[plug] [OT] domain name registration

[Russ Powers]

Onno Benschop wrote:
> On Wed, 2004-01-28 at 19:41, Russ Powers wrote:
> 
>>Onno Benschop wrote:
>>
>>>That fact is not true and poor advice to boot.
>>
>>That's your opinion and you're welcome to it. :)
> No.
> You stated:
> On Wed, 2004-01-28 at 18:11, Russ Powers wrote:
>>Sad fact is most people just type your name with .com on the end.
> This is not a fact but an opinion

A very lazy use of a common expression. I stand corrected:

In my experience most people just type your name with .com on the end.


> You continued with:
> 
> On Wed, 2004-01-28 at 18:11, Russ Powers wrote:
>>it's usually a good idea to get the .com and .com.au if you can.
 >
> You are thinking about *your* behaviour, not that of the general public.

True. I stand corrected. Very lazy on my part.


> It is my experience that the general public visits a website in one of
> the following ways:
>       * They see a URL and type in the address
>       * They click on a link
>       * They use a search engine
> 
> In my years of teaching people how to use the Internet, very few members
> of the public "just stick a .com on the end" - the reason that they
> don't, is because no-one has told them the rules of domain names and
> misinformation such as spread by you and others just perpetuates this.

And the above is *your* behaviour and opinion. And you are welcome to it.


>>>Let me provide an analogy:
>>>        Start a business, register a phone number, wait for the phone to
>>>        ring.
>>
>>IMHO that's a poor analogy. If somebody knows a business name they may 
>>very well go to the net and just stick a .com on the end. That has 
>>nothing to do with dialing a phone number or looking in the white pages.
> 
> 
> No they don't just stick a .com on the end. Just like they don't just

That's your *opinion* and you're welcome to it.


> randomly dial any phone number and hope that they'll get you. They also
> don't dial 1800 CallMe, until someone advertises the number.
> 
>>>>If you want to get seen it's slightly easier with .com.
>>>
>>>That is absolute and utter rubbish.
>>
>>That's your opinion and you're welcome to it. :)
> 
> 
> No. It is based on the mis-information and poor understanding that you
> exhibit with your statement. 

That's your *opinion* and you're welcome to it.


> A .com.au domain is just as visible as a
> .com domain. The visibility is world-wide and completely dependent on
> your level of advertising.

Yup, visibility is world wide. But IMHO, most people look for .com 
first. Some of those may give up if they don't hit your site first try. 
It's a marketing decision. At less then AU$15 per year it's a very small 
investment for potentially very big gain. One customer gained that would 
have been lost covers that fee for a long time. A great return on 
investment.

If you don't agree, that's your *opinion* and you're welcome to it.


>>>>>either you're Australian or
>>>>>you're not, etc.
>>>>
>>>>Well, actually, in this case I'm both, US and Australian citizen. 
>>>
>>>Irrelevant, except if you wish to register a .id.au.
>>
>>I'd say it's very relevant. You said either I'm Australian or not. That 
>>was wrong. I'm both Aussie and Yank. So are my companies.
> 
> 
> Sigh, a dumb Yank :-)

Got it in one!  :)


> What I meant to write - in long hand - was: It is irrelevant if you are
> a citizen of both countries. You should not register an .id.au domain if
> you are an American, but you are welcome to if you are an Australian.
> And since you are both, you can, thus it is irrelevant.

And what I'm saying is that a business should maximise its return on 
investment any way it legally can and is acceptable to it's 
shareholders. Until it is illegal to register a .com unless you are a 
yank, companies can and will do it.

If you have a business and it starts to do well (even if it doesn't) 
somebody may very well grab the .com and try to get customers that were 
looking for you. IMHO it's poor business to risk this for less than 
AU$15 per year.


