I think the "problem" he wants to solve is that of browsers going to search engines when people type search terms into the search box. He'd rather have the browser go directly to his client's site when anyone types anything related to his client into the search box. He views search engines as interfering with the proper relationship between his client's customers and his client. I hate to tell him this, but if his client's customers really have a relationship with his client, they don't use the search box. They already have a bookmark for his client's site made and will use that to go directly there. When I use the search box it's because I don't want sent directly to a site because I'm trying to sidestep the obvious conflict: what happens when the same terms are related to one of his client's sites and to another site that's unrelated to his client? I can't trust him to decide which it should be, because the correct answer may be in direct conflict with his interests if what I'm looking for isn't his client's site.

Hello, Mr Knarr, Thanks for the comment. I’d like to say that I also use the search bar. When I want to search for content and compare results, I use the search bar. There is no problem there. But the problem is in the internet address bar. [When I remember the company name and brand name (after using the search bar), then I’d type the brand/company name in the URL/address bar.] I wish to clarify that when users type company name or brand name in the URL/internet address bar (not the search bar), they should have direct access to the company or brand name’s website. Lastly, the issue of brand and company names being typed in the URL is -- or should be -- every company’s interest, not just several persons’ or several companies’ interest. Please take note, I wrote more about this in "Whose Customers Are Those Typing Brand Names in the Browser's Address Bar?" I hope this helps. Thanks again.

I think you're confusing the search box (which allows you to enter a brand or company name and find the site's address) with the URL bar (which allows direct entry of the site's address). Or possibly you're confusing the company or brand name with their site's address. Tell me, which site do I want when I type "Google" into the URL bar? Remember that this company/brand has a myriad of addresses for their sites depending on which country's site you want. Also remember that you can't assume based on my local IP address which country's site I want, because a) you don't know what country 192.168.171.101 is in (look up what that netblock is before you object) and b) there are perfectly valid reasons for accessing the site for a country other than the one I'm currently located in (eg. I'm travelling and don't want to laboriously translate from the local language into my native language). Also, if I type say "iPhone", which iPhone do I mean? Bear in mind that when this conflict came up, the courts with jurisdiction first ruled that Apple did not own that trademark, then later that they could use that mark but did not have exclusive rights to it and the original registrant was entitled to continue using it too. Or if I type "Apple", which Apple do I mean? Apple Computers is not, despite what they'd like you to believe, the only entity named Apple out there, and Apple Records would be highly irate if you hijacked their customers and sent them to Apple Computer's site instead. Similar problems are why we use a phone number instead of just being able to key in a company's name using our phone keypad and be connected to them, and why we use a street address instead of just being able to write a company's name on the envelope and have it get routed to them. In all 3 cases the company's name does not unambiguously identify where your message should be sent to. In all 3 cases we have an intermediary (a search engine, a phone directory or a mailing directory) which allows you to look up the company you want, find the various addresses they receive that general type of message at and select the one appropriate to your specific message (if I'm for instance calling up my ISP it makes a difference whether I call their Technical Support number, their Sales number or their Billing number). You seem to be taking a very naive view of the situation, handwaving major problems with "It should just work.". I hate to say it, but there is no magic in the world and nothing "just works" without someone having made it work. Sit down for a bit and try to write out the exact logic needed to do what you suggest, producing the correct results for the basic cases described above (note that I said basic, not simple, because they most decidedly aren't simple at all which is the problem).

Thanks for the response, Mr. Knarr. I appreciate your taking the time to comment. Perhaps it was confusing for you. So to summarize: if you type “google.com” I think you are a customer of Google. Let me just ask you, if you type without .com -- “google” -- in the URL bar (not the search bar), whose customer are you? I think you are Google's customer, not another portal's. That is my point. (Definition, destination)

Yes, I'm Google's customer in that case. But what site do I want? Google has upwards of a hundred different "google.*" sites, each one a different site specific to a different country. When I type "google.com", that's one specific site. When I just type "google", how are you going to decide which specific site I meant? Did I want google.com, or google.co.uk, or google.ca, or google.fr, or google.de, or google.kr, or google.nl, or... the list goes on and on. You're the one proposing this, how do you propose to direct me to the specific site among all of Google's sites that I wanted? Note that we haven't even gotten into whether, assuming I meant google.com instead of some other site, I meant www.google.com or finance.google.com or voice.google.com or mail.google.com or... again, the list goes on and on, as Google has a different 3LD for each of their products. Since you're changing the behavior of the URL bar, you're going to have to figure out how to handle this situation since it's existing functionality.

