I disagree. I don't believe you have or should have exclusivity like that over common words in a TLD database or however you want to put it. We've discussed this before and will likely again.
With your approach, Joe, New.net now controls 26 common English words as TLDs. It's more important that TLD's with common words remain in the public domain than end up being owned or controlled by individual private interests. I am not saying you should be prevented from using .God, but i am saying you should not have exclusive use of running a TLD or private network called .God. It undermines the public space of language. The word God is a common word that has deep significance in the public domain and should remain there. Same for sex, life, death, taxes, and thousands of other words that allow us to have these discussions. God Swerve > From: Joe Baptista <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2003 13:28:20 -0500 (EST) > To: Swerve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: opensrs discuss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: TLD and copyright > > > On Tue, 7 Jan 2003, Swerve wrote: > >> Just because a TLD has been copyrighted, i don't believe that one has >> exclusive use of that TLD when the word being used is a common word or >> abreviation. > > Your not copyrighting a word. You copyright the databases. Thats why > Goolnik of .USA fame dropped the .GOD tld from his scam. Under this > case we could prove he had prior knowledge of the existence of .GOD and > intentionally violated our copyright interests. > > http:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > This of course allowed us under UK copyright law to proceed by means of a > criminal application (takes longer) or civil action (faster). We choose > crimnal proceeding and Goolnik saw the light and shut down his scam > against us. > > And we were happy to forgive him. Of course having provided the FTC with > our due dillgence on the issues we also knew Mr. Goolnik would get his > just deserts in the end. And he did ;) > > cheers > joe baptista >
