For what it's worth.<div><br></div><div>The ALAC developed a specific process for receiving complaints about gTLD strings, as allowed for in the AG as an aftermath of the MAPO debate.</div><div><br></div><div>We received a single complaint, from the New Zealand ccTLD, about .book and the intent by Amazon to "close" the TLD.</div>
<div><a href="http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/newgtldrg/2012-August/000114.html">http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/newgtldrg/2012-August/000114.html</a></div><div><br></div><div>As far as I am aware ALAC is taking a position *not* to endorse or forward the complaint</div>
<div><br></div><div>I see multiple holes in the argument made by InternetNZ, Michele, and others (the complaints coming almost completely from contracted parties and domainers)</div><div><ul><li>First, the complainst are about the intended use of the strings, not about the strings themselves. As such, these complaints require ICANN to evaluate the content and business models behind all applications whereas the complaint mechanism is really just about the offensiveness of the string itself. I am not sure that the community is willing to trust ICANN to perform suitable evaluations based on content or business models of TLDs; it has barely demonstrated competence in being able to evaluate the strings themselves<br>
<br></li><li>I find the complaints fascinating, in that Amazon and other potential private gTLD owners have not indicated what they intend to do with their TLDs -- just that they intend to retain ownership of all subdomains. Such a declaration, on its own, if hardly merit for dismissal; it does not preclude leasing or renting lower-level domains to the public, but it does indicate in intention to bypass the current secondary channel of registrars. It's thus of no surprise to see the biggest complaints against private TLDs coming from the speculators and resellers who would be locked out of such schemes. If, as I suspect, at least one or two of these TLDs intend to give away free use of domains (think of the Google model for other services), such offers would be impossible if registrars demanded their cut. To deny such innovative approaches would deprive potential registrants and the public of true alternatives to the status quo; there are enough conventional applications in play to give people liking the traditional path of resellers and registrars plenty of options. But some innovative experiments must be allowed to try -- and possibly fail.<br>
<br></li><li>It's hypocritical to reject private ownership of generic-word top level domains while accepting private ownership of generic words at lower levels. I fail to see the logic of how private ownership of <a href="http://foo.com">foo.com</a> is OK while private ownership of *.foo is not. For better or worse, ICANN has condoned (and indeed thrived upon) not only the private ownership of common words, but their commoditization in auctions and secondary markets. Arguably, private ownership of common words is at the very core of the whole domaining industry. ICANN could have chosen another path but that bridge was burned long ago. And now that money has been accepted for good-faith applications, ICANN can't change its rules retroactively.</li>
</ul></div><div>- Evan</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 7 September 2012 02:15, David Cake <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:dave@difference.com.au" target="_blank">dave@difference.com.au</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><br><div><div class="im"><div>On 07/09/2012, at 3:54 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:</div>
<br><blockquote type="cite"><span style="border-collapse:separate;font-family:Helvetica;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;line-height:normal;text-align:-webkit-auto;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;font-size:medium"><div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div><div style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;margin-bottom:0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times New Roman',serif"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u> <u></u></span></div>
<div style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;margin-bottom:0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times New Roman',serif"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u> <u></u></span></div>
<div style="border-top-style:none;border-right-style:none;border-bottom-style:none;border-width:initial;border-color:initial;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:blue;border-left-width:1.5pt;padding-top:0in;padding-right:0in;padding-bottom:0in;padding-left:4pt">
<div><div style="border-right-style:none;border-bottom-style:none;border-left-style:none;border-width:initial;border-color:initial;border-top-style:solid;border-top-color:rgb(181,196,223);border-top-width:1pt;padding-top:3pt;padding-right:0in;padding-bottom:0in;padding-left:0in">
<div style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;margin-bottom:0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times New Roman',serif"><b><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Tahoma,sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Tahoma,sans-serif"><span> </span>NCSG-Discuss [mailto:<a href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU" target="_blank">NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a>]<span> </span><b>On Behalf Of<span> </span></b>David-who-agrees-with-Milton Cake<br>
<br></span><u></u><u></u></div></div></div><div><div style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;margin-bottom:0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times New Roman',serif">Amazon don't have a trademark on book - and we would never let them have one. So why should we grant them any exclusive rights on .book, to be used only for their own branded product?<span style="color:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u><u></u></span></div>
<div style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;margin-bottom:0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times New Roman',serif"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u> <u></u></span></div>
<div style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-left:48.75pt;margin-bottom:0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times New Roman',serif"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Wingdings;color:rgb(31,73,125)"><span>Ø<span style="font:normal normal normal 7pt/normal 'Times New Roman'"> <span> </span></span></span></span><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">That's the point about open and free: ICANN doesn't get to decide who has a "right" to it. Whoever gets it, gets it. Whoever is granted .BOOK will do with it what they will. To me, as an advocate of Internet freedom, it doesn't matter if it is Amazon or a group of whining GNSO members trying (in vain, and at great length and expense) to force whoever uses .BOOK to adopt their favored policies. All we are debating is what policies and procedures will dictate registration in or use of that domain. Any attempt to collectively determine this is a needless invitation to perpetual regulation and conflict. Haven't we had enough of that crap with the trademark people, who think any appropriation and use of words should be subject to THEIR precious concerns? You are just reproducing all their arguments and all their techniques.</span></div>