Hello, Mr Knarr. Thanks for the comment again. You can see – I got the same question from Mr Tobias here. Nowadays, when the users type google.com in each country, the result is each country’s local google site. Most of global countries do the same thing. It is also possible for brands and company names. The Intellecutal Property Law in every country protects brand and company names offline, so each government’s IP law has to protect these names online, too. When you type “google” in the address bar, and Bing or Yahoo comes out, it means someone infringed on Google’s brand name. If someone intended to hijack another company’s customers to gain money unjustly, it is a crime. When you type google in the address bar, and you cannot go directly to google, your freedom is infringed on, too. Because you’re already google’s customer. Nobody should infringe on the user’s freedom. The URL bar definition is looking for server. So, the URL bar is a direct connection bar. it should be illegal to hijack another company’s customers. And infringe on another company’s rights. The URL bar is the entrance of cyberspace. Not only just the browser company’s zone. It is a public zone. The online market is bigger than the offline market so we need to hurry up and protect the brand and company names in the URL bar to save every company’s rights. It gives us some clue on how to rescue the economy from going down to the swamp. That is my point. Protecting customers of all companies (especially SMEs) in the entrance of cyberspace is much more important cause the online market is bigger than the offline market. Thanks again for the comment.

"Silverglass" isn't a general term, though. As I used it it'd be the brand of the business I named that owns the first 4 domains I named. It's also the brand of the businesses that own the other domains I named.

The original poster's profile is blank but does include a link to http://e.netpia.com in the "company" link in the profile. Netpia being a vendor of keyword technology since 2004 or so, no surprise that he is quite interested in making a case for keywords over, say IDN. http://e.netpia.com/about_netpia/about07_01_detail.asp?idx=397&GotoPage;=&field;=&find;=&gubun=L Seeing that company profile link reminded me of the last time I remember that a netpia employee posted on circleid - again asking much the same question, do we need IDN rather than just using keywords. Didn't go down too well back then, as the previous article name checked James Seng of all people :) http://www.circleid.com/posts/do_we_really_need_idn/

Thank you for your comment, Mr Ramasubramanian. As an expert in cybersecurity, your efforts, I believe, are helpful to people’s lives. Like you, I am trying to make a better world through the internet even when my capacity is limited. I have been trying since 1995. Some of my views may be connected to my business, but my article is not about my company. Even if it is connected to my business, sharing my views is a fair thing to do in an analysis site, right? I think this is the right venue for people to explain their insights about the real situation in the internet. With regards to my profile, please do not misunderstand it. I simply thought it is sufficient that my company website and blog links are provided. Regarding Jason, he was one of Netpia’s excellent staff. Thank you for reminding me of him. It is fair for him to express his opinion, but his method may have caused other people to feel uncomfortable or offended. Still, I believe Jason did not mean to disregard the efforts that many people exerted (still exerting) on IDN. I was not the CEO of Netpia back then, but I apologize to those who may have been offended. Because I am the founder of Netpia (IBI). IDN, in my opinion, is a good service, even better than English-only domain name. In fact, I was at the APRICOT in Singapore in 1999, guided by Kilman Cheon, a respected pioneer in the Internet (also known as the “Father of Internet in Asia”). There, I presented the Netpia solution: ml.ml.ml and ml.ml, and the “ml” brand name only. At the time, my company was called IBI. (Netpia was a brand name of IBI in 1999. Company name was changed to Netpia in 2000.) After this presentation, during the APRICOT conference in Seoul in 2000, MINC (Multilingual Internet Name Consortium) members gathered together. I was one of the first few advocates of the IDN, although it was not called IDN back then (original name was ML.ML). So I really have nothing against IDN. As for myself, I have no hidden agenda, but I just want to share my view that the Internet is an important tool like the telephone. I know that Circle ID is a venue where tech experts convene. So I am sharing my insight. It is our responsibility to fix the issues cause we are Internet experts. We have to know what is good or not, what is distorted or not. And if we know what is distorted, then we have to improve it. Do you think the current structure of the internet is fair and just, particularly for SMEs? My last point is this. This is a definition, destination and justice issue. Please do not compare the keyword Internet name and IDN. It is not the issue. My key question is: Whose customers are those typing brand and company names in the Internet Address bar? Customer hijacking has a very bad effect to the economy that is why I want to inform everybody. This is a severe problem. It has been more than a decade, but this problem has not been solved. Because the mass media power of the portals have convinced many people that this should be normal. I wish more experts would focus on this mechanism. Thanks again for the comment, and for doing your part in improving the internet technology for the people.