Re: [DNS] Searcher twists name rules

Re: [DNS] Searcher twists name rules

From: Deus Ex Machina <vicc§>
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 11:03:28 +1100
ian&#167;bluedoor [auda206§] wrote:
> If the consumer has a legitimate reason for registering the domain name  
> then the current policy accommodates them.
> From what you and auda are saying is that because I run a "directory"  
> then I have the right to register the domain
> I note that you have no trade mark for enetica so you have no  
> protection there.

> Perhaps we can put a challenge out there to see who can register the  
> most blatant rip off, after all it is now virtually an open namespace.

I have always argued against the policy, anyone determined enough will
get around it. the current policies are better then the old ones, the
original ones caused a lot of friction with registrants.

same with the embargo on resale, the current policy cant stop it. if its
intention is to prevent cybersquating then a cybersquating policy should
be in place along with education and a questionaire at every attempted
transfer to ensure a transfer isnt occuring due to a hijacking.

you can resell number plates, phone numbers why not domains?

Received on Fri Oct 03 2003 - 00:00:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sat Sep 09 2017 - 22:00:08 UTC