</div></div></div></div></span></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span></div>This sounds like an extreme formalist argument - ignore the specifics of any given case as long as the procedure is the same. </div>
<div><span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>What is the point in arguing for the public interest to be considered at all if you don't want to apply it to any specific case, only to abstract procedural concerns? </div>
<div><br></div><div><span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>FWIW, I don't think an argument about open vs closed (or restricted) domains has merit in the abstract - but I do think that there is value in considering the merits of individual cases. Apparently, you don't? It is all just strings, and the public interest considerations for .book should be exactly the same as the public interest considerations for .adsfhda or .auieq or .arbitrarystringofletters? </div>
<div><div class="im"><br><blockquote type="cite"><span style="border-collapse:separate;font-family:Helvetica;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;line-height:normal;text-align:-webkit-auto;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;font-size:medium"><div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div><div style="border-top-style:none;border-right-style:none;border-bottom-style:none;border-width:initial;border-color:initial;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:blue;border-left-width:1.5pt;padding-top:0in;padding-right:0in;padding-bottom:0in;padding-left:4pt">
<div><div style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-left:48.75pt;margin-bottom:0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times New Roman',serif"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u><u></u></span></div>
<div style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;margin-bottom:0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times New Roman',serif"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u> <u></u></span></div>
<div style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;margin-bottom:0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times New Roman',serif">And I disagree with Milton on this - the space is vast, yes, but not all strings are equal, and there are no synonyms for book of equal quality. <u></u><u></u></div>
</div><div><div style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;margin-bottom:0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times New Roman',serif">Yes, it isn't a monopoly, but it is a significant competitive advantage that I don't think we should be selling exclusive rights to.<u></u><u></u></div>
<div style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;margin-bottom:0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times New Roman',serif"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u> <u></u></span></div>
<div style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-left:1in;margin-bottom:0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times New Roman',serif"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:'Courier New';color:rgb(31,73,125)"><span>o<span style="font:normal normal normal 7pt/normal 'Times New Roman'"> <span> </span></span></span></span><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">Oy veh. You are confusing a domain name string with its referent. In other words, you believe words are magic talismans. You think that if I control a dns string that corresponds to a word, I control (or have a "significant competitive advantage over") the market or all the things that that word stands for. </span></div>
</div></div></div></div></span></blockquote><div><br></div></div><div><span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>I believe words have a significant semantic connection to its referent, otherwise language is meaningless. I'm assuming you don't disagree with this position. I believe more people are familiar with the word book than are familiar with the word grimoire or libram (dungeons and dragons players notwithstanding), and so those attempting to promote their book business using the word book rather than the word libram have some advantage. And that some semantic association between the domain name and object referred to has some psychological advantages in promotion. </div>
<div><span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>And lets be clear - Amazon sides with me on this principle. There is a natural assumption that books refer to the generic object. Amazon knows that there is some semantic sleight of hand going on, and are planning on taking advantage of it. </div>
<div><span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>There is a real argument here to be had about whether we should apply public interest considerations to individual non-community new gTLDs or simply treat them all as commercial investments whose open or closedness is of concern only to the investor - but you seem to not even want to approach that argument, and instead take the position that there is no intrinsic market value to words based on their semantics. </div>
<div class="im"><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><span style="border-collapse:separate;font-family:Helvetica;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;line-height:normal;text-align:-webkit-auto;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;font-size:medium"><div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div><div style="border-top-style:none;border-right-style:none;border-bottom-style:none;border-width:initial;border-color:initial;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:blue;border-left-width:1.5pt;padding-top:0in;padding-right:0in;padding-bottom:0in;padding-left:4pt">
<div><div style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-left:1in;margin-bottom:0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times New Roman',serif"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">Bollocks. Can you provide me with any evidence for this claim?</span></div>
</div></div></div></div></span></blockquote><div><br></div><span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span></div>You want evidence for the claim that people associate books with the word book? Or that being able to promote your books using the word book rather than the word libram constitutes any advantage? </div>
