Re: [DNS] BHP's OneSteel

Re: [DNS] BHP's OneSteel

From: David Keegel <djk§>
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 19:34:25 +1100 (EST)
] 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 or would be
a higher priority than registering or, in the
OneSteel case.  You seem to assume it is for some unknown reason.

] > So if OneSteel has and, I can't see why
] > they would care whether anyone had,, etc.
] My first point was Deborah Ryder, a US resident registered on 27
] April 2000 before Megan Waine (acting for BHP) registered 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 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 policy (unless you have a business/legal presence in
] 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 and

If I was them, I'd be much more worried about and
than and, 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 or without trying

] But I agree that you have to draw the line somewhere and even you seem to
] agree that registering both the .com and the 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

] 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;>  URL:
Cybersource P/L: Unix Systems Administration and TCP/IP network management
Received on Wed Oct 25 2000 - 16:34:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sat Sep 09 2017 - 22:00:04 UTC