<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: JPNIC Argues Companies Shouldn&#8217;t Be Able to Get Corporate Top Level Domain Names</title>
	<atom:link href="http://domainnamewire.com/2010/07/21/jpnic-argues-companies-shouldnt-be-able-to-get-corporate-top-level-domain-names/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://domainnamewire.com/2010/07/21/jpnic-argues-companies-shouldnt-be-able-to-get-corporate-top-level-domain-names/</link>
	<description>News and Views for the Domain Name Industry</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Feb 2012 04:15:57 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Olney</title>
		<link>http://domainnamewire.com/2010/07/21/jpnic-argues-companies-shouldnt-be-able-to-get-corporate-top-level-domain-names/comment-page-1/#comment-660823</link>
		<dc:creator>Olney</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 22 Jul 2010 14:56:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://domainnamewire.com/?p=13313#comment-660823</guid>
		<description>@Andrew
This is in pure speculation but
Many companies have very strict guidelines when it comes to their corporate sites. Working at and Ad agency I know many global companies can&#039;t put even certain needed tags on their site.

Canon.com is the corporate site
.Canon is for canon Customers. It doesn&#039;t conflict with the corporate site &amp; still uses the Canon brand. It&#039;s a very clear difference, it&#039;s low cost, they don&#039;t necessarily have to host every domain the same place. Each country can manage their own customer base easier. No one is uploading stuff to Canon.com

Would you want every domainer to be able to have username.domainnamewire.com or would you think it&#039;s better to separate user generated content but still let it be part of your brand?

I have no relationship with Canon, &amp; this is no insider scoop but I do work at an agency where global clients want to just take advantage of technology. In domaining we hear of new extensions that only get bought by domainers. This is clearly a move for these domains to be used by their customer base &amp; not just bought invested &amp; sold. If this isn&#039;t their plan it would shock me.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Andrew<br />
This is in pure speculation but<br />
Many companies have very strict guidelines when it comes to their corporate sites. Working at and Ad agency I know many global companies can&#8217;t put even certain needed tags on their site.</p>
<p>Canon.com is the corporate site<br />
.Canon is for canon Customers. It doesn&#8217;t conflict with the corporate site &amp; still uses the Canon brand. It&#8217;s a very clear difference, it&#8217;s low cost, they don&#8217;t necessarily have to host every domain the same place. Each country can manage their own customer base easier. No one is uploading stuff to Canon.com</p>
<p>Would you want every domainer to be able to have username.domainnamewire.com or would you think it&#8217;s better to separate user generated content but still let it be part of your brand?</p>
<p>I have no relationship with Canon, &amp; this is no insider scoop but I do work at an agency where global clients want to just take advantage of technology. In domaining we hear of new extensions that only get bought by domainers. This is clearly a move for these domains to be used by their customer base &amp; not just bought invested &amp; sold. If this isn&#8217;t their plan it would shock me.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: gpmgroup</title>
		<link>http://domainnamewire.com/2010/07/21/jpnic-argues-companies-shouldnt-be-able-to-get-corporate-top-level-domain-names/comment-page-1/#comment-660821</link>
		<dc:creator>gpmgroup</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 22 Jul 2010 14:46:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://domainnamewire.com/?p=13313#comment-660821</guid>
		<description>@Olney

.brand TLDs as proposed will result in profound change to the dynamics of the Internet They will create a Super league and as with all Super Leagues the cost of entry is high.

At the moment the Internet is much more a level playing field and as a result anyone can compete - $10 for a domain plus hosting.

A Super league for the economically advantaged destroys that level playing field and is not something to be undertaken lightly.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Olney</p>
<p>.brand TLDs as proposed will result in profound change to the dynamics of the Internet They will create a Super league and as with all Super Leagues the cost of entry is high.</p>
<p>At the moment the Internet is much more a level playing field and as a result anyone can compete &#8211; $10 for a domain plus hosting.</p>
<p>A Super league for the economically advantaged destroys that level playing field and is not something to be undertaken lightly.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andrew Allemann</title>
		<link>http://domainnamewire.com/2010/07/21/jpnic-argues-companies-shouldnt-be-able-to-get-corporate-top-level-domain-names/comment-page-1/#comment-660790</link>
		<dc:creator>Andrew Allemann</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 22 Jul 2010 14:04:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://domainnamewire.com/?p=13313#comment-660790</guid>
		<description>@ Olney - I don&#039;t understand why Canon wouldn&#039;t just offer third level domains at user.canon.com.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@ Olney &#8211; I don&#8217;t understand why Canon wouldn&#8217;t just offer third level domains at user.canon.com.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Olney</title>
		<link>http://domainnamewire.com/2010/07/21/jpnic-argues-companies-shouldnt-be-able-to-get-corporate-top-level-domain-names/comment-page-1/#comment-660774</link>
		<dc:creator>Olney</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 22 Jul 2010 13:44:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://domainnamewire.com/?p=13313#comment-660774</guid>
		<description>I think that everyone is looking at this from the wrong angle.