<div><span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>Or you want me to provide evidence that I believe your bizarre interpretation of what I said? </div><div><div class="im"><br><blockquote type="cite"><span style="border-collapse:separate;font-family:Helvetica;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;line-height:normal;text-align:-webkit-auto;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;font-size:medium"><div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div><div style="border-top-style:none;border-right-style:none;border-bottom-style:none;border-width:initial;border-color:initial;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:blue;border-left-width:1.5pt;padding-top:0in;padding-right:0in;padding-bottom:0in;padding-left:4pt">
<div><div style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-left:1in;margin-bottom:0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times New Roman',serif"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"> And can you tell me why the same logic doesn't apply at the second level under .com? I have already shown that<span> </span><a href="http://Books.com" style="color:blue;text-decoration:underline" target="_blank">Books.com</a><span> </span>is controlled by a failing bookseller:</span></div>
</div></div></div></div></span></blockquote><div><br></div></div><div><span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>Part of the public interest justification for the new gTLD program is precisely that the wider range of 2LDs will dilute the importance of grabbing one of an artificially limited number of 'good' ones. It doesn't seem a particularly good idea to just move that idea of artificial scarcity up a level. </div>
<div><span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>But I take it your argument is 'if good names have market value, why aren't all the companies with good names winning in their business category'. To which I can only say, either you misunderstand the idea of competitive advantage, or have an awfully odd idea of how markets work. Businesses with one significant competitive advantage make other poor choices, or fail to overcome other market disadvantages, and fail all the time. Same with domain names. Doesn't mean we should ignore the public interest considerations of any possible competitive advantage just because it doesn't grant guaranteed success. </div>
<div class="im"><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><span style="border-collapse:separate;font-family:Helvetica;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;line-height:normal;text-align:-webkit-auto;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;font-size:medium"><div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div><div style="border-top-style:none;border-right-style:none;border-bottom-style:none;border-width:initial;border-color:initial;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:blue;border-left-width:1.5pt;padding-top:0in;padding-right:0in;padding-bottom:0in;padding-left:4pt">
<div><div style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-left:1in;margin-bottom:0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times New Roman',serif"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"> Barnes and Noble. Someone paid a lot of money for<span> </span><a href="http://BUSINESS.COM" style="color:blue;text-decoration:underline" target="_blank">BUSINESS.COM</a><span> </span>back in the day - did they control all business? Possession of domain names is helpful supplement to a good service and marketing strategy. Sure, they have some value, and some have more value than others. That's why they are contested. But the idea that you are selling exclusive control of markets is just nonsense.</span></div>
</div></div></div></div></span></blockquote><div><br></div><span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span></div>Of course - but of course, i never said that. I said 'significant competitive advantage'. Sometimes, despite a significant competitive advantage, people still drop the ball. </div>
<div><span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>I specifically 'not a monopoly', in fact. Do you have difficulty understanding the difference between exclusive control and competitive advantage in a marketplace? </div>
<div><div class="im"><br><blockquote type="cite"><span style="border-collapse:separate;font-family:Helvetica;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;line-height:normal;text-align:-webkit-auto;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;font-size:medium"><div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div><div style="border-top-style:none;border-right-style:none;border-bottom-style:none;border-width:initial;border-color:initial;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:blue;border-left-width:1.5pt;padding-top:0in;padding-right:0in;padding-bottom:0in;padding-left:4pt">
<div><div style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-left:1in;margin-bottom:0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times New Roman',serif"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u><u></u></span></div>
<div style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-left:1in;margin-bottom:0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times New Roman',serif"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:'Courier New';color:rgb(31,73,125)"><span>o<span style="font:normal normal normal 7pt/normal 'Times New Roman'"> <span> </span></span></span></span><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">But, since you believe in verbal magic, I am going to call you "Dave-who-agrees-with-Milton" for the rest of your life, and get others to do so as well. This will guarantee that you will agree with me, and abandon your foolish views. I like this kind of magic.</span></div>
</div></div></div></div></span></blockquote><div><br></div><span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span></div>If you are going to use magical methods, I suggest you make a little straw man effigy of my arguments, surely by burning it you will have refuted me? Do you see what I did there?</div>
<div><div class="im"><br><blockquote type="cite"><span style="border-collapse:separate;font-family:Helvetica;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;line-height:normal;text-align:-webkit-auto;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;font-size:medium"><div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div><div style="border-top-style:none;border-right-style:none;border-bottom-style:none;border-width:initial;border-color:initial;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:blue;border-left-width:1.5pt;padding-top:0in;padding-right:0in;padding-bottom:0in;padding-left:4pt">
<div><div style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-left:1in;margin-bottom:0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times New Roman',serif"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u><u></u></span></div>
</div><div><div style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;margin-bottom:0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times New Roman',serif"><u></u> <u></u></div></div><div><div style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;margin-bottom:0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times New Roman',serif">
