# dot info vs. dot biz vs. dot com **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 10, 2001, 7:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dot-info-vs-dot-biz-vs-dot-com/75737 "2001-08-10T07:38:44Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 19\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Dave\_Stewart](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e274bd/32.png) [@Dave\_Stewart](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dave_Stewart)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2001, 7:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dot-info-vs-dot-biz-vs-dot-com/75737/1 "2001-08-10T07:38:44Z")
There has been a lot of criticism of the introduction of the new “.info” and “.biz” suffixes. For those of you not aware of this, read [[http://www.newsbytes.com/news/01/168842.html](http://www.newsbytes.com/news/01/168842.html)]this]( [url). The entire system of new top level domain names just seems odd to me. Aside from the issue of giving airlines “.aero” when I doubt that there is a single airline without a dot com website, the new domain names seem to me to be a field day for opportunistic pirates. Businesses waste enough money and time chasing people who pirate domain names with the “.com” suffix (go check out [http://www.stolichnaya.com](http://www.stolichnaya.com)), let alone the enormous numbers of pirate websites that will spring into existence following the introduction of this new system. The alleged benefit is fallacious: some businesses have similar names, but if one business claimed the .com top level domain first, the other business missed the boat. The new system is supposed to allow these other business the ability to have websites resembling their business name. Business already have the ability to distiguish their business name by use of the country domain indicator (eg. .uk, .fr, .pl, .au etc). And if the company is global and there is confusion, then odds are it will be sorted out in courts. This new system just makes things confusing, and prone to hijack. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2001, 6:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dot-info-vs-dot-biz-vs-dot-com/75737/2 "2001-08-11T06:08:08Z")
I agree. If the intent of adding domain extensions is to increase the number of available domain names, someone is just not thinking through the repercussions. If I am [ebay.com](http://ebay.com), am I going to sit by while some would-be competitor squats on ebay.biz? Large online businesses will spare no expense to secure all the domain name permutations of the identity they have invested millions of dollars to promote. Then we will be back where we started, with all the desirable domain names controlled by the same familiar faces. The same thing happened when toll-free 800 numbers were expanded to 888 numbers. 1-800-FLOWERS sued to gain control of 1-888-FLOWERS, and the net result is you don’t have nearly as many new numbers as you thought you did. ---
**Author:** ![SPOOFE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c5a1d2/32.png) [@SPOOFE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SPOOFE)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2001, 8:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dot-info-vs-dot-biz-vs-dot-com/75737/3 "2001-08-11T08:58:45Z")
The other side of the argument is that it simply makes more sense to have a better categorical arrangement of the Internet. > [@](#): > > If I am [ebay.com](http://ebay.com), am I going to sit by while some would-be competitor squats on ebay.biz? I don’t know how you can justify this comment, considering that there is no [ebay.org](http://ebay.org) or [ebay.net](http://ebay.net). ---
**Author:** ![SPOOFE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c5a1d2/32.png) [@SPOOFE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SPOOFE)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2001, 9:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dot-info-vs-dot-biz-vs-dot-com/75737/4 "2001-08-11T09:01:31Z")
(Damn, forgot one more thing…) Additionally, the suffix of the site address is hardly as much a problem as the domain name itself. Remember the hassle that came up over a porn site named “Dizney”? It’s ALREADY possible to create a competing site that’s similar in name to others… hell, it’s been happening for the past century. Remember all the court battles Coca-Cola had to fight against Koka-Kola, Co-Cola, etc. etc.? ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2001, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dot-info-vs-dot-biz-vs-dot-com/75737/5 "2001-08-11T16:23:19Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SPOOFE \* > \*\*The other side of the argument is that it simply makes more sense to have a better categorical arrangement of the Internet. > > > [@](#): > > > > If I am [ebay.com](http://ebay.com), am I going to sit by while some would-be competitor squats on ebay.biz? > > I don’t know how you can justify this comment, considering that there is no [ebay.org](http://ebay.org) or [ebay.net](http://ebay.net). \*\* Au contraire, mon frere. [ebay.net](http://www.networksolutions.com/cgi-bin/whois/whois?STRING=ebay.net&STRING=Search) and [ebay.org](http://www.networksolutions.com/cgi-bin/whois/whois?STRING=ebay.org&STRING=Search) are both owned by Ebay, Inc. of San Jose; they have just not developed them, preferring to sit on them so as to prevent anyone else from using them. Thank you for illustrating my point. ---
**Author:** ![hansel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/6bbea6/32.png) [@hansel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hansel)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2001, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dot-info-vs-dot-biz-vs-dot-com/75737/6 "2001-08-11T16:26:52Z")
If the intent is to open up the TLD namespace, why not allow unrestricted TLDs? Is there a technical reason? Or is ICANN afraid of losing it’s bureaucratic prerogatives? ---
