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.
>> 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?
How are we to believe anything you have written is in good faith?
Can you explain my thinking and where it is inconsistent?
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