Re: DNS: Prospective new domains ( & (

Re: DNS: Prospective new domains ( & (

From: Robert Elz <kre§munnari.OZ.AU>
Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 19:57:22 +1000
    Date:        Mon, 18 May 1998 18:35:24 +1000
    From:        Rick Welykochy <rick&#167;>
    Message-ID:  <355FF2CC.13AF&#167;>

  | An enquiry to Mel.I.T. informed me of some strange rule
  | that allows a natural person to obtain a domain name in
  | if they have demonstrated they have been tradining
  | under that name. In the above case I would assume D.S.Waldron
  | demonstrated that he was trading as "Dan" but without an RBN.

This is quite old, and isn't really a "strange" rule. is
basically for commercial operations, so that is a primary criteria.

Then the next basic principal is that commercial operations should
register under their own names - for an individual, that's the person's
name, for a partnership, it is the list of names (or abbreviated list
when it is long) and for a company it is the company name.

Then there's the added complication that a lot of businesses prefer to
trade under some other name.   Commercial law allows that, but requires
the name be registered (so others can locate the actual entity using the
trading name).   The policy follows that, and allows an organisation
to use their registered trading name as the basis for the domain name.

And last, since people's, and company, names are typically much longer
than is normally desireable for a domain name, and also often contain
characters that are not legal (or at least, not sane) in a domain name
(like space), so domain names are allowed to be derived from the entity's
legal, or trading, name, they don't have to be an exact match.

Received on Mon May 18 1998 - 20:33:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sat Sep 09 2017 - 22:00:03 UTC