On Mon, 5 Jul 1999 19:10:32 -0400 (EDT), "Richard J. Sexton"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>That is not what I intended to convey. The basic idea is that domain
>>names are there to be *used*, not *sold*.
>
>That way there be dragons. I'm no fan of domain speculation
>but if somebody offered me a million dollars for vrx.net
>I'd find a new domain pretty damn quick.
>
>Once you saying what domain can and cannor be used for it's
>a slippery slope.
Once you open that door to regulation of content/use it is damn near
impossible to close. You set a dangerous precedent.
Look at the current situation in Australia as an example. What
started many years ago as a means to regulate broadcast networks has
now expanded to the most severe censorship laws to be enacted by a
free and democratic country.
What was that Ben Franklin quote (probably grossly paraphrased but you
get the drift, I won't bother looking up the exact quote) "They that
give up a little liberty for a small measure of safety deserve neither
liberty or safety."
--
William X. Walsh
General Manager, DSo Internet Services
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fax:(209) 671-7934
"The fact is that domain names are new and have unique
characteristics, and their status under the law is not yet clear."
--Kent Crispin (June 29th, 1999)
