[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote,
> The DNS basis asserts authority and can be construed
> to assert ownership. This can have the effect of robbing
> the commons by privatizing the ownership of concepts.
> It will concentrate power into fewer and fewer hands
> without oversight. It is a Republican's wet dream
> and the ultimate third worlder's nightmare.
I'm not convinced.
Suppose I decided to start using "http://www.example.com/"; to denote
shrimp without permission form Example Inc, the rightful domain
registrant. Who would come and get me? Goons from Network Solutions? On
what basis? Abuse of a FQDN? Surely not: the only way to abuse a FQDN
is to interfere with it's mapping to and from an IP address, not a
concept. If anyone's going to come after me it'll be trademark lawyers.
But how is the situation here any different from my deciding to start
using "Example Inc" to denote shrimp? What's special (from a trademark
lawyers POV) about a FQDN as opposed to any other string of characters?
And if there isn't anything special about a FQDN, then we don't have to
imagine a privatized future ... it's the status quo: names can already
be owned and rights of ownership asserted.
I'm not claiming this is a good thing, merely that it's (not very much)
more of the same ...
Cheers,
Miles
|
