2 posts • joined 27 Jul 2007
The problem as I see it...
...is that the entities who decry the 'cybersquatters' are *too cheap* to actually register the domain names themselves, and thus actually prevent the problem.
One can certainly come up with many 'reasons' that make business sense to have a domain name *similar* to someone else's; or, if not a business, at least easy to find in relation to someone else's.
What ICANN *should* do is come up with a rate structure to purchase a domain name *and any similar ones not already registered* as a "package deal" - costing more than a single domain name, but less than the aggregate cost of registering them all separately.
But what about 'fixed' games, then?
According to that directive, it appears all 'honest' gambling would be prohibited.
However, it seems like it would allow 'fixed' games... ...ie ones where the house cheats and neither randomness or chance influences the results.
It's really strange to see an anti-gambling rule that actually prohibits honest games but would allow dishonest ones.
Got to wonder what they were thinking.