>>>>And we have companies registered in both countries.
>>>
>>>
>>>If those companies have the same name in both countries, then - and only
>>>then - should you register both domains.
>>
>>That's your opinion and you're welcome to it. :)
> 
> 
> No, that is the intention of the domain hierarchy. You may choose to
> ignore that intention, but that's your choice - it is not a matter of
> opinion.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions (don't know who said 
this)  :)

If the domain hierarchy intends this but the 
people/governments/businesses managing it don't enforce the intention, 
then it doesn't work.

.au is trying now and I'm glad. You see I don't disagree with the 
intent, and believe it or not I don't disagree with everything you say. 
But I'm not going to put my business at what I believe is a 
disadvantage. IMHO, most businesses intend to make money and will/are 
obliged to do whatever they can to get the best return on investment.

>  
>>>>What about companies that do business all over the world?
>>>
>>>I do business all over the world. I am registered as .com.au.
>>
>>That's your choice and you're welcome to it.  :)
> 
> No, I am a responsible Internet citizen and I register my domain
> appropriately.

That's your opinion and you're welcome to it.


>>>If you are talking about a company like Microsoft, then, yes, they can
>>>register all over the world - as long as the company is registered in
>>>the country of the domain.
>>
>>If you don't have to be a registered company in a country to register a 
>>domain name then why should you limit your business options arbitrarily 
>>like that?
> 
> 
> Sigh, this Internet thing is pretty complicated isn't it. You are not
> limiting your business options by only registering your domain where you
> are actually running your business.

That's your opinion and you're welcome to it.

> 
> Your advertising limits your business options, not the random creation
> of domain names.

Marketing is not just advertising and there are many things that limit 
your business options.

And I didn't say random creation of domain names. I specifically want my 
business name under .com and .com.au. That's all. I am not a "shotgun" 
domain name registerer (is that a word?).


> A strong argument can be made that each company should only have *one*
> domain. 

You can argue that. I would like to see it enforced world wide, but 
sadly it isn't.

> This argument is not based on domain policy, but business logic.
> If you dilute your advertising effort by advertising a multitude of
> domains, you are actually loosing customers who don't associated a
> domain name with your organisation.

The first part of that is a poor assumption, who said I was advertising 
a multitude of domains? I only advertise one, but try to have two in 
case someone tries that by default.

The second part is your opinion.


> Let me give you a simple example:
> 
> Lets say that Toyota brings out a new car and calls it BlueBox. They
> register the domain, make lots of ads with the new domain, people visit.
> Then they bring out a new car called the RedBoxII. Again, they advertise
> their newly registered domain widely and people go there. Then they
> bring out a new car...
> 
> Instead, Toyota is much better off staying with one domain, advertising
> that and giving customers access to their new range of vehicles from the
> one site. That way, customers can remember one name associated with cars
> coming from Toyota and not 24.
> 
> Another argument is trademark dilution...

I agree partly. IMHO Toyota should have one site they advertise, say 
toyota.com. But they should also get RedBoxII.com and link it to the 
RedBoxII page on toyota.com. They don't have to advertise it but IMHO 
some people will type that into their web browser. And for US$10 per 
year, it's a small marketing investment to make a few customers very 
happy they got the web page on the first try.


>>You're perfectly welcome to your opinions but it's not nice to call 
>>other people's opinions bad or 'rubbish'. You don't own the truth Onno.
> 
> 
> I realise that I don't own the truth.

No, no, I've been corrected, you got the rights to it from SCO.  ;-)


> However, if you spout things prefaced with the words "fact" instead of
> "it's my opinion that", you get a strong response from those who note
> that you are presenting opinion as fact - thus my use of the word
> "rubbish" - in contrast to your use of "fact".

Hmmm, IMHO a mirror would come in handy here.  :)


> Am I not nice for using strong language?
> Compared to what?
> You stating opinion as fact?

I stand corrected:

IMHO it's not nice to call other people's opinions bad or 'rubbish'.


> 
> 
> PS. Just read the apology you sent to the list: Accepted and thanks.
> 
> Lets move on...
> 
> Onno Benschop 
> 
> Connected via Optus B3 at S34°15'14" - E140°28'19" (Barmera, SA)