On Wed, 25 Feb 1998, William Allen Simpson wrote:
> The main reasons for multiple registrations in the past has been lack of
> enforcement of the basic RFC-1591 requirements for each TLD by NSI, and
> rampant name speculation by pirates.
Last time I looked at a speculator's list they were all .com's
Maybe someone is multiple registering famous marks but I haven't
seen it. Even if speculation is the main reason, it is not the
only reason. For example, many ISP's have both .com and .net.
There may even be a BCP on that practice.
> We really do not need diarrhea.arts, too.
I'll agree with that.
> If there are multiple registrations, then the call for millions of TLDs
> is justified -- everyone would register a TLD, and we should simply
> abandon trying to have any gTLDs.
BS. I'm not convinced that *any* new TLDs are required. I'm
here for the shared registry. But customers want them, right or
wrong, people want them.
> I cannot see why your example would want to register in .arts, as the
> primary business is not arts. The award name might be registered
> instead. But we have long argued about using the DNS as a directory
Because they want it and are willing to pay for it. It's really
that simple. This is not a technological issue, it's business and ego.
It also has nothing to do with perverting the DNS into a directory
service. They'd come up with something more descriptive if that
were the case.
> service (it is not). And the URLs you cite serve the desired purpose.
The URLs serve the purpose of delivering their content, they do
not serve the desires of the content's owner. Arguing the technical
merits of third and fourth level domains falls on deaf ears with most
business people.
I'll add that this client from a tiny town in northern California
found .arts on her own. I'm not selling anyone on the new gTLD's,
they're asking. And for the most part I am discouraging them.
("you didn't register in .org and .net did you?")
> However, one of the PAB posters seems to think that folks will migrate
> between TLDs, and cites .com to .uk (without any actual examples). I am
> sceptical.
As am I.
> How about:
>
> 2. The same or similar name shall not be registered by the same
> organization in any other zone of the DNS (such as under a
> country TLD), unless an individual exception is granted under
> the registration appeal process (described below).
Mark, from NetNames, already questioned how you would police the original,
this only makes the situation worse.
You're not going to stop speculators with rules. (The ACP's giving
added weight to a challenge against a speculator excepted)
Pre-payment will slow down the causual ones. The serious ones
with serious money will find a way to do it. The only people
that would be hurt by this are those who feel they have a real
need to use two or more TLDs.
Dan (feeling time warped)
-- Dan Busarow 714 443 4172 DPC Systems / Beach.Net dan@dpcsys.com Dana Point, California 83 09 EF 59 E0 11 89 B4 8D 09 DB FD E1 DD 0C 82
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jan 30 2000 - 03:22:25 PST