Re: [DNS] geographic names

Re: [DNS] geographic names

From: Ron Ipsen <ron§comu.net.au>
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 17:06:48 +1100
At 03:41 PM 23/11/00 +1100, you wrote:
>Ron Ipsen [ron&#167;comu.net.au] wrote:
> >
> >
> > Why should they be? to whom? and under what circumstances? is a the
> > question at hand.
>
>because people want them. to anyone who asks for it. under the same
>circumstance as any domain is released. whats the big deal???
>too many egos will get broken if we change the rules?

Not that at all.

those that were smart enough and in early enough have already got 
geographic  in the global domains. The "also rans" and newbies are bleating 
that they cant have them in an area where it was put aside for all and 
issuing of them was perceived  as "unfair advantage". There were even some 
issued before the curtain came down.

A bit like saying you want to build on "the big red rock" cos you like the 
view. Its all part of a bigger picture.

To issue or not to issue the majority of the remaining geographic names, To 
whom should we allocate this "unfair advantage" and under what 
circumstances is still the question that must be answered.


> > If no answer is found then I would guess that the current embargo would
> > continue.
>
>there is your answer now tell me why you would choose to restrict peoples 
>right
>of access??

to build on the big red rock?

There is a sociological principle that outlines why damage and vandalism 
occurs in public or shared facilities.

It goes like this, "What belongs to everybody - belongs to nobody."

In the case we are discussing "names with fences" the obverse is true.

  "What belongs to nobody - belongs to everybody"


Its not up to me to decide to licence something that belongs to everybody 
to just one individual or entity.

  I am just one of many who are trying to find a workable solution to 
equity in this issue.


>Vic
Received on Thu Nov 23 2000 - 14:14:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sat Oct 25 2014 - 08:00:07 UTC