**Author:** ![SPOOFE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c5a1d2/32.png) [@SPOOFE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SPOOFE)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2001, 7:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dot-info-vs-dot-biz-vs-dot-com/75737/7 "2001-08-12T07:57:25Z")
> [@](#): > > Au contraire, mon frere. [ebay.net](http://ebay.net) and [ebay.org](http://ebay.org) are both owned by Ebay, Inc. of San Jose; they have just not developed them, preferring to sit on them so as to prevent anyone else from using them. :rolleyes: Yeah. A blank website is SOOOOOO going to provide competition for [ebay.com](http://ebay.com). You, sir, need not be so desperate to win points in a debate. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2001, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dot-info-vs-dot-biz-vs-dot-com/75737/8 "2001-08-12T18:24:32Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SPOOFE \* > \*\*You, sir, need not be so desperate to win points in a debate. \*\* What debate? You made a comment without researching it, I pointed out your error, and now you’re miffed because I tweaked your nose. Whether ebay uses the domain name or not is not relevant. The fact is that they own all the permutations of ebay, which reduces the number of available names. When .info and .biz are released, they will not stop until they own those as well. This was the debate. Last word. ---
**Author:** ![SPOOFE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c5a1d2/32.png) [@SPOOFE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SPOOFE)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2001, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dot-info-vs-dot-biz-vs-dot-com/75737/9 "2001-08-12T21:06:14Z")
> [@](#): > > You made a comment without researching it, I pointed out your error, and now you’re miffed because I tweaked your nose. Without “researching”? I’ll tell you all the research I need… open a browser window and type in “[www.ebay.org](http://www.ebay.org)” (and .net). And, upon getting no hits, I said **that there are no websites of those names**. Whether or not someone owns the domain name is immaterial. Try it yourself. Type in the domain name, and tell me if you get something other than a “This Page Cannot Be Displayed” message. ---
**Author:** ![Crusoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/49beb7/32.png) [@Crusoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crusoe)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2001, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dot-info-vs-dot-biz-vs-dot-com/75737/10 "2001-08-12T21:23:59Z")
Um, **SPOOFE** , I thought that the debate was about ownership of domain names and the fact that alternate suffixes are still being bought by companies who already have websites? If I’ve read that right, then surely it doesn’t matter whether there’s a site at those addresses or not if they’ve been bought. Preventing competitors from using your trade name by buying alternate suffix sites – whether you develop them or not – surely proves the point that adding new suffixes is not aiding in site categorisation. Although I agree that it would be nice to have a clearer naming convention, I just can’t see it happening. ICANN and the other TLD registrars seem to be permanently engaged in a pissing contest, which makes the lines of authority confusing, and I can’t see who or how strict categorisation would be enforced. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Ryan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7feea3/32.png) [@The\_Ryan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Ryan)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2001, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dot-info-vs-dot-biz-vs-dot-com/75737/11 "2001-08-12T21:45:48Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SPOOFE \* > Yeah. A blank website is SOOOOOO going to provide competition for [ebay.com](http://ebay.com). The whole point it to [n]prevent\*\* competition. **Fear Itself** said > [@](#): > > Large online businesses will spare no expense to secure all the domain name permutations of the identity they have invested millions of dollars to promote. In other words “companies will buy domain names and not create websites for them to prevent competition”. You then presented an example of a company buying up domain names andf not creating websites for them, and claimed that that somehow contradicted **Fear Itself** ’s claim. Can you explain this line of reasoning? > [@](#): > > And, upon getting no hits, I said that there are no websites of those names. No, you didn’t say that there are no websites. You said > [@](#): > > I don’t know how you can justify this comment, considering that there is no [ebay.org](http://ebay.org) or [ebay.net](http://ebay.net) “[ebay.org](http://ebay.org)” is not the same as the website which is referenced by “[ebay.org](http://ebay.org)”. Saying that “[ebay.org](http://ebay.org)” does not exist because there is no website there is like saying 1234 Main Street doesn’t exist simply because no building occupies that location. ---
**Author:** ![Dave\_Stewart](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e274bd/32.png) [@Dave\_Stewart](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dave_Stewart)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2001, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dot-info-vs-dot-biz-vs-dot-com/75737/12 "2001-08-13T01:14:28Z")
Very true. And there are good commercial reasons why ebay wouldn’t have a link between [ebay.org](http://ebay.org) and [ebay.net](http://ebay.net) to [ebay.com](http://ebay.com) - they don’t want to dilute their reputation as [ebay.com](http://ebay.com) The illustration about Coca Cola and its long fought battles proves my point. Coca Cola must have spent millions in legal fees fighting to secure its trade mark registration. And now it might have to spend a substatial ampount of money to prevent someone from registering or to reacquire cococola.biz or cocacola.info. It opens up a new battlefield. ---
