.canon

[Jorge Amodio]

>> and the argument that people will remember ".canon" better than
>> ".canon.com", well is borderline stupid.
>
> i don't see it that way.  it seems a very reasonable thing to do from a market perspective to me.  they will advertising only one thing - canon and not also ,com and its hold on the commercial internet market.  we have just been so long accustomed to seeing .com or .org etc that it has become a qwertyism  - we actually think it belongs there, when really it is superfluous with its only value being to make some companies very rich

Ohh, I agree with you that in terms of branding having .canon enables
them the opportunity to put many things inside the same jar and
develop greater market recognition, I just found silly the argument
that people will remember them more without the .com.

> in an earlier message you also indicated that most of the technical community saw no reason for new TLDs.  that may or may not be true, i don't know - never seen a survey just seen a few bits of writing.  I know that as a person who prides herself on still being a viable member of the technical community, I am of the opposite opinion and have long advocated the introduction on new TLDs of all sorts.

If you are referring to my comments regarding the recent outcome of
the IRP and Board decision, I didn't say "most of the technical
community" because I don't know how large the community is and much
less what percentage of it agrees with something or not, I said "like
many" (because I'm sure we are more than three) in reference that
creating some particular TLDs such as ".sex" is a bad idea, but that's
just my opinion and given that it's a controversial subject I don't
expect everybody to agree with my comments.

About the particular subject regarding ".xxx", just for clarification,
I do agree with Milton. I took the time to read all the filings,
proceedings and experts testimonies on this case, including Milton's,
as I said before I still believe it is a bad idea, but I never said
the TLD shouldn't exist.

Regardless of my personal position on new gTLDs, if we are to have
them, I strongly believe that the rules by which they are created must
be fair and square to everybody, and whatever the string is the
evaluation of the string should not be assumed associated with any
particular content or services, it is just a string.

On the .xxx case, ICANN's Board failed to follow its own rules, and my
opinion will be the same if it were .xyz.

Another comment I made, after entertaining myself reading couple of
thousand pages about the ICM case, given that this particular TLD was
applied during the "proof of concept" phase and some level of
"sponsorship" was required, I still have doubts if ICM actually had
the sponsorship required for requesting the TLD.


Regards
Jorge