Hi All
Just a few comments on the current domain name registration scare.
This is the Internet equivalent of the people who in Gold Rush times
made their fortunes from selling all sorts of superfluous gubbins
to gullible fortune-hunters. These people often made a *lot* more
money than the majority of the gold-diggers.
There is a lot of FUD (Fear Uncertainty and Doubt) about. IBM
originated it in the old days of mainframe computing and it
hasn't gone away. The world of computing is one of the most
nakedly aggressive of businesses. Its no-holds barred capitalism
of the most brutal sort at times, and maybe some of us in Museums
are not fully aware of how raw it can be.
At 14:12 2000-07-21 +0100, Martin Sach wrote:
>Does anyone think that we should report this to the Plymouth
>Trading Standards department? I have spent £50 on behalf of London
>Canal Museum registering domain names - I did not use this company
>as they are expensive, but went to one of the low cost registration
Maybe a word to the media, for example, Watchdog. Having that dreadful
Robinson woman having a go at them may do more good in educational
value.
>services, so they did not gain anything. The benefits to us of
>having www.londoncanalmuseum.com are limited.
The trouble with that is that most web browsers automatically
prepend and append "www." and ".com" to any character string typed in
the address window. This is why almost every word in the dictionary
has been registered as a .com, mostly by so-called "domain-squatters".
These people do mass registrations of words and phrases, all the better
to sell them on when someone who wishes to use a domain requests
it. Thanks goodness that most of them are in the US.
This all comes back to ignorance, knowledge and education. It is up to
those of us who know something about these matters to dispel the FUD
put about by the computing sharks. When you see how ignorant lots of
people who actually *use* the internet are about how it works, is it
any wonder that those who do *not* can be intimidated by those interested
in a quick profit. The naive user is becoming *used* to the idea that
everything on the web *is* a ".com".
Ian Morrison then wrote :
>If someone has registered
>> benniemuseum.com, more fool them, as there is no prospect of the
>> Bennie Museum (annual budget < 6000 pounds) ever being able to
>> afford to pay for it. If someone sets up a website on their behalf,
>> all I can say is good luck.
Well, that's all very well but how do you go about suppressing a web site
that gives an institution a bad rep except through the courts? I know its
not likely but it is bound to happen sooner or later.
Just a last rant. the use of ".com" for UK based stuff. I can see it being
useful for international companies but for UK based ones. It is a bad trend
however and again driven by fear and greed. The worst of it is the use of
that abomination "dot.com" by the especially clueless end of the media.
I don't know how much sense that made but I'm going home now.
So there, Michael :)
--
Michael Comiskey, Systems Manager, Ulster Museum
[log in to unmask]
"A museum is an educational institution and it's not just the public we
need to educate" - Janice Klein
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|