have also registered the hyphenated versions.

In fact, I'd agree that the value of the .net and .org versions have been so
downgraded by the emphasis on .com that hardly anyone even considers they're
worth registering.  You wrote:

> I can't imagine why any sane user would look for a clearly commercial
company
> like OneSteel Ltd at onesteel.org or onesteel.net without trying
onesteel.com
> first.
.
Too true.  But alternates have to have value -- even if it is only nuisance
value -- otherwise why would people like Deborah Ryder register onesteel.net.
And the UDRP is a "close the stable door after the horse has bolted" reactive
measure of companies with sleepy admnistrators.

> As above, this isn't an argument about how far to go, its an argument
> about which direction would make most sense.

In that case we at least agree on being "proactive".  You also said:

> One of the positive things which may come out of ICANN's new gTLDs in
> the long term is the realisation that you can't "protect" your name by
> registering it in all possible gTLDs.  But I'm not holding my breath.

Me too :).

Best regards
Patrick Corliss

PS    I appreciate the input which has made me rethink scope and direction.
Thank you.




----- Original Message -----
From: David Keegel <djk&#167;cyber.com.au>
To: <dns&#167;auda.org.au>
Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2000 6:34 PM
Subject: Re: [DNS] BHP's OneSteel


> ] David Keegal wrote:
>   David Keegel wrote:
>
> ] > Am I missing something here?  I don't understand this analysis.
>
> Patrick Corliss wrote:
>
> ] Hi David
>
> ] My feeling is that you understood the analysis but just didn't share my
> ] viewpoint.
>
> I think rather that I don't understand one of your major assumptions.
> I'm not even sure exactly what the assumption is.  Is the assumption that
> if the standard form of your name is registered in all gTLDs, then your
> name is protected?
>
> I don't understand why registering onesteel.net or onesteel.org would be
> a higher priority than registering one-steel.com or 1steel.com, in the
> OneSteel case.  You seem to assume it is for some unknown reason.
>
> ] > So if OneSteel has onesteel.com and onesteel.com.au, I can't see why
> ] > they would care whether anyone had onesteel.net, onesteel.org, etc.
> ]
> ] My first point was Deborah Ryder, a US resident registered onesteel.net on
27
> ] April 2000 before Megan Waine (acting for BHP) registered onesteel.com.au
on 1
> ] May 2000.  Since the .com was registered on 6 April 2000 I saw that the
25-day
> ] delay caused a risk of losing the .com.au.
>
> com.au has a number of policy rules which tend to protect Australian
companies
> who want to register their own company name, even if they aren't necessarily
> the first people to think of registering that domain name.  If you're a
random
> foreigner who wants to cybersquat, its easy with the .com (non)policy, but
> hard with the com.au policy (unless you have a business/legal presence in
> Australia).
>
> ] As far as the .net and .org, I can register them both for about A$50.  I
would
> ] have also registered the hyphenated versions.   The extra cost seems minor
for
> ] such a simple preventative measure.
>
> The cost is hardly relevant, for companies like BHP or OneSteel.  The
> question is the effectiveness of this particular tactic.  Why should
> OneSteel care if someone else registers onesteel.net and onesteel.org?
>
> If I was them, I'd be much more worried about one-steel.com and 1steel.com
> than onesteel.net and onesteel.org, because there is a risk that customers
> could mis-type or mis-hear those addresses.
>
> I can't imagine why any sane user would look for a clearly commercial
company
> like OneSteel Ltd at onesteel.org or onesteel.net without trying
onesteel.com
> first.
>
> ] But I agree that you have to draw the line somewhere and even you seem to
> ] agree that registering both the .com and the .com.au is worth doing.  Even
> ] that's one too many !!
>
> Personally I'm not very keen on companies registering lots of different
> names or on cybersquatters.  But I've tried hard to leave that difference
> of viewpoint aside and concentrate on the question of effectiveness of
> strategies.
>
> ] I'd just stretch it a little further . . .
>
> As above, this isn't an argument about how far to go, its an argument
> about which direction would make most sense.
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
>  David Keegel <djk&#167;cyber.com.au>  URL: http://www.cyber.com.au/users/djk/
> Cybersource P/L: Unix Systems Administration and TCP/IP network management
>
> --
> This article is not to be reproduced or quoted beyond this forum without
> express permission of the author.  You don't know who really wrote it.
> 354 subscribers. Archived at http://lists.waia.asn.au/list/dns (dns/dns)
> Email "unsubscribe" to dns-request&#167;auda.org.au to be removed.
>