Re: [DNS] ABC: Australia supports global cyber-squatting regulations

Re: [DNS] ABC: Australia supports global cyber-squatting regulations

From: <adrian§>
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2000 09:33:35 +0800
On Tue, Feb 01, 2000, Deus Ex Machina wrote:
> >= Geoff Huston (gih&#167;
> get over it geoff. maybe in your mind the flaura and fauna disection
> is brilliant but to the rest of the public its a total flop.
> the numbers speak for themselves.
> if the public want to use dns as a directory tool
> then thats what dns will be.
> perhaps telstra doesnt give a shit about what the public want
> but some of us dont have that luxury.

I'm not a vocal person in this forum, but I guess its a good a time
as any to give my 2c.

If the public want to use DNS as a directory tool, fine. Thats why domain
names are sought-after commodities today, whether we like it or not.

But the whole point of having the naming scheme is that it forces
people to not "chase" after names. If you introduce a "sane" structure,
you're not trying to improve what already exists. I mean, why bother? You
have the "generic" namespace. Are you going to make only avaliable to
Australians? Enforce non-corporate entities "owning" them? How are you
going to handle "competition" ? Is a pre-requisite that the person own
that name? ..

Oh Wait. Its just become like .net/.com/.org . Great, you've achieved

Now, could be useful in many places. But if TI released it, what will
happen to it? Exactly the same thing as what has happened already. Think
up an original, nifty way of fairly allocating the namespace to people, and
sure, I'm all for it. But releasing domain names for commercial or
non-commercial pollution is just asking for the same trouble that's been
plaguing this whole thing from the beginning (note: before my time..).

Received on Tue Feb 01 2000 - 09:33:44 UTC

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