On Fri, 31 Jan 2003, Swerve wrote: > Icann or some new single body needs to serve up these words within one > easily accesible context.
they don't so we do. we can where icann can't. > In addition, I believe all attempts of exclusive control of any common words > in the public domain thru use/copyright/or trademark by the hundreds (?) > (perhaps soon to be thousands (?)) of different operators of namespaces to > be invalid and harmful because these words have historically been shared by > all in the public domain for the function of basic communication between > humans. that won't happen - has not happened in icann won't happen in the inclusive namespace. It's always been first come - first served. And that was the way it worked in the past. And worked well I mind remind you - I assume you were there. > We need a revamped Icann or new body to deal with this issue and open the > Icann or "new body's" namespace wider. As most of you who know me, I am No > fan of Icann. However, the potential for navigational chaos is very high if > we all set up namespaces. The potential for even greater chaos is even > higher if individuals or corps.succeed in claiming exclusive use of common > words in their personal or corporate namespaces. Navigational chaos already exists. At least at the USG root level. http://www.newswise.com/articles/2003/1/SDSCROOT.UCD.html I rest my case on that one. > So yes, Joe, with respect, i think and feel your claim for the exclusive use > of the pervasive and common word God in the context of the .God namespace is > not a valid one. I base my opinion on the notion that the word God or .God > is better served or used when it can continue to freely exist and be > expressed in the public domain and not be restricted because you have > trademarked it or the database that holds your .God records. I think we > need at least one repository or database to serve up a huge range of common > words in the namespace. This database needs to be easily accessible for the > general public for web browsing and email services. 1,000's of different > namespace operators is unmanageable, in my opinion. Well our claim has its basis in law. And as i have explained to you in the past your view on "names" is at best idelistic. But it wont ever fly. Mind you - you ideas are good - but your on the wrong planet to implement them. Maybe I can book you a shuttle trip to mars ;) regards joe Joe Baptista - only at www.baptista.god LOW: low cost, Low Lands. http://www.dot.low/ Everything you need to know about LOW domains, including how to get one, for free!