**Author:** ![SPOOFE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c5a1d2/32.png) [@SPOOFE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SPOOFE)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2001, 7:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dot-info-vs-dot-biz-vs-dot-com/75737/13 "2001-08-13T07:58:57Z")
> [@](#): > > You then presented an example of a company buying up domain names andf not creating websites for them, and claimed that that somehow contradicted Fear Itself’s claim. Can you explain this line of reasoning? I didn’t say it contradicted Mr. Itself’s claim. I was pointing out that his was not a valid argument. Note the first sentence in my first post, which basically said that the new domain extensions are NOT to allow more diverse websites, but to allow for a better system of organization. Companies buying domain names to prevent competition is completely beside the point. > [@](#): > > Saying that “[ebay.org](http://ebay.org)” does not exist because there is no website there is like saying 1234 Main Street doesn’t exist simply because no building occupies that location. If there is no building at 1234 Main Street, you cannot say that there is a building at that location. A web site is the content, not the address, and there is no content at either of those two websites. Seriously, Mr. Ryan, talk about nitpicking. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2001, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dot-info-vs-dot-biz-vs-dot-com/75737/14 "2001-08-13T16:43:32Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SPOOFE \* > **Note the first sentence in my first post, which basically said that the new domain extensions are NOT to allow more diverse websites, but to allow for a better system of organization.** This goal will not be achieved by adding new extensions, when the established websites buy them up and then leave them blank. ---
**Author:** ![Dave\_Stewart](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e274bd/32.png) [@Dave\_Stewart](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dave_Stewart)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2001, 4:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dot-info-vs-dot-biz-vs-dot-com/75737/15 "2001-08-14T04:05:21Z")
Yes, or fight for the ones which have been taken by someone else. I question the value of them anyway. I’m looking for Uninterrupted Power Supplies, Inc. I try [ups.com](http://ups.com), and get the delivery company. Am I really going to think of ups.biz? Maybe its just a matter of increased awareness following use… ---
**Author:** ![ed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c77e96/32.png) [@ed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ed)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2001, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dot-info-vs-dot-biz-vs-dot-com/75737/16 "2001-08-14T16:30:28Z")
> [@](#): > > If there is no building at 1234 Main Street, you cannot say that there is a building at that location. A web site is the content, not the address, and there is no content at either of those two websites. But we’re not talking about websites as such, we’re talking about ownership of domain names. Using your same analogy, if there is no building at 1234 Main Street but the property has been purchased by a competitor, you cannot claim that it is “available”. The original claim > [@](#): > > If I am [ebay.com](http://ebay.com), am I going to sit by while some would-be competitor squats on ebay.biz? is accurate. Ebay _will_ do what it can to get all of the ebay TLD’s, _simply so it can sit on them and do nothing_. Expressly so that no one else can do anything with them. I work for a [dot.com](http://dot.com), and you better believe our management is going to do exactly that with the domain names we own. ---
**Author:** ![Dave\_Stewart](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e274bd/32.png) [@Dave\_Stewart](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dave_Stewart)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2001, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dot-info-vs-dot-biz-vs-dot-com/75737/17 "2001-08-15T03:21:23Z")
But have you registered the domain name in Chinese characters and katakana (Japanese charcters)? 🙂 If you are Heinz, you have [http://www.heinz.com](http://www.heinz.com) registered. Now you have to get heinz.biz and heinz.info. In addition, you also have to work out what the translation of your name is in Chinese and Japanese characters, and register those domain names. This is actually a sensible move by ICANN, as most people in China and Japan can’t speak English and are increasingly large users of the web. But .biz and .info is just stupid. ---
**Author:** ![Dave\_Stewart](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e274bd/32.png) [@Dave\_Stewart](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dave_Stewart)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2001, 10:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dot-info-vs-dot-biz-vs-dot-com/75737/18 "2001-08-16T10:03:21Z")
Just found [[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12488-2001Aug15.html](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12488-2001Aug15.html)]]( [url) this in the Washington Post… ---
**Author:** ![Dave\_Stewart](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e274bd/32.png) [@Dave\_Stewart](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dave_Stewart)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2001, 10:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dot-info-vs-dot-biz-vs-dot-com/75737/19 "2001-08-16T10:04:38Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dave Stewart \* > \*\*Just found [this](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12488-2001Aug15.html) in the Washington Post… \*\* …fixed…?