Re: [DNS] geographic names

Re: [DNS] geographic names

From: Deus Ex Machina <vicc§cia.net.au>
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 22:41:11 +1100
Ron Ipsen [ron&#167;comu.net.au] wrote:
>Oh I think that the market itself has done that already, how much was paid 
>for business.com?

how does this prove anything? so some dorks got a woody over
a generic domain. so what. good luck to them if they think it will
repay there investment. this proves nothing about giving anyone an "unfair
advantage" by having a generic domain. do you buy books from book.com
because its called book.com???? would you buy cars from cars.com.au just
because its called cars.com.au??? no way.

show me any market research or studies
that show a generic domain will boost your bottom line. 

and even if it did give a business a percentage point or two of difference.
so what. you clearly hate businesses why do you want protect
one business' bottom line from another? 


> Um , generally a civilised culture will to try and look after the weak in 
> their community. Social responsibility as I recall.

I have no idea what this has to do with releasing generic and geographic
domains? what in gods name have generic and geographical domain names 
have to do with social responsibility?? or looking after the weak??
how in gods name does releasing geographical names oppress the weak
and poor members of our society??  what are you talking about????  

>No this is the whole au namespace, not just the corner of it that the 
>Servants of Mammon would possess and squabble over.

well I think you hit the nail on the head here. its
clear that the people that back embargoes on generic etc names
are anti capitalist and hate businesses, and thats the sole argument
I have seen for blocking these domains. well I used to
hate capitalism but now I own a business. I got over it, so should you.

> if there wasn't would you be arguing so hard for their release?

cause I am sick of having to explain to customers that they cant have the
names they want. cause I am sick of people who think they know better
regarding what is good for me or the public when they are clearly wrong.

cause choice is something we should not have to beg and plead for.

>"What belongs to nobody - belongs to everybody"


this may be true for national parks, beach and other national assets.
ok nobody owns, everybody can enjoy it. sure fair enough. but!

its false for a name space. the fact you have draged it up clearly 
indicates you misunderstand the nature of dns and name spaces.

a namespace that belongs to nobody, efectively has no existance. it
is a waste. some people seem to think if a name space is full its a waste.

wrong! a name space that is empty is a waste. a name space that is full
is an efficient name space that people  are *using* and deriving benefit from.
an empty name space provides benefit and value for precisely nobody.

the only use a name space has is to be used. if it is empty it does not exsit
people cant go visit it and admire it like a beach. your quote is
incoherent when applied to name space. its flawed logic. its totaly wrong.

it is a waste to embargo any class of domain names. AUda should reverse
the mistakes of the unelected dns tzars of the past and return
choice back to the public. :)

Vic
Received on Thu Nov 23 2000 - 19:41:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sun Aug 31 2014 - 00:00:07 UTC