On Fri, 31 Jan 2003, Swerve wrote:
> Icann or some new single body needs to serve up these words within one
> easily accesible context.
they don't so we do. we can where icann can't.
> In addition, I believe all attempts of exclusive control of any common words
> in the public domain thru use/copyright/or trademark by the hundreds (?)
> (perhaps soon to be thousands (?)) of different operators of namespaces to
> be invalid and harmful because these words have historically been shared by
> all in the public domain for the function of basic communication between
> humans.
that won't happen - has not happened in icann won't happen in the
inclusive namespace. It's always been first come - first served. And
that was the way it worked in the past. And worked well I mind remind you
- I assume you were there.
> We need a revamped Icann or new body to deal with this issue and open the
> Icann or "new body's" namespace wider. As most of you who know me, I am No
> fan of Icann. However, the potential for navigational chaos is very high if
> we all set up namespaces. The potential for even greater chaos is even
> higher if individuals or corps.succeed in claiming exclusive use of common
> words in their personal or corporate namespaces.
Navigational chaos already exists. At least at the USG root level.
http://www.newswise.com/articles/2003/1/SDSCROOT.UCD.html
I rest my case on that one.
> So yes, Joe, with respect, i think and feel your claim for the exclusive use
> of the pervasive and common word God in the context of the .God namespace is
> not a valid one. I base my opinion on the notion that the word God or .God
> is better served or used when it can continue to freely exist and be
> expressed in the public domain and not be restricted because you have
> trademarked it or the database that holds your .God records. I think we
> need at least one repository or database to serve up a huge range of common
> words in the namespace. This database needs to be easily accessible for the
> general public for web browsing and email services. 1,000's of different
> namespace operators is unmanageable, in my opinion.
Well our claim has its basis in law. And as i have explained to you in the
past your view on "names" is at best idelistic. But it wont ever fly.
Mind you - you ideas are good - but your on the wrong planet to implement
them. Maybe I can book you a shuttle trip to mars ;)
regards
joe
Joe Baptista - only at www.baptista.god
LOW: low cost, Low Lands.
http://www.dot.low/
Everything you need to know about LOW domains,
including how to get one, for free!
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Tue Oct 19 2004 - 23:37:37 EDT