I suspect P&G will get around to attempting to take away proctorandgamble.com. I think they should as it is clearly intended to mislead.|
As for chevrolet.com, it does in fact lead to the auto maker. Likewise ford.com does in fact lead to the auto maker of that name. So all's right with the world?
Well, no. That isn't the whole POINT of the DNS. If it was then those looking for the Ford (the link bypasses the Flash intro) model company would be lost. Even doing a search on Ford models is imprecise. :)
Or perhaps they wanted the Ford Foundation, which is quite properly at .org, though not at Ford.org, or fordfoundation.org.
Or perhaps they wanted the Ford Theatre, is that .commercial or an .organization? And which Ford Theatre do they want? And is the latter a theatre or should it be in the new .museum along with this Ford Museum and this Ford Museum?
The relevant original POINT of the DNS was to allow one Ford commercial entity at .com, one Ford network at .net, one Ford organization (or other entity) at .org, first come, first served, and a ton of Fords at com.au, org.uk et cetera with varying levels of control. If you weren't the first Ford in your space you might have to get only slightly creative. That worked quite well for quite a long time. When it was clear that it wouldn't scale (about a decade ago), we could have gone to ford.auto and ford.agency and ford.theatre and ford.museum. Well, not that last one, but as a matter of fact the registry for .museum won't allow such collisions, and that too is part of the solution. I didn't consider it sufficiently newsworthy to submit it separately, but new.net's announcement of yesterday is interesting in this regard.
Regardless, all this only deals with the artificial scarcity which is used by insiders as a cash cow. It still doesn't solve the problem of:
which was my original point. As Dan and others have pointed out, one needn't even use this exploit, a hoaxer could simply register a confusingly similar .com domain name for less than $10, perhaps giving bogus WHOIS info, perhaps using an untraceable credit card number, and use it for the hoax. I guess the answer is to not take domain names, or hyperlinks, or search engine results, as authoritative, at least until Veri$ign and/or Micro$oft come out with something that provides absolute verification. We all trust them, right? -g