[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Membership] Structure of 'at large' membership
> Thanks ... but no thanks. I don't need someone telling me what is
> 'acceptable' to me. The only thing I consider unacceptable is people trying
> to censor free speech and block others from getting domain names. Internic
> is already way out of line with their domain censoring. I suspect none of
> this would stand up to a court challenge.
I agree with you and your desire of free speech and the right for any
one to own his/her domain name. HOwever, I am deadly against
profiteering and speculation in domain names as it is distruptive ,
harmful and non productive for any business. Thus as long as we have
rules that disallow any sales of domain names I am OK with all the
freedom we want to have in regards to domain names.
I figure that if there is no profit to be derived then the problem of
speculation will go away.
> I don't understand some people on this list who seek to control the Internet
> based on their own person beliefs or feelings. People don't like it when
> they see a domain for sale so they automatically want ICANN to outlaw the
> practice (this would put ICANN in the position of telling people that they
> could not sell something that belongs to them). Now you want ICANN to start
> telling people they can't register domain names because you don't like
> something about it.
> I would look to ICANN to protect these rights, not violate them. Their job,
> as I see it, is to administer the domain system ... not 'rule and control'
> it. If they did start trying to do these things they would probably end up
> in all sorts of litigation.
> Russ Smith
> >I can't see someone in BOSTON ruling and controlling a Domain name
> >I know freedom of naming is controversial - but there are some names that
> >not acceptable to people in the US that would have no meaning in TIBET.
> >steve witkin
LOGIC GROUP OF COMPANIES
180 Cecil Street, #15-03
Bangkok Bank Building