🚀 go-pugleaf

"David Schwartz" <davids@webmaster.com> writes:

>If the
>ownership of the top-level domain resides with some government, how can its
>existence continue if the 'entity which understakes its propogation' (that
>government, presumably) ceases to exist?

If the government collapses, all private property within that
jurisdiction becomes of doubtful status.  Private property in any
jurisdiction is defined the way the existing government defines it.  So
giving a private party ownership of a top-level domain does not protect
you from the situation where the government collapses.

But giving control of the domain to the government does protect you from
the situation where the private party collapses.

Governments collapse much less often than corporate entities do, by a
ratio of 1000:1 or more.

I see nothing wrong with private parties wanting to sell administration
services in the domain namespace.  I see something very wrong with their
trying to get exclusive control of top-level names.  No single private
entity should have exclusive control over common words in any language.

The people who want to administer top-level domains -- why do they pick
common words?  Why don't they pick UNcommon words in which nobody else
has any interest?  It's because they want exclusive control over
language.  That is simply too preposterous to be permissible.
-- 
Rahul Dhesi <dhesi@spams.r.us.com>