.tel

[newsiness]

how is .tel recently?

 

[hawkeye]

Deep breaths. I don't understand your question.

Thanks for the assist, as convenient.
-Jeff

As usual, you look for a way out of answering my questions with a misdirect reply. You just won't engage in discussion, if someone questions your reasons or POV! You don't have to like me , but that is no reason to avoid the topic and questions I and others ask. IMHO. :gl:


:talk: .tell :talk:

 

[Jeff]

Huh?

As usual, you look for a way out of answering my questions with a misdirect reply. You just won't engage in discussion, if someone questions your reasons or POV! You don't have to like me , but that is no reason to avoid the topic and questions I and others ask. IMHO. :gl:

Deep breaths. What the heck ... are you talking about, friend? :blink:

A shorter, one syllable extension (I'm discussing the extension here in this .TEL context) is exponentially more effective from a brandability standpoint than one that is longer and with more than one syllable, IMHO. .COM, of course, is an established three letter, one syllable extension, and .TEL is a short, one syllable start up extension! :talk:
If there's more than that to your post, again I honestly don't understand it. :gl: :imho:

Thanks again for the assist.
-Jeff

 

[hawkeye]

Deep breaths. What the heck ... are you talking about, friend? :blink:

A shorter, one syllable extension (I'm discussing the extension here in this .TEL context) is exponentially more effective from a brandability standpoint than one that is longer and with more than one syllable, IMHO. .COM, of course, is an established three letter, one syllable extension, and .TEL is a shorter, one syllable start up extension! :talk:
If there's more than that to your post, again I honestly don't understand it. :gl: :imho:

Thanks again for the assist.
-Jeff

...do kids throw rocks at you when you walk outside??!!?

The subject is 'shorter and not so clumsy to say', as you brought up prior.
So,again, my questions to you -

...it seems you are championing the 'longer' version of mobile.google.com :sold: over the shorter and more brandable m.google.com or google.com/m. Don't you feel that shorter is easier to remember, just like you note it is and would be with the highly brandable .tel extension. As branding and being short, is what is important here in your justifications of what makes a 'good' extension, why do you promote the longer and harder version - mobile.google.com?? Do you feel it is more highly brandable for the common internet surfer? IYHO. And should Google use the highly brandable .tel in their domain - tel.google.com?

:gl: :music:

A BIG LONNGGGG SIGH!!

 

[Jeff]

Extension, itself.

:hi:

I am specifically discussing the .TEL extension (the actual extension itself ... a short, three letter, one syllable, and brandable extension) here, and not the contents of the signature, Google, lengths of entire URL's, etc. :gl:

-Jeff

 

[Coopey]

>> Yeah, any chance a mod could split this thread please?

Bringing it slightly back to .tel relevance: ICANN's site has an interesting file on .tel vs .mobi if anyone is interested:
http://www.icann.org/correspondence/mahdavi-to-twomey-04may06.pdf

 

[Jeff]

Thanks for bringing this discussion back to .TEL relevance, Sid! :music: :talk:

PS. Could you please PM me the link (if you have it handy) of the public comments that were posted ... the public comments that K. Mahdavi of Telnic is addressing in the link above in order to correct a number of misunderstandings therein? IYHO. :gl:
Thanks very kindly.
-Jeff

 

[dag]

Thanks for bringing this discussion back to .TEL relevance, Sid! :music: :talk:

PS. Could you please PM me the link (if you have it handy) of the public comments that were posted ... the public comments that K. Mahdavi of Telnic is addressing in the link above in order to correct a number of misunderstandings therein? IYHO. :gl:
Thanks very kindly.
-Jeff

To settle your confusion (and anyone else's) once and for all...

Here is a screen capture of a portion of a 2007 letter from K. Mahdavi, Telnic's CEO, to Paul Twomey, of ICANN, which very clearly settles the question of whether .TEL can have more than contact information:

Note in particular this portion:

Intended use - .mobi is intended for web sites and other traditional uses of the DNS, while .tel is intended to allow for storage of contact information and may not be used for web sites.

The underlined "not" is HIS, not mine.

The rest of that letter regards fee structure issues and isn't all that interesting, but can be found here: http://www.icann.org/correspondence/mahdavi-to-twomey-22feb07.pdf.

 

[hawkeye]

:o What does this mean for everyone with the highly brandable .tel?? Is this saying it's not only not highly brandable , but not even a useful domain 'name' extension??

:bah:


:gl:

 

[Jeff]

Note in particular this portion:

Intended use - .mobi is intended for web sites and other traditional uses of the DNS, while .tel is intended to allow for storage of contact information and may not be used for web sites.

The underlined "not" is HIS, not mine.

