On 10/06/2016 09:22 AM, avri doria wrote: > > As for the so-called toxic waste names (i really find that terminology > problematic) >
I agree it's a problem to use that kind of vocabulary to convey a technical context. > the so called waste pile of usurped names > Therefore this is also a problem to call names-used-in-the-wild "usurped" or "squatted", because it says that there's a central body that assigns names, and it defines who can use them, with the exclusivity of any other approach. I know this idea may sound funny to a lot of people given the missions of IANA and ICANN, and the existence of trademarks and so-called 'intellectual property', but to me, having an authority over who can use what names *in general*--as opposed to particular, specific cases (e.g., trademarks)--is akin to the Novlang Committee. Names in the DNS are sanctioned by IANA/ICANN, and those names are 'legitimate' in the context of Internet names. That doesn't mean at all that names not sanctioned by ICANN are illegitimate, or that names covered by trademarks are more 'legitimate' than 'unprotected' names. This is all a matter of transactions and legal-firepower. But from there to legitimate this transactional-belligerent perspective over any other (historical, cultural, incidental, ontogenetic, etc.) seems to me problematic and abusive. == hk _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
