> Sorry but they have never opted to STOP using the name. On the contary the
> name redirect to their site which would get hundreds if not thousands of
> direct typeins. It's the generic name would be greatly responcible for the
> successful website.

Oh, right.  Hundreds if not thousands of direct typeins trying www.phone.com
would get to openwave.com and then what?  What would the people trying that
direct typein expect?  A company selling phone handsets?  A company
providing telephone connections in their area?  This is what they get:

  Openwave™ Instant Messaging is a revolutionary approach to messaging,
bringing together the best of both PC-based and mobile text-based instant
messaging.

Gee, I'll bet those inadvertant typeins go on to buy the openwave product.
I'll bet it the best sales lead openwave has and the key to their success.
NOT.


> > And the Australian Cricket Board brands its site as:
> >   Baggy Green - home of Australian Cricket
> > and even then they re-direct to another name.

> Totally agree.. that's why they have the generic domain name and simply
> redirect the traffic to their branded site.

Except that:

a) the Australian Cricket Board doesn't have a generic domain name - unless
someone is suggesting that baggygreen.com.au and acb.com.au are generic
names
b) they're happy to re-direct to someone else's site, which shows just how
important a domain name is in the scheme of things.

> Would you pass on sex.com or news.com if it was offered to you?

Yes.

> Amazon is succesful... ????

Successful site, unsuccessful company.

> The DOT TV corp sell generic names for $100,000 US to Millions.

No, they don't.  In the days of the dot-com boom people paid all sorts of
money for all sorts of worthless things - including generic domain names.
They don't do that any more.  To see the real value of domain names its
worth cruising sites like afternic.com to see how little value domain
names - even the occasional quite generic ones - actually have.


I wouldn't care if generic names WERE valuable - what I object to is all the
unsubstantiated claims about how sacred generic names are, and how auDA
should do this and do that and how those names should be for 'community use'
or for 'something else' when there is no objective evidence (as different
from 'belief') to support those claims.

The idea that generic names are somehow more valuable than non-generic names
is a belief for which there is absolutely zero objective evidence.



Regards, Mark