On 12-Mar-99 Kerry Miller wrote:
> But now we're on the verge of having 1LDs all over the place: has
> Williams or Allisat or you or anyone else even suggested that they
> would (let alone should) act to ensure that registrants in .per for
> example really were individuals, either on registration or at any time
> thereafter? What do such domains do to reduce confusion; that is,
> to enhance domain namespace (or the net in general) for
> communication? Zilch.
I Fail to see why they should HAVE to ensure that registrants in per were
really individuals. The registry is in the business of registering names, if
someone or a company sees a value in having a name under that TLD, it is really
thier concern, not the concern of the registry.
But then, my views on chartered TLDs are well known. I think most
implementations of them I have seen are flawed, or unneccesary. If anything
they do nothing but strengthed the flawed view Trademark Interests already have
over the whole domain name issue, by placing a set of rules over the use of a
string of characters. Strings of characters will have numerous different
meanings based on their context, and I have not seen a single person justify
why we should advocate the limiting of options people and companies should have
with regards to the use of these strings.
I think that charter TLDs may be appriopriate in certain instances, but that
each instance should be CAREFULLY examined, and they should occur only after it
has been determined that there is truly a need to be met with regard to the
area of the charter that unchartered namespace cannot meet, and that the string
in question is not likely to have a practical use outside the scope of the
charter.
----------------------------------
E-Mail: William X. Walsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 12-Mar-99
Time: 16:55:34
----------------------------------
"We may well be on our way to a society overrun by hordes
of lawyers, hungry as locusts."
- Chief Justice Warren Burger, US Supreme Court, 1977
