Re: DNS: Re: [Fwd: Domain Name Policies:]

Re: DNS: Re: [Fwd: Domain Name Policies:]

From: Nick Andrew <nick§>
Date: Sat, 28 Dec 1996 02:42:19 +1100 (EST)
Forwarding a message from Peter Lees:
> my main point is: why not allow speculation? if entity A wants
> badly enough, it should be willing to pay entity
> B who owns it. the domain authority doesn't need to worry about
> _how_ two entities agree who should get the name (or whether there
> is a court case over it). 

If the DNA were to allow trading in domain names then the present policy
that the domain name must bear a close relationship to the organisation
name becomes worthless and must be abandoned. It essentially leads to open
slather in the namespace and if you support that, it's your prerogative
but I don't choose to.

For DNS to have some utility it's important that names, once assigned
tend to represent the same organisation, that there not be too great a
proportion of names assigned but unusable (undelegated or technically
not functioning), and that different names should tend to represent
different organisations.

Open slather, domain trading and vanity domains tend to oppose that ideal.

Kralizec Dialup Internet System         Data: +61-2-9837-1183, 9837-1868
Zeta Microcomputer Software             Fax: +61-2-9837-3753 Voice: 9837-1397
P.O. Box 177, Riverstone NSW 2765
Received on Mon Dec 30 1996 - 11:18:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sat Sep 09 2017 - 22:00:02 UTC