> But what about the risk that business XYZ who currently has
> domain xyz.com.au will feel pressured to also register xyz.biz.au
> and/or xyz.[insert new open 2ld here].au?

As far as I can understand this line of argument, its effectively saying:

"Lets not let any new entities benefit from the dns because it might
possibly pressure someone who already has a domain name"

McDonalds Plumbing or McDonalds Furniture has as much right to
mcdonalds.some2ld.au as McDonalds Restaurants has to mcdonalds.com.au.  And
so do George McDonald and Wendy McDonald, BTW.


What are we going to do?  Say to everyone else (business or individual) with
the name McDonald:

"screw you, we're not going to create any new 2lds that would enable you to
get a domain name you might like, because the entities with existing .au
domain names might feel pressured?"

If anyone can find any logic or morality in that line of reasoning, well,
gee, please put your hand up.


> There are a few reasons businesses might feel pressure to get
> multiple domain names like that:
>
> (1) Their potential customers might try looking for them in the
>     new 2LD as a guess (this might be where the consumer confusion
>     argument comes from - its not the registrant who gets confused,
>     but the person with the web browser)

Well, if this logic holds, then lets abolish either net.au or com.au (since
they serve the same Users) and lets abolish either asn.au or org.au (since
they serve the same markets).  And we only need one of .com, .net, .org, &
.biz - not all of them.

And if its such a big problem, perhaps someone can explain why there are
over 10 times as many names in com.au as in net.au???  Surely if its a real
problem, then everyone who registers in com.au would also register in
net.au, wouldn't they.  Hmm, perhaps the issue only exists in people's
minds, not the real world.



> (2) Other organisations might decide to register xyz in new 2LDs.
>     The organisations might be competitors or cybersquatters or
>     other unrelated businesses who happen to pick a similar name.


In which case they're subject to the existing laws about deceptive
practices, passing off, etc.  It might surprise some people, but that's what
those laws are FOR!  They exist so that we don't have to twist and distort
the design of everything else in society just to ensure that someone doesn't
pass off as someone else.  Lets not twist and distort the dns just to kowtow
to some very occasional problem that when it does occur can be dealt with
using existing methods of recourse.

Its also about time we all stopped pretending the internet and domain names
are only about business.  Just because politicians and mainstream media
think internet=business automatically, doesn't make it so.  Business names,
even trademarked ones, do NOT give the holder unlimited power over the name.

McDonalds Restaurants can't stop McDonalds Plumbing and McDonalds Furniture
and god knows how many people using the name McDonalds.  Want to sing 'old
McDonald had a farm?  Go right ahead.  Want to write a book called 'Murder
at McDonalds'?  Go for it.  All those other uses are legal.  Why shouldn't
they have the right to a 3ld under .au??



Domain Names are just addresses.  Does anyone really think that when
creating a new street in a new suburb people sit around and say "oh no, we
can't have a 'Railway Parade' in this new suburb because there's already a
'Railway Parade' in 20 other suburbs and people might get confused".




So far the case against new 2LDs appears to rest on two equally pathetic
arguments:

1. "Consumer Confusion" - i.e. WE think THEY will have a problem
2. "Existing domain name holders have more rights than new ones" - i.e. we
can't issue new names because we might offend existing name holders.



Regards, Mark

Mark Hughes
Effective Business Applications Pty Ltd
effectivebusiness§pplications.com.au
www.pplications.com.au
+61 4 1374 3959