[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [wg-c] .com vs. ccTLDs in Europe
Well, I can see why the 1994 policy decision benefited registrars, but if
it doesn't use up your two posts, I would be interested in hearing your
rationale why it served the "greatest common good." I don't think that it
is self-evident that the registration of a .com name in and of itself
serves the "greatest common good." It seems that the creation of the most
self-evidently worthwhile resources on the Internet (usenet, ftp, various
resources in .edu, search engines, AOL, Geocities, e-commerce sites such as
eBay and Amazon, free email and the Bill Gates wealth clock) would be
pretty much the same under either regimes while one phenomena which is a
definite dead weight loss (cyber-piracy) and another phenomena of little
added economic value (name speculation) would barely exist under a TLD that
had a modicum of restrictions.
That's my two posts for the day. Speak to you tomorrow.
At 05:29 PM 10/20/99 -0400, you wrote:
>At 04:51 PM 10/20/99 , you wrote:
> >I am working today on a matter where a French champagne producer's marks
> >show up in about 40 third party .com domain names. It's marks have never
> >been pirated in the .fr domain. There are other correlations with a TLD's
>In 1994, a DNS policies and practices workshop was
>hosted in Washington DC under the auspices of a
>US Federal government agency. Those attending advised
>that COM, ORG, and NET domains should be substantially
>free of restrictions, quickly and inexpensively available,
>with no administrative review processes. The objective
>was to enhance the enterprise growth dynamic of the
>Internet. At that point, COM, ORG, and NET were regarded
>as US domains.
>Other NICs like FR took different approaches.
>The tradeoffs were clearly different; however, in balance,
>it would appear the findings of the Washington Workshop
>proved rather successful and appropriate for the greatest
>common good. No?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @