if a brand was not significant enough to reach internet search significance why should they be entitled to their own tld? why should be some company "co" from country x be more entitled to their own tld than the company co with the same name from country y? If they feel they are, they can a) manually start and win the auction b) buy the tld c) use an alternative like .brandHQ,.getbrand,.usebrand or whatever c) just keep using their original domain brand.com, which is the most simple and straight forward solution that requires no effort on their part.

By your logic the evolution of the internet would forever stagnate because developers would be stuck reserving an infinite amount of tlds that keep on popping up, it's just unrealistic and not pragmatic. reserving 100k of the most popular domains is a good faith effort and a pragmatic solution.

this is the attitude that makes the handshake community untenable

> By your logic...

Did you mean by your imagination to put words in another's mouth? Your ability to ascertain (assume?) so much from an internet question is impressive

Am I supposed to respond to your half baked thoughts that do not even amount to an actual argument with a counter argument when there is nothing to counter?

Try putting some effort into formulating an argument, this behavior of yours won't cut it.

Was I trying to make an argument?

I'm pretty sure I was asking about edge cases that are hard to deal with so that I might understand how the other party thinks before formulating deeper opinions.

Are you seeing straw men where there are none?

>Was I trying to make an argument?

No and that's exactly the problem, we're not on reddit. You asked me a question and I elaborated in a detailed manner to which you responded in a low quality manner with no substance which was just name calling.

>I'm pretty sure I was asking about edge cases that are hard to deal with so that I might understand how the other party thinks before formulating deeper opinions.

I gave several perfectly valid solutions that are pragmatic and realistic, if you don't like them, then you can point them out and explain your reasoning but resorting to hand-wavy rants won't be constructive or helpful for any serious dialogue.

> why should be some company "co" from country x be more entitled to their own tld than the company co with the same name from country y?

Because in some cases, that is the rule. See Rule #5 https://github.com/handshake-org/hs-names

> if a brand was not significant enough to reach internet search significance why should they be entitled to their own tld?

Why should any brand be entitled to such things?

> but resorting to hand-wavy rants won't be constructive or helpful for any serious dialogue.

Can you quote where I did this? I could for you

> Because in some cases, that is the rule. See Rule #5 https://github.com/handshake-org/hs-names

How does the rule in any shape or form contradict what I have stated? It says: "The domain must not collide with a higher-ranked domain. For example, google.co.uk would lose to google.com. Only the owner of the higher-ranked domain is able to redeem it"

Point is that many developers invested a lot of time and effort into establishing rules for reservation to maximize fairness, so when a domain is not reserved my statement above applies: why would some company co in country x be more entitled to the one in country y? After all the reservation rules have been applied and determined some specific reservation outcome. There are some proposed solutions in that case too, some of which I have outlined before.

>Why should any brand be entitled to such things?

Exactly, but you are the one making a fuss about in the first place.

>Can you quote where I did this? I could for you

I already did, it's your rant directly to my long elaboration to your question. I'm not going to further entertain your flame baits, everybody can see how much effort each of us put into thoughtful responses and can judge accordingly.

>Why should any brand be entitled to such things?

>> Exactly, but you are the one making a fuss about in the first place.

Does this mean you believe there should not have been any reservations?

No, I was merely jestingly pointing out the inconsistency in your thinking.

> No, I was merely jestingly pointing out the inconsistency in your thinking.

How are we to believe anything you have written is in good faith?

Can you explain my thinking and where it is inconsistent?