-----------------------
/William,
> > > 3. Consumer-driven e-commerce will only work in chartered
> > > TLDs if there are no unchartered TLDs. In other words, who
> > > the hell wants to be ford.automakers when you can be
> > > ford.com, especially when
> > > .automakers is one of thousands of chartered TLDs?
> >
> > I suggest that if the mandate of .com required that *cost of
> > merchanise* had to be stated onsite, much of the pressure would
> > be relieved.
>
> Sounds like you are presuming the only commercial use a
domain can have is to be a sales site. Far from it.
>
In the context of having chartered sites available for 'non-sales
commerce', I still dont see the problem. If there is an *attractive
value to a problematic issue (e.g. .com) the equitable way through
is to add a *detractive value to it as well. Many online businesses
obviously find it advantageous to themselves not to state their
prices, despite its obvious convenience to the party of the second
part, ye valued customer. Therefore let em move to ford.automaker
where at least one would have an idea of the range in which one's
quid pro quo might fall. Sure its feeble, but if we're talking about
enforcement, let's put some teeth in it. From acorns, etc.
> > For 'enforcement', there is a body of net users who I imagine would
> > be happy to tip off violators.
>
> But this requires a team to investigate such reports.
I should have thought a bot to sweep the website for evidence
would be fairly easy to implement.
-----------------------
/Roeland
> A huge number of domains have no web-pages... For those domains, the
> only way you can determine charter compliance is by reviewing the
> business plan. This cuts to the core of the implementation issues.
If customers dont complain, there's no grounds for review by my
reckoning.
> It
> also cuts to an essential issue regarding trademark infringement. A
> pure host site <xyzzy.ibm.tld> can neither prove infringement or
> non-infringement, iff they have no web-pages.
Quite. Likewise, a name has to be *in use* before it's protected as
a trademark.
The larger question is whether an *assumption that a site woud be
webbed might become part of the legal claim: is IBM going to
accept that they have nothing to worry about my holding i-b-m.com
just becasue I dont have pretty pages on the WWW ...today?
kerry
