Re: [DNS] Colateral damage

Re: [DNS] Colateral damage

From: David Keegel <djk§>
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 10:47:19 +1100 (EST)
] > Don wrote:
] > 
] > > is there one good reason (and I would accept just one), why we should not be
] > > allocated this domain?

Because domains are allocated to organisations, based on the
organisation's name (legal name or trading name).  You say that the
organisation is not called Coolah Telecentre.

Vic wrote:
] To me that in no way answers the question. Don is asking to
] justify the rule, and you have in essence just said "well because...".

I think that as well as asking the question:
  Why can't I get the domain
you also need to think about 
  What is stopping any random person in the world getting the domain before I do?

This then leads to some more questions:
  Are there more organisations whose `name' doesn't match their legal
  or trading names, or more organisations who haven't registered a
  domain name yet?
  If the rules were eliminated giving open slather, would my organisation
  be the first to register
  Do we want to take a pro-active or reactive stance on cybersquatting?
  Does my organisation want to be in a situation where it needs to
  do "defensive registrations" of all sorts of variations on its name
  so as to stop random people from registering those variations and
  selling them to my competitors?  (I'm sure registrars wouldn't
  complain about that.)

I'm not necessarily looking for quick answers (IMHO more discussion in
this list is not what it needs at the moment!), but more for people to
think deeply about these questions.  And then make submissions to the
Name Policy Panel.

 David Keegel <djk&#167;>  URL:
Cybersource P/L: Unix Systems Administration and TCP/IP network management
Received on Sat Nov 25 2000 - 07:54:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sat Sep 09 2017 - 22:00:04 UTC