Re: [wg-b] Reality checks [the grateful dead(hits)]

[mark@bitshift.org]

[I apologize for the possible mail duplication, but SprintLink has not
resolved their problems with the backbone router I sit behind, and I
cannot get any packets through to any dnso.org system.  Perhaps someone
will be kind enough to forward it to the list.  I would ask M. Palage,
but he did not forward my last message, sent yesterday, so I cannot
rely on him.]

On 14 December 1999, "Hartman, Steve" <HartmanS@Nabisco.com> wrote:


>I believe it is reasonable to exclude those domain names that contain the
>string "oreo," the string is not part of another word (eg, choreography) and
>the domain name does not immediately and directly communicate a clear
>message. On that basis, I would exclude all of the domain names listed
>below. None of the domain names cited, in my view, have a communicative
>value greater than the potential for confusion or mistake or misuse. I do
>not accept the slippery slope argument. That does not mean that there are
>domain names that are "hard cases, " but they can and should be handled on
>an individual basis, probably by the courts, precisely because they are
>close cases that require careful balancing of rights.
>
>Steve Hartman
>Nabisco, Inc.

What about ore-os (ORE Operating System)?  Nabis-co (Nabi's Company)?
What about soero?  ocsiban?  What about no-oreos?  No-nabisco?
What about oero (oreo backwards)?

In all of these cases, it's not the name that matters, it's not the
particular string of letters in the label.  It's the content provided
by...what?

A funny thing:  You're all assuming that domain names serve one and
only one purpose:  To uniquely identify a website.  What if I registered
oero.com (Open Ended Research Organization), and only used it for 
e-mail?  No website, no nothing.  What if it's only a secondary DNS
server?  What then?  on what is the "content" judgment based?  Will
you still argue that these names are misleading?

-- 
Mark C. Langston
mark@bitshift.org
Systems Admin
San Jose, CA