Re: GoDaddy: "We adamantly oppose the WLS as proposed and intend to use any means available to block its implementation"

• Next message: domainwhiz: "Re: [Re: GoDaddy:"
• Previous message: Adam Selene: "Re: [Re: GoDaddy:"
• In reply to: George Kirikos: "Re: GoDaddy: "We adamantly oppose the WLS as proposed and intend to use any means available to block its implementation""
• Next in thread: Paul Gordon: "Re: GoDaddy: "We adamantly oppose the WLS as proposed and intend to use any means available to block its implementation""
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

There used to be a rule (from back when domains were free) that
a domain must have valid authoritatively replying DNS servers,
or it was "lame" and subject to deletion.

This is still a good rule for technical reasons, although given the
popularity of "parking" services I doubt it would have a huge
impact.

Come up with whatever rules you want (DNS service,
nominal website, accepting email at hostmaster@domain) -- it will
have some impact and otherwise just increase the use/features of
parking services.

    Adam

> Who determines who is an inappropriate registrant or "squatter"?
> Picking a random domain, let's say BEAUTIFUL.COM, currently
> registered to Proctor and Gamble, and not resolving to a website

• Next message: domainwhiz: "Re: [Re: GoDaddy:"
• Previous message: Adam Selene: "Re: [Re: GoDaddy:"
• In reply to: George Kirikos: "Re: GoDaddy: "We adamantly oppose the WLS as proposed and intend to use any means available to block its implementation""
• Next in thread: Paul Gordon: "Re: GoDaddy: "We adamantly oppose the WLS as proposed and intend to use any means available to block its implementation""
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Tue Oct 19 2004 - 23:37:43 EDT