Re: [wg-c] breaking up (names) is hard to do

[Mikki Barry <ooblick@netpolicy.com>]

>At 09:19 AM 8/23/99 , Mikki Barry wrote:
>Sorry, I wasn't sufficiently precise:  I was not referring to "searching"
>for a domain name based on company name.

Same problem.  Hundreds of company names are similar or the same, as are
family names.
>
>An important part of modern advertising includes the domain name.  Having
>to CHANGE the domain name is, therefore, a source of customer
>confusion.  What worked yesterday doesn't work today.  Given the semantic
>component to domain names, changing an established domain name hurts
>established customer association.

I would agree that changing a domain name does hurt goodwill, although I
wouldn't go sofar as to say it is a customer confusion issue per se.
Search engines take care of most of that confusion easily, especially given
that names like "delta" or "continental" or "genesis" are so common that
one usually finds a search engine helpful to find the "right" company.
However, this is also the same problem when a domain name is reverse
hijacked.  Other businesses and individuals, some using the same domain
name for years and establishing goodwill and customer familiarity are
forced to change names.  I think that problem would be lessened if we had
enough gTLDs.
>
>>itself with a very difficult problem.  Thus the need for more gTLDs.
>
>Having more TLDs makes it easier to select a reasonable domain name.  It
>does NOT affect the difficulties with having to CHANGE an established
>domain name.  Hence the concern about lock-in.

While this is true, I think that changes in new gTLDs will create enough of
a "media event" that Internet users will perhaps take the extra step to use
a search engine to find the company or non commercial web page of their
choice.
>
>> >2.  A well-established online company has their domain name buried in a
>> >large number of referencing web pages.  Change the domain name and there is
>> >a major update problem with no technical solution.
>>
>>This can be addressed at the same time that the new gTLDs are brought in.
>
>The point is not when to address it, but the cost.
>
>Thousands of links, embedded in pages that are under other people's control
>and about which the domain name holder well might not even know, will
>suddenly be rendered useless.  How do you propose this problem be addressed?

This is definitely a problem, as it is a problem for those whose names are
reverse hijacked.  I don't personally have a technical proposal, but as a
policy matter, perhaps further encouraging the use of search engines would
be helpful.  I would also advocate a more logical choice of gTLD depending
on the business.  .air for airlines, .auto for car companies, .per for
personal,  .org for non commercial (which would be possible if there were
enough other gTLDs that commercial entities didn't feel they had to be in
.org if their .com had a previous user) or whatever works best would be
very helpful to consumers and non commercial web, email, ftp, etc. seekers.

Of course, I'm not as "up" on the technology as I could be.  Have you heard
of any better technological possibilities?