[process2-comments] RFC-1

 Name: Bernhard Rosenkranzer Organization: Red Hat, Inc. Position: Software Developer Granting everyone with the "rights" on a name the domain is not necessarily a good idea, especially not when pretty generic terms can and will get trademarked... For example, why should "windows.com" be Microsoft and not a company making actual windows (glass)? Similarily, with this policy, if my randomly assigned phone number happened to resolve into 123-FORD-CAR, I guess I could get sued over it despite not having done anything. If I opened a company, say, Microsoft Grocery (trademarks apply only in one commercial domain), could I sue them to get microsoft.com? I don't think so, but they'd probably sue me successfully if my Microsoft Grocery had the domain first. Same for personal names - there's more than one Bill Gates - what's wrong with the 16 year old Bill Gates from somewhere in the UK holding BillGates.net for his personal homepage? I bet he'd lose though. He "owns" the name to the exact same extent as the famous person with the same name. Do I need a lot of money to get the right to have a name? I don't think so! Yes, there is a need for Intellectual Property in names (I definitely don't want to see redhat.com pointing at the page of a competitor), but it has to stop somewhere. Stuff like the crew.com decision (crew is really really a generic term!) as mentioned on news.com shouldn't happen.