I strongly believe Canon wants to use this as a domain for a photo/media sharing service to offer to customers. It enhances their brand &amp; keeps the customer long term. So it will be beneficial. The amount it cost to register .Canon, &amp; give away accounts with Canon cameras would even be worth it. Think of the ROI &amp; customer loyalty.

JPNIC would realize that companies that do this compete with .jp in Japan. Just think about .Mac which used to be free, exact same business model. There is no way they would get this extension just to make money by people registering it. It will be tied to a service, it just makes sense for their market.

It&#039;s not a brand protection strategy, or a brand hype. I think it&#039;s a clear strategy, &amp; with GMO a very large Japan internet company being behind it, I think it will be a service based strategy. Everything is not about who can register what, buy or sell. Domains should be about use. Think New School....</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think that everyone is looking at this from the wrong angle.</p>
<p>I strongly believe Canon wants to use this as a domain for a photo/media sharing service to offer to customers. It enhances their brand &amp; keeps the customer long term. So it will be beneficial. The amount it cost to register .Canon, &amp; give away accounts with Canon cameras would even be worth it. Think of the ROI &amp; customer loyalty.</p>
<p>JPNIC would realize that companies that do this compete with .jp in Japan. Just think about .Mac which used to be free, exact same business model. There is no way they would get this extension just to make money by people registering it. It will be tied to a service, it just makes sense for their market.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s not a brand protection strategy, or a brand hype. I think it&#8217;s a clear strategy, &amp; with GMO a very large Japan internet company being behind it, I think it will be a service based strategy. Everything is not about who can register what, buy or sell. Domains should be about use. Think New School&#8230;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Attila</title>
		<link>http://domainnamewire.com/2010/07/21/jpnic-argues-companies-shouldnt-be-able-to-get-corporate-top-level-domain-names/comment-page-1/#comment-660700</link>
		<dc:creator>Attila</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 22 Jul 2010 11:35:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://domainnamewire.com/?p=13313#comment-660700</guid>
		<description>I agree, while Canon might be doing this as a publicity stunt. I think the new gTLD&#039;s are to serve the general public and not corporations looking for publicity. For what purpose would someone need a dot CANON when they can just go to www.canon.com ?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree, while Canon might be doing this as a publicity stunt. I think the new gTLD&#8217;s are to serve the general public and not corporations looking for publicity. For what purpose would someone need a dot CANON when they can just go to <a href="http://www.canon.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.canon.com</a> ?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Acro</title>
		<link>http://domainnamewire.com/2010/07/21/jpnic-argues-companies-shouldnt-be-able-to-get-corporate-top-level-domain-names/comment-page-1/#comment-660234</link>
		<dc:creator>Acro</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 Jul 2010 20:33:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://domainnamewire.com/?p=13313#comment-660234</guid>
		<description>I fully agree with the JPNIC argument. They hit the nail on the head. The gTLDs that would simply exist as a mere brand extension offer nothing new to the Internet consumer. First off, it&#039;s a false security against trademark violations, that can still occur in any ccTLD. Second, a company that secures a gTLD on the basis of a trademark would have such a strong mark that they could get the .com, .net or .org either via an acquisition or via a UDRP. An example would be .canon - a fully corporate entity with no concern or services for the public. I am sure they would never want to give jim.canon to a guy named Jim Canon. On the other hand, .music is truly a services-driven gTLD that would give jim&#039;s band the chance to own spectacular.music</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I fully agree with the JPNIC argument. They hit the nail on the head. The gTLDs that would simply exist as a mere brand extension offer nothing new to the Internet consumer. First off, it&#8217;s a false security against trademark violations, that can still occur in any ccTLD. Second, a company that secures a gTLD on the basis of a trademark would have such a strong mark that they could get the .com, .net or .org either via an acquisition or via a UDRP. An example would be .canon &#8211; a fully corporate entity with no concern or services for the public. I am sure they would never want to give jim.canon to a guy named Jim Canon. On the other hand, .music is truly a services-driven gTLD that would give jim&#8217;s band the chance to own spectacular.music</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

