[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- Niall O'Reilly
- Subject: Single-domain limit
- Date: Wed, 28 May 1997 20:20:32 +0100
On 22 May 97 at 14:28, Ross Chandler wrote:
>Why do we still have the rule of only one domain per legal entity?
>This dates from when the ie TLDr was run by volunteers and provided the
>service for free. The rule presumably helped to keep the work load
>to manageable proportions for a longer period than otherwise would
>have been the case.
Well, that's an original idea !
When the rules were framed, this one was based on a certain tradition
of good net-citizenship and on the idea that such a restriction would
reduce contention for names.
Indeed , on 23 May 97 at 14:47, Declan Kelly put it succinctly:
>> Why do we still have the rule of only one domain per legal entity?
>Off the cuff, my reaction to this would be "tough: it's a limited
>resource, so subdelegate what you have."
On 22 May 97 at 14:28, Ross Chandler also wrote:
>The fairness of the rule must be open to question. To take two
>hypothetical situations, is it unreasonable for a publisher of
>magazines to want a domain for each of its titles or for a computer
>software company to want one for each of its applications?
I would have thought, "No" and "Yes" respectively. I don't expect
everyone will agree.
On 22 May 97 at 16:48, Frank Quinn wrote:
>Regarding the contentious issue of single domains per legal entity
>(referred to below) this issue came up at a recent board meeting of
>the Irish Internet Association. A motion was passed seeking to have
>this addressed with the naming authority.
>While the IIA understands why this rule is there, it is hampering the
>progress of Web marketeers, publishers and content providers, for
>whom individual 'www.domain.ie' addresses are a marketing necessity.
>We strongly request that this 'one-per' rule be addressed. The rules
>need to be changed, with appropriate guidelines to prevent potential
On 22 May 97 at 21:33, Chris Higgins wrote:
>Okay, here's a suggestion then:
>Modify the guidelines to operate as follows:
>The first (primary) domain a company registers is done according to
>the current rules . (ie: approximate closeness to the company name.
>or abbrev. etc), subsequent domain names will only be considered if
>they match exactly a registered trademark or trading name... (To
>prevent a small wannabe name grabber from claiming (s)he has 100
On 23 May 97 at 11:26, ross@removed wrote:
>Without wishing to get bogged down in sematics I'd suggest that
>there's no need to distinguish between "primary" and "tertiary"
>domains so long as they all satisfy the proposed new requirements.
If the existing rule 4.1 gives enough protection, then removing
rule 4.3 is all it takes to do this. Do we need a more complex
IE Domain Registry
University College Dublin Computing Services