On Mon, 05 Jul 1999 18:46:50 -0400, Diane Cabell
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>Kent Crispin wrote:
>
>> That is not what I intended to convey. The basic idea is that domain
>> names are there to be *used*, not *sold*. If someone does a
>> non-commercial site at "catsup.com" that, in my view, should be
>> strongly protected, and the site owner should be able to thumb their
>> nose at Heinz with no fear of legal hassle. (That's why I don't
>> support the proposed bill under discussion -- too much potential for
>> legal harassment.)
>>
>> But if someone registers 200 common words for resale, that should
>> not be protected. It is not only denying access to commercial users
>> who might want the name, it is denying access to non-commercial
>> users just as much (if not more, since non-commercial users wouldn't
>> be able to pay the speculator).
>
>So they put up 200 nearly blank web pages. How would you then define what is a
>legitimate use and what is not? Why not one-domain-per-customer?
>
That is WAY overly restrictive and completely unworkable.
--
William X. Walsh
General Manager, DSo Internet Services
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fax:(209) 671-7934
"Could it be that, once again, we've come full circle
and the IFWP "old-timers" are banding together to use
Michael Sondow, the stupid Internet end-user, as a
convenient scapegoat?" - Michael Sondow 05-July-1999