Thanks for the post, I meant to try to follow up on Sid's post above this morning, but I got sidetracked with regular life goings on, etc. I'm thinking more and more, too ... that the highly brandable .TEL could be short for such HiP terms as "Telephony" or "Telecommunications", versus what we, as domainers, might jump to the conclusion that it's pidgeonholed as "Telephone" or some other seemingly archaic abbreviation, etc. Just my opinion, and food for thought ... :gl: :talk:

Intended use ... intended use as it related, at the time, to an response to a proposed fee structure amendment ... that means things may have the ability to change (or "adapt") in the future, IMHO. Would you agree that things could change (or adapt) over time ... and in advance of the official launch of the .TEL? IYHO.
(I've highlighted the terms "intended" and "may" above, as well ... to emphasize a key point, IMHO). :gl:

Of course, we most definitely need to further dissect and discuss additional information as the brandable .TEL extension prepares for launch ... but, overall, I tend to agree with the "Domain Tools Team" post of March 4, 2007 (in a post subsequent to this February 22, 2007 letter regarding a proposed fee structure amendment), IMHO.

A domain is a domain is a domain. If you are allowed to control the DNS servers then it can be used for any purpose DNS would allow for. We saw this with .NAME. Dot Name said they would only allow third level registrations, then after the launch they said it was a mistake and went to second level registrations.

If hotels.tel and flowers.tel don’t resolve to a mobile site selling those things within 3 years I will eat my shorts.

Please PM me for the link, as it contains reference to a term that we all have agreed not to post / discuss in this thread ... which is a discussion of the .TEL, IMHO.
Thanks again for the professional ongoing dialogue regarding the .TEL! :talk:
-Jeff

 

[dag]

Would you agree that things could change (or adapt) over time ... and in advance of the official launch of the .TEL? IYHO.

No.

You read the most straightforward things like they were tarot cards, Jeff. Not everything is completely open to interpretation. But of course you'll beg to differ, so...whatever.

 

[Jeff]

No.

^ I respectfully disagree, IMHO. :blink:

PS. This is an interesting observation ...
11-14-2007, 12:54 AM EST:

It's not intended to bring you to a full-fledged site -- although I don't know if there would be anything in place that would prevent someone from doing so.

PS. Moving right along ...
Any thoughts on whether the highly brandable .TEL could be short for such HiP terms as ... "Telephony" or "Telecommunications", etc? IYHO's. :gl:

Also, are there any specific questions that I should include in my email to Telnic ... regarding the highly marketable .TEL extension? :music: :talk:
-Jeff

 

[Jeff]

:hi:

Sorry to "bump" ... :blink:

I'm starting to receive email's and PM's with notes and questions and related queries, etc. for Telnic ... please continue to send and/or post here, and I will put it all together in one consolidated email - with review here prior, if y'all wish - to send over to address folk's requests for additional information regarding the highly brandable .TEL, IMHO. :gl:

Thanks much, friends! :talk:
-Jeff

 

[acc]

There is nothing "intriguing" about a SIMPLE contact page ONLY domain extension, period. It may be of some interest to some - time will tell. If so fine, if not, then fine too.

I personally believe that .teLL will eventually share company with .name. :imho:

A domain is a domain is a domain. ..... If hotels.tel and flowers.tel don’t resolve to a mobile site selling those things within 3 years I will eat my shorts.

1. Wrong! .teLL is for a CONTACT PAGE ONLY.
2. I hope he likes mustard with his shorts.

Also, are there any specific questions that I should include in my email to Telnic ... regarding the highly marketable .TEL extension?

Yes, ask them ...
1. To speak s-l-o-w-l-y and LOUDLY and RE-explain how .teLL is ONLY for a contact PAGE - NOT for web pages. It was NOT designed or approved to compete with .mobi.
2. If you could be the 1st president of the .teLL fan club.
3. When the.teLL secret decoder rings will be available that allows you to turn .teLL into anything that you WISH it to be.


And every single time ... in every single paragraph, that you continue to OVERUSE your clever saying "h*ghly br*nd*ble .teLL" - (not so secretly and feebly attempting to build some kind or search engine fodder) you are SPAMMING all of the readers of the NamePros forum.

You are SPAMMING us.

You are SPAMMING us all. :imho:
.
.

 

[dag]

Yes, ask them ...
1. To speak s-l-o-w-l-y and LOUDLY and RE-explain how .teLL is ONLY for a contact PAGE - NOT for web pages. It was NOT designed or approved to compete with .mobi.
2. If you could be the 1st president of the .teLL fan club.
3. When the.teLL secret decoder rings will be available that allows you to turn .teLL into anything that you WISH it to be.

:lol:

And don't forget #4:

When will you be enlisting .tel soldiers in the holy war against .mobi, and how can you join?

 

[hawkeye]

Yes, please ask them if they have a highly brandable .tel hats and visors coming out and when. And if the only size is really going to be 'small headed', as requested by the 'soon to be .teLL fan club president'.

Might be nice to know if there will be highly marketable .tel smileys too.

Thanks for helping us we these. :imho:

:gl:

 

[VURG]

http://www.domainesinfo.fr/english/169/tel-to-open-towards-end-of-2008.php

Lot's of delays. I won't be suprised if there are more.

Sounds like late 2008 or early 2009. I think that telnic sounds like a small company trying to do big things.