Baby, remember my .NAME
Date: Tuesday January 15 2002, @05:24PM
Topic: New gTLDs

dtobias writes "The .name TLD has gone live, and you can now look up both domain registrations and the "protective registrations" that allowed corporate interests to muck around with this personal namespace, in the site."

I managed to register myself, but the registrar hasn't gotten back to me about letting me set up the name servers. This is par for the course with new TLDs; the .info and .biz names I registered (all uncontested) took days or weeks before the registrars got things together sufficiently to let me actually use the names. Incidentally, the registration is through GoDaddy, though a look at the official accredited registrar list shows they're not there (and in fact the GoDaddy site currently has no mention of .name, though it did when I submitted my preregistration months ago). So I don't know how it managed to get registered.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Baby, remember my .NAME | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 12 comments | Search Discussion
Click this button to post a comment to this story
The options below will change how the comments display
Check box to change your default comment view
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Re: Baby, remember my .NAME
by fnord ( on Tuesday January 15 2002, @08:36PM (#4655)
User #2810 Info
The .name WHOIS takes a bit of getting used to, which is fine if it will slow down data-mining. I checked out for grins, not surprisingly it is blocked by Warner Bros. Am I correct in understanding that three real Harry Potter's can have that block removed? If so, some Marxist must have come up with that idea. -g
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
.NAME == Yawn...jeez, register in .COM - costs les
by Ron_Bennett on Wednesday January 16 2002, @06:24AM (#4662)
User #3011 Info |
Saw a few articles yesterday about .NAME, but certainly not anywhere the amount of press .INFO or .BIZ received.

And let's face it, after the experience many people had with .INFO and .BIZ, many are done with new TLDs...and instead are sticking with the legacy TLDs (.COM, .NET, .ORG) - they are reliable, are often cheaper, offer more registrants more control, and are legally much safer than the new TLDs which force upon registrants the standard ICANN UDRP and on top of that, the new TLD registries add their own IP agreements too...a registrant with .COM at least has a fighting chance...with .BIZ, .INFO, and .NAME, the registrant has basically no chance...between all the policies, bogus claims, incompentence, and corruption.

And even if .NAME is administered flawlessly, it's still doomed...for most people like to have full CONTROL (at least the perception of anyways) of what they purchase...with a .NAME, one only controls a third level - and only to a very limited extent. In contrast, for example, with a .COM domain, a registrant can use it for a website, DNS, email, etc...much more control and stability - and often at lower cost too.

Lastly, .NAME is redundent...why would one pay for an email address when they already have one...the .NAME folks are counting on that many people will want vanity email addresses...and that may be true, but many of those same people would rather have their own domain name that they can use for email, website, etc with full control. But most importantly, the bulk of people out there are too damn cheap to pay money for an email address when their ISP gives them one or more free with their subscription - perhaps .NAME will partner with ISPs...that's really the only hope they have...but actually there's another problem too...lack of name space...that's right...between all the IP claims and restricted names in .NAME, there's not much left - especially when one considers that numerous people share the exact same first and last name and out of those some will even share the same middle name. You know the more I think about it, the folks pushing .TEL have a better chance than .NAME of succeeding...and that's not saying much :-(
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.

  • This article comes from ICANNWatch

    The URL for this story is: