On Wed, Jul 07, 1999 at 06:58:05PM -0400, Richard J. Sexton wrote:
> >Having only one domain name per comany (plus some other restrictions)
> >has worked rather well in Norway to prevent cybersquatting.
>
> Thats one way to do it - at the expense of personal freedoms.
<rant>
Linking the term "personal freedoms" with domain name policy is, in
my opinion, a serious trivialization of the notion. It is absolutely
ludicrous to make the connection. Sometimes companies have sales
that only allow one item per customer. Sometimes there aren't any
blue M&Ms in the bag. The world doesn't owe you a living, and it doesn't
owe you *any* domain names.
Likewise, the idea that domain names represent a significant venue
for "protected speech" is ridiculous. "microsoftsucks.com" -- it
*really* doesn't matter if that domain exists or not. There are
infinite venues available to criticize Microsoft -- it isn't
necessary to have another one. Having a domain name is really cute
and faddy, but it is *not* a serious free speech issue. Nor is there
a "slippery slope" -- venues already exist, and they are not going
away.
Get real, folks. Kosovo is a personal freedom issue. Tibet is a
personal freedom issue. Putting domain name policy in the same
category is a contemptible insult to human intelligence -- fun and
games for people seriously out of touch with the real world.
</rant>
> New Zealand has also eliminated cybersquatting, without the
> onerous dark side.
Tell us about it, Darth.
--
Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be
[EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
