Re: .com and the TLD debacle

[Dirk Fieldhouse <[e-mail]>]

In article <[e-mail]>, 
[e-mail] says...
>
>> I suspect that "Vermont Teddybears" would do better with a
>> teddybears.whatever.vt.us address than with a .com address. I also
>> suspect that my local gym is probably better off with a .nyc.ny.us
>> address because their business is intimately tied to a particular
>> place -- their customers would no longer be the same if they were
>> elsewhere.
>> 
>> However, for many businesses, being location independent or being
>> "high tech" or whatever is part of their image.
>
>You know, although this might have been true at one time, I don't think
>it is anymore. There's nothing "low tech" about cern.ch, itu.ch, bbc.uk,
>or siemens.de. I really think that .com implies either US or US-based,
>and not a heck of a lot more.

I don't think that's how the rest of the world sees it. We see .com as 
shorthand for what would be co.int (actually, I suppose there is such a thing 
anyway) and the use of .com by local US companies as an accident of history: a 
reward, almost, for being there first, like British stamps not having the 
country name. If a global DNS namespace were designed now, we would expect 
co.us to be on a par with other co.nations.

-- 
Dirk Fieldhouse
[e-mail]
c=gb;a=tmailuk;p=logica;
o=lg;ou1=lgwct;s=fieldhouse
[phone]