🚀 go-pugleaf

Do people support the concept of "unlisted" <SLD>.TLD names ?

This is like an unlisted phone number. The idea is that for a fee a
TLD registry would "register" a <SLD>.TLD name and NOT include
it in their DNS, whois, or web site search databases. The name
would be unavailable for registrations, but would not be in use. It
essentially would be on indefinite hold.

In my opinion, this defeats the purpose of a <SLD>.TLD registry.
It would open up the potential for TLD registries to block large
numbers of names in hopes of "selling" them to future buyers.
It also makes it difficult to enforce first-come-first-serve policies,
because there would be no information about the actual status
of the name and not even the public DNS would be useful in
researching that information.

On the other hand, as more and more TLD registries come into
being, there will be more diversity in how the name delegations
are handled. Some might interpret this diversity and "freedom"
to mean that they can handle the <SLD>.TLD names any way
they please. Unfortunately, this could also mean that the name
delegation is revoked without any due process and could become
"unlisted" (blocked) by someone willing to pay to have that done.

There has been a lot of discussion over the past few years about
creating names and about speculators trading them. We may
be entering a new era where people spend money removing names
and paying to make sure they are not used. With the heavy
trademark influences on the Registry Industry this seems like a
likely scenario. A company may have no desire to use <NAME>.TLD
but they may want to pay to make sure others do not.


-
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
IBC, Tortola, BVI

http://www.nic.vi    or   http://vi.unir.net