At 05:28 AM 4/3/00 -0400, !Dr. Joe Baptista wrote:
>
>On Mon, 3 Apr 2000 sys@zanmai.com wrote:
>
>> they
>> did have ownership/control of bogus names, it would not put one single $
>> back into their RSU account, so their argument was rendered moot from the
>> start ...
>> but they keep clamoring ... and tilting at mythical windmills.
>
>I get your point - but the domain is still an asset. I know there are
>arguments over domain as property - for and against, but if the domain
>holder defaults, i'd rather have the asset returned back to me. It's not
>going to result in any money recovered, but that's not my issue. I could
>always resell the name - or at worst point it somewhere where it would
>benefit me.
Take a look at the 100,000s of loser domain names people are trying to sell
on GreatDomains.com. Which one of these pearls would you feel more
comfortable owning as security?:
airytouch.com
FMDworld.co.uk
warmcities.com
mine4.com
Greaseless.com
lasvegaspicks.com
1Karat.com
e-Sharemarkets.com
airyspace.com
intereuro.net
vendingmachines.cc
inter-host.net
ilanzar.com
ilancar.com
hostlatino.net
hispadirectory.com
This whole plaintive thread has been about a non-existent problem,
and a proposed solution that wouldn't even solve the problem if it
did exist ... anyone care for cranberries to go with this goose-chase?
Cheers,
Eric Ross
QuickNames.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Tue Oct 19 2004 - 23:35:28 EDT