Restricted registration (not the same as closed) may well be in the public interest in some cases. I think the case for restricting .bank to banks is reasonable, even if we use the word bank for some other purposes (food bank, seed bank, etc). And restricting .ngo to NGOs etc. <u></u><u></u></div>
<div style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;margin-bottom:0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times New Roman',serif"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u> <u></u></span></div>
<div style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-left:1in;margin-bottom:0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times New Roman',serif"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:'Courier New';color:rgb(31,73,125)"><span>o<span style="font:normal normal normal 7pt/normal 'Times New Roman'"> <span> </span></span></span></span><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">Dave-who-agrees-with-Milton, the DNS can't be run on casual determinations as to what is "reasonable". BANK is just as generic as BOOK. If you think one can be closed and the other can't, you are in effect proposing a regulatory distinction that must be transposed into a rule that can be impartially applied to any and every TLD application for the next 50 years.</span></div>
</div></div></div></div></span></blockquote><div><br></div></div><div><span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>I am indeed proposing that the meaning of words should have some relevance to whether or not open registration is in the public interest. Further more, I would suggest that the broader social and legal context should have some relevance to whether or not open use is in the public interest, rather than just looking at a dictionary. I'm quite surprised that you find either of these contentions controversial - the relevance of both meaning, and social and legal context, would seem implicit in just about every ICANN policy debate about the desirability of registration of names, I fail to see why the question of open vs restricted or closed registration should be any different. </div>
<div><span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>For example, in most jurisdictions we do, in fact, regulate which financial institutions are allowed to call themselves banks - and while that doesn't detract from the idea that bank is a word with many meanings, it does point to the fact that there are public interest considerations involved in the use of the term bank, and that having some rules regarding registration is likely consistent with both local laws. Furthermore, that financial fraud and phishing does constitute a large enough social problem that it should be considered a factor. </div>
<div class="im"><div><span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span></div><br><blockquote type="cite"><span style="border-collapse:separate;font-family:Helvetica;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;line-height:normal;text-align:-webkit-auto;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;font-size:medium"><div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div><div style="border-top-style:none;border-right-style:none;border-bottom-style:none;border-width:initial;border-color:initial;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:blue;border-left-width:1.5pt;padding-top:0in;padding-right:0in;padding-bottom:0in;padding-left:4pt">
<div><div style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-left:1in;margin-bottom:0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times New Roman',serif"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"> You are then proposing a kind of regulation of acceptable use of words that is far more injurious to freedom than whatever Amazon does with .BOOK. Think, please, about the policy consequences of your position. Do you cherish the idea of spending another 6 years in the ICANN-GNSO-ALAC-GAC morass deciding a) what is a generic term, b) which of those terms are "reasonably" subject to restricted registration c) wtf the "public interest" in this is across any and all strings? Can you imagine all the crap that would be piled onto such a regulatory process by all the special interests involved? Do you really want to go down that road? Do you REALLY understand what you are getting into?<u></u><u></u></span></div>
</div><div><div style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;margin-bottom:0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times New Roman',serif"><u></u> <u></u></div></div><div><div style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;margin-bottom:0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times New Roman',serif">
I'm OK with .brands having closed registration - the logic is essentially the original, public interest, case for trademarks, that it protects consumer interests to prevent attempts to claim false association. <u></u><u></u></div>
<div style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;margin-bottom:0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times New Roman',serif"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u> <u></u></span></div>
<div style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-left:1in;margin-bottom:0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times New Roman',serif"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:'Courier New';color:rgb(31,73,125)"><span>o<span style="font:normal normal normal 7pt/normal 'Times New Roman'"> <span> </span></span></span></span><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">I am ok with anyone using a domain for whatever the heck they like, as long as it doesn't constitute a crime or a tort.</span></div>
</div></div></div></div></span></blockquote><br></div></div><div><span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>Which is an interesting position to take, that public interest is irrelevant, apart from the narrow case of criminal behaviour. </div>
<div><span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>Though even that difficult to reconcile with the position you have taken - there are indeed criminal laws governing use of the word bank in many jurisdictions, for example</div>
<div><br></div><div><span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>Cheers</div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><div><br></div><div><span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>David</div><div><br></div><div><span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span></div>
</font></span></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div style="text-align:center"><div style="text-align:left">Evan Leibovitch</div><div style="text-align:left">Toronto Canada</div></div><blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 40px;border:none;padding:0px">
<div style="text-align:center"><div style="text-align:left">Em: evan at telly dot org</div></div><div style="text-align:center"><div style="text-align:left">Sk: evanleibovitch</div></div><div style="text-align:center"><div style="text-align:left">
Tw: el56</div></div></blockquote><br>
</div>