- Joined
- Jun 6, 2002
- Messages
- 2,234
- Reaction score
- 2
http://allafrica.com/stories/200305060541.html
Business Day (Johannesburg)
May 6, 2003
Posted to the web May 6, 2003
Lesley Stones, Information Technology Editor
Johannesburg
CLEVER or quirky internet addresses will do far more to boost business and tourism than government can by spending millions to acquire the disputed internet address southafrica.com, says a leading player in the internet industry.
The communications department is negotiating to buy the domain name from US company Virtual Countries in a move likely to cost $500 000. But innovative ideas and smart marketing would save taxpayers money and do far more to boost SA's image overseas, says Calvin Browne, a director of UniForum, which oversees the .co.za namespace.
The department has already offered "hundreds of thousands of dollars" for the domain name. But Virtual Countries is likely to hold out for a settlement similar to one it reached with the New Zealand government, which paid NZ1m (about $563000) for newzealand.com.
"Instead of exporting hundreds of thousands of dollars to a US corporation, let's get creative with a well-designed portal with several domain names," says Browne. "This would be much more effective."
Examples of offbeat but successful web addresses include the world's most popular search engine google.com, although its name bears no relation to its services. Locally, the 20twenty website attracted banking customers despite the name having nothing to do with banking.
Government could set up a website reached through the innovative address 20-pencebeer.co.uk, and advertise it on the London Underground. Shivering citizens in Seattle could be lured to seek out 11.5.months.sunshine.us if the address was advertised on its buses. Stockholm streets could display posters advertising the website 20degreesCelsius, again linking to the SA government's website.
Browne argues that websites are not successful because of their names but because of the information they contain. Instead of fighting for southafrica.com, government should design a portal that is rich in content and easy to use, then set up dozens of internet addresses to access it. Smart marketing could make those sites appear at the top of international search engines when tourists or businessmen seek information about SA. At the same time, Virtual Countries could retain the disputed southafrica.com, and continue to use it as an independent source of information about SA.
The battle for southafrica.com has raged for two years in various courts. What makes the clash complicated is that, unlike with trademarks, there are no clear rules governing who has the right of ownership over a geographic name. So ownership rests with whoever was smart enough to register it first.
Virtual Countries was quick to recognise the internet's potential as a marketing tool and registered 33 country names in 1995, long before most governments woke up to the marketing potential.
Senior communications department manager for e-business Envir Fraser argues that no other internet address has the same attraction as the .com domain.
The department won the right to take the case to arbitration at the World Intellectual Property Organisation (Wipo), and will do so if it cannot settle with Virtual Countries. There is no guarantee it will win, and arbitration would incur more legal costs.
Director-general Andile Ngcaba is adamant that SA has a watertight case in arguing that geographic names are sovereign assets that should be controlled by the state. Virtual Countries argues that no state has a right to own those names, and it did not register southafrica.com to demand a ransom as it actively uses the domain to display tourism and business information.
Internet lawyers fear that SA will lose as Wipo has already ruled against New Zealand in a similar battle. The arbitrators declared that a country name is not a trademark a government has the right to own.
Since assessing the New Zealand case, Wipo has banned the registration of any more country names until new rules are thrashed out to determine who has the right of ownership.
Fraser says the battle has become a matter of principal to protect and enhance SA's reputation.
Business Day (Johannesburg)
May 6, 2003
Posted to the web May 6, 2003
Lesley Stones, Information Technology Editor
Johannesburg
CLEVER or quirky internet addresses will do far more to boost business and tourism than government can by spending millions to acquire the disputed internet address southafrica.com, says a leading player in the internet industry.
The communications department is negotiating to buy the domain name from US company Virtual Countries in a move likely to cost $500 000. But innovative ideas and smart marketing would save taxpayers money and do far more to boost SA's image overseas, says Calvin Browne, a director of UniForum, which oversees the .co.za namespace.
The department has already offered "hundreds of thousands of dollars" for the domain name. But Virtual Countries is likely to hold out for a settlement similar to one it reached with the New Zealand government, which paid NZ1m (about $563000) for newzealand.com.
"Instead of exporting hundreds of thousands of dollars to a US corporation, let's get creative with a well-designed portal with several domain names," says Browne. "This would be much more effective."
Examples of offbeat but successful web addresses include the world's most popular search engine google.com, although its name bears no relation to its services. Locally, the 20twenty website attracted banking customers despite the name having nothing to do with banking.
Government could set up a website reached through the innovative address 20-pencebeer.co.uk, and advertise it on the London Underground. Shivering citizens in Seattle could be lured to seek out 11.5.months.sunshine.us if the address was advertised on its buses. Stockholm streets could display posters advertising the website 20degreesCelsius, again linking to the SA government's website.
Browne argues that websites are not successful because of their names but because of the information they contain. Instead of fighting for southafrica.com, government should design a portal that is rich in content and easy to use, then set up dozens of internet addresses to access it. Smart marketing could make those sites appear at the top of international search engines when tourists or businessmen seek information about SA. At the same time, Virtual Countries could retain the disputed southafrica.com, and continue to use it as an independent source of information about SA.
The battle for southafrica.com has raged for two years in various courts. What makes the clash complicated is that, unlike with trademarks, there are no clear rules governing who has the right of ownership over a geographic name. So ownership rests with whoever was smart enough to register it first.
Virtual Countries was quick to recognise the internet's potential as a marketing tool and registered 33 country names in 1995, long before most governments woke up to the marketing potential.
Senior communications department manager for e-business Envir Fraser argues that no other internet address has the same attraction as the .com domain.
The department won the right to take the case to arbitration at the World Intellectual Property Organisation (Wipo), and will do so if it cannot settle with Virtual Countries. There is no guarantee it will win, and arbitration would incur more legal costs.
Director-general Andile Ngcaba is adamant that SA has a watertight case in arguing that geographic names are sovereign assets that should be controlled by the state. Virtual Countries argues that no state has a right to own those names, and it did not register southafrica.com to demand a ransom as it actively uses the domain to display tourism and business information.
Internet lawyers fear that SA will lose as Wipo has already ruled against New Zealand in a similar battle. The arbitrators declared that a country name is not a trademark a government has the right to own.
Since assessing the New Zealand case, Wipo has banned the registration of any more country names until new rules are thrashed out to determine who has the right of ownership.
Fraser says the battle has become a matter of principal to protect and enhance SA's reputation.
