Re: [ga] Critics say VeriSign still has...

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

WXW (Or whomever he is) and all remaining assembly members,

  NOrmally I discount this particular persons posts for well known
and obvious reasons. But it seems that WXW (Or whomever he really is)
is correct here...

William X. Walsh wrote:

> Hello gavin,
>
> Tuesday, April 10, 2001, 2:28:42 PM, gavin.stokes@autodesk.com 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
> efforts.
>
> > 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.
>
> --
> Best regards,
>  William                            mailto:william@userfriendly.com
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html