[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kerry Miller) wrote:
> Lets call it _technical, in keeping with ICANNs mandate ;-) :
> if 2LDs are in danger of 'confusion' with trademarks, there is for
> sure no reason why any and every conceivable name needs to be
> allowed in the DNS.
I imagine some free speech folks might object to this ...
> Put a financial attractor to 'meaningless' terms -- along the lines
> of Pogo's tot: mgvbryx, for instance, or a scale of surcharges
> according to the probability of contention.
Problem with this is what's meaningless today might be very valuable
tomorrow, and vice versa. Ten years ago, the names yahoo.com and
monica.lewinsky.per would not have been worth very much. The value of
the names comes from the value that people who want to access
resources attached to those names ascribe to them.
> If pressed, I would also say the same goes for new 1LDs. .THIS
> and .THAT only perpetuate the simplistic view that things with Ascii
> characters in them are somehow magical. It may have worked for
> Postel's notebook, but it clearly does not scale worth a *$%^#.
But they are meaningful in the sense that they (potentially) represent
something that people want to access.
Here's an example. Is this sequence significant?
6b657272796f406e732e73796d70617469636f2e6361
--gregbo
