> David Keegel wrote:
>
> That is unless you are looking at it from the point of view of someone
> whose only interest is making money by selling "protection" - then the
> more space there is that registrants can be persuaded that they should
> `protect' the more money you can make by spreading FUD.

Well now I know, I'm ONLY interest is making money from "protection".
Thanks David. Can you tell me who is lining my pockets for doing this two,
cause I have no idea and they are pretty empty. Nice that you make
assumptions on how people do business. Thanks.
I have based this off hours of my time talking and explaining to many
people who get letters, email or talk to other telling them to 'protect'
there name. Get this domain and that domains! Have you heard about the new
.bz! I just got a .info name! so on and so forth.
They are scared into acting and then find out that they really don't need
to, some of them after talking to them decide that they will not register,
others take the option that they still need to but in a limited way and
others will always see the threat no matter what you say.
I believe that this would give a definite intermediate option for most of
the small and medium business to feel secure in this new world of business
that they have just stepped into.
> Then perhaps registrars and resellers should increase their efforts to
> educate people that gTLDs and ccTLDs are *not* connected.

The above should read.

The auDA, registry, registrars, resellers and registrants should increase
their efforts to educate people in the ways that gTLDs and ccTLDs *are*
and are *not* connected.
There are arguments for both depending on situation.

Regards,

Michael-Pappas