So, what you're saying is forget about ICANN, just make up your own TLD and
there's nothing anybody else can do to take it away? Why not participate in
the system that the clear majority of internet users have accepted as the
standard? Do you think that people will all start pointing to you as their
root just because you fall back on the real root to resolve the rest of the
TLDs? What if, as you predict, there become many rogue TLDs like you? How
will you all integrate? There must be a common place, or else none of you
will be globally resolvable. And that common place already exists... Why
fight the inevitable?
-Eric
-------------------------------------------------------
arctic bears - the internet - your way.
50000 domain names were reserved today. was yours?
domains from US$25/year, name resolution, mail hosting.
http://www.arcticbears.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "!Dr. Joe Baptista" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "William X. Walsh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Eric Paynter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Shifter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2000 7:11 AM
Subject: Re: Re[4]: Can you see GOD? (fwd)
> On Thu, 26 Oct 2000, William X. Walsh wrote:
>
> > > don't know what your talking about. Image Online Design vs CORE is
> > > irrelevant to the issue. This has nothing to do with trade marks.
Wrong
> > > law William ;-)
> >
> > BTW, Joe, without the trademark, its not property. It's nothing more
> > than a string of characters. Strings you can't own.
>
> Trademarks are one form of property - and a form of property which does
> not apply in this case. Under the law the GOD databases provide our
> domain owners with the ability to navigate the GOD namespace. The aspect
> of property here is not associated with the name or string. That is
> irrelevant to the issue of theif or crime. The only issue of importance
> is that if the USG creates a dot.GOD without our permission it will by
> default jeopardize and destabalise the dot.GOD namespace and that's
> covered by property law. I understand it's the same concept as stealing:
>
> feel free to read the law again (which see)
>
> United States Code, Title 18 Part 1, Chapter 47 Sec. 1030 Fraud and
> related activity in connection with computers (which see
> http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1030.html ).
>
> and
>
> CONSOLIDATED STATUTES OF CANADA, Criminal Code, PART IX OFFENCES AGAINST
> RIGHTS OF PROPERTY, Offences Resembling Theft 342.1 (which see
>
http://canada.justice.gc.ca/cgi-bin/folioisa.dll/estats.nfo/query=*/doc/{t35
776}? ).
>
> Joe
>
>
> --
> Joe Baptista
>
> http://www.dot.god/
> dot.GOD Hostmaster
> +1 (805) 753-8697
>
>
>
