AW: Re: AW: Re: Networks are for corporations and offices, right?

[flash@xxxxxxxx]

There was move a few years back to introduce a new top-level domain ".name" for private users. This would have solved the problem for private people who happen to have the same name as some well-known company (such as Ford). Museums were supposed to get their own top-level domain as well. I think the idea was quashed because there were some other domains to be introduced at the same time, such as ".xxx" for porn sites, and either the govt or some lobby group objected to the ".xxx" domain. So we all lost out. And the porn sites proliferate anyway.




>** Reply to message from flash@xxxxxxxx on Thu, 15 Jun 2006 09:37:22 +0200
>
>
>> IETF does not disposses anyone of a URL by fiat.
>
>Courts in the U.S. have, though. I had a friend who had an active com
>website
>that was _opposed_ to the activities of some company (I think it was
>proctorandgamble.com? can't recall). Anyway, he got dispossessed -- and the
>suspicion lingered thereafter that it was because of his viewpoint mainly --
>his site had been up for a year or two, and changed often. This was one of
>the
>earliest test cases, closely watched. And there was another case, that also
>went to court, where the guy's surname was the same as the company -- and he
>lost. My point was, that this all started happening after Biz began to mooch
>in and make demands -- never before.
>
>I remember participating (via acoustic modem) in newsgroups where half the
>participants had .mil addresses -- a designation you hardly ever see today
>(they seem to have withdrawn into their own private network).
>
>I realize that I would be unlikely to lose my org domain, but still -- if the
>American Cancer Society was called Holmgren instead of the American Cancer
>Society (or if my name was American C. Society), I wonder...
>
>-----------------------------
>Robert Holmgren
>holmgren@xxxxxxxx
>-----------------------------
>