Re: [ga] Critics say VeriSign still has...
Tuesday, April 10, 2001, 2:28:42 PM, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> Thanks to everyone for jumping on that one. I expected a boatload
> of objections, and some support. So far we see both. People making
> the point about equating a domain with a Web site have a good point.
> That does further complicate the determination of what hoarding is.
> But how about simply disallowing resale of domains by anyone but a
> registrar, at a standard price? The complexities of this (based on
> transfer of trademarks and what have you) are probably far less
> significant than determining "hoarding."
Why is reselling a domain name something that should be banned?
That makes absolutely no sense at all. You assume that this move
would be positive, but in fact, one of the key components in a healthy
environment for an industry is the existence of such speculative
> That said, let's talk about the juvenile responses. It seems that
> when a list member doesn't have any real point to make, he resorts
> to an analysis of someone's E-mail address as a basis for ridicule.
> I'm sure we all remember the elementary-school jibes about jo-uk
> being some kind of joke, with people going so far as to check on the
> participant's employment. A real contribution to our purpose here
> and very fair to the holder of that E-mail address, don't you think?
A participants employer is a vital issue that should be considered
when taking that participants comments into context.
> And what about misuse of NET and ORG? I sent a message to Network
> Solutions last year asking them why they were suggesting ORG and NET
> domains to everyone, when you're supposed to be a non-profit
> organization or a network-services provider to use those domains.
> They said they don't enforce those anymore, because they couldn't.
> So your apparent complaint against the Autodesk names has all the
> same weaknesses as my argument against domain-name hoarding: It's
> way too subjective and can't be enforced. I agree with you; these
> domains had a stated purpose and were supposed to be enforced. But
> the registrar simply gave up.
Where did you get the idea that .org was supposed to be for non-profit
organizations? And how would you define a "network services
provider"? .org was the catch all for anything TLD, that it was
reserved for non-profit use is a myth.
This message was passed to you via the email@example.com list.
Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html