> just read our domain agreement. at .GOD we don't have domain holders. we > make domain owners. we are the licensor and they the licensee.
Sounds interesting... I will read it. > > Some other companies (DomainIsland,..) wanted to sue New.net because the > > "duplicated" some of their TLDs (.shop,...). > > Haven't heard that they were successful. > > i don't know either. but they are not recognized in inclusive namespace > as having title > > http://www.dot-god.com/cgi-bin/whoisd/whois.cgi?name=shop DomainIsland aka uniroot aka emc2 aka universalroot,... www.domainisland.com "Battle in Cyberspace" http://www.domainisland.com/di/PR/PRbattle_04182001.htm so they will be recognized on judgement day. the unfortunate problem with > new root is that they choose to go it alone and they violated a very > imporant inclusive namespace rule - thou shalt not collide. > > this rule is flexible. the inclusive namespace tld .biz was dropped from > the inclusive namespace. one operator dropped and the others quickly > followed. and the demand for change came from inclusive namespace isp's > > poor little .biz could not compete with the icann collission. what about .pro? Until some months ago ORSC and PacificRoot supported Name.Space's version of .pro. Now they all support the one of RegistryPro, without any real need for that. Can you explain this? > but i cann confirm there is legal action in the wind directed at icann for > that nauty indescretion. remember - you heard it here first. I hear this all the time. Is there something new?
