🚀 go-pugleaf

>That is not a solution for the millions of companies that have already
invested
>significant funds in their domain name.  I don't think IBM, or Toyota or
>Chrysler plan to move from .com to .biz.  They have millions tied up in
>collateral and advertising and not to mention the benefit of being able to
have
>folks just type the name (in netscape) and get to their web site.  No
http://,
>or www. or .com needed just plain old ibm.


    Sorry, buddy. You invest in a monopoly and you deserve to lose. Other
people's investment in a screwed up system don't deserve to be saved.

    For the anti-Microsoft out there, consider a company that invested
millions on a product based upon the assumption the IE4.0 was soon going to
be bundled with Windows and the DOJ case results in that not happening.
Sorry, that's business. If the case results in Windows 95 being shipped with
some other browsers, you will just have to adjust your product to accomodate
the new development, at your own expense.

    As for Nescape's browser mapping just 'ibm' to ibm.com, that could
change any day. Heck, if I was Netscape, I'd make just 'foo' map to
'foo.extern.netscape.com' and sell registrations in the
'extern.netscape.com' domain. But what do I know?

    Of course, if you did accept this argument, it would weight in favor of
maintaining the status quo for .COM. In now way does it weight in favor of
competing registries inside the .COM domain.

    DS