RE: [DNS] conflict of interest supreme

RE: [DNS] conflict of interest supreme

From: Ron Stark <ronstark§>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 10:45:50 +1100
An observation. Despite any apparent "not the proper thing for a director to
do" connotations, it's nevertheless better that such names have been
hijacked by friend rather than foe.

Ron Stark

-----Original Message-----
From: Dassa [mailto:dassa&#167;]
Sent: Monday, 25 March 2002 8:34 AM
To: dns&#167;
Subject: RE: [DNS] conflict of interest supreme

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: Twiggy Ramirez [mailto:twiggy2606&#167;] 
|> Sent: Monday, March 25, 2002 1:42 AM
|> To: dns&#167;
|> Subject: [DNS] conflict of interest supreme
|> Please refer to the following page:
|> ---  ---
|> Is this really the handy work of an auDA Director?
|> A little difficult to swallow.

Aside from the high fee what is so terrible about the page?  It is only
doing hostnames on a gTLD.  Nothing wrong with that.  I do it myself and
give them away for free.  Over 230,000 of them under various gTLD's.

As for the domain name, I assume such names were registered
under older requirements and before AuDA was formed.  I'll do a look up
if I get the chance and confirm/deny this.

To me, as domain names are only leased on a yearly basis, it would be
easy enough for AuDA to reclaim such names if they consider it
appropriate for name space management and consumer protection.
Grandfathering can only be carried so far.  As they haven't I assume
they don't consider it an issue.  Perhaps the presentation of good
strong reasons why it should be an issue is in order.

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.

List policy, unsubscribing and archives =>
Please do not retransmit articles on this list without permission of the 
author, further information at the above URL.  (313 subscribers.)
Received on Fri Oct 03 2003 - 00:00:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sat Sep 09 2017 - 22:00:05 UTC