[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [wg-b] Reality checks [the grateful dead(hits)]
[I apologize for the possible mail duplication, but SprintLink has not
resolved their problems with the backbone router I sit behind, and I
cannot get any packets through to any dnso.org system. Perhaps someone
will be kind enough to forward it to the list. I would ask M. Palage,
but he did not forward my last message, sent yesterday, so I cannot
rely on him.]
On 14 December 1999, "Hartman, Steve" <HartmanS@Nabisco.com> wrote:
>I believe it is reasonable to exclude those domain names that contain the
>string "oreo," the string is not part of another word (eg, choreography) and
>the domain name does not immediately and directly communicate a clear
>message. On that basis, I would exclude all of the domain names listed
>below. None of the domain names cited, in my view, have a communicative
>value greater than the potential for confusion or mistake or misuse. I do
>not accept the slippery slope argument. That does not mean that there are
>domain names that are "hard cases, " but they can and should be handled on
>an individual basis, probably by the courts, precisely because they are
>close cases that require careful balancing of rights.
What about ore-os (ORE Operating System)? Nabis-co (Nabi's Company)?
What about soero? ocsiban? What about no-oreos? No-nabisco?
What about oero (oreo backwards)?
In all of these cases, it's not the name that matters, it's not the
particular string of letters in the label. It's the content provided
A funny thing: You're all assuming that domain names serve one and
only one purpose: To uniquely identify a website. What if I registered
oero.com (Open Ended Research Organization), and only used it for
e-mail? No website, no nothing. What if it's only a secondary DNS
server? What then? on what is the "content" judgment based? Will
you still argue that these names are misleading?
Mark C. Langston
San Jose, CA