URS : Say NO
- To: net-agreement-renewal@xxxxxxxxx
- Subject: URS : Say NO
- From: Gary Petersen <garyp-2011@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 21:54:04 -0700
I have read about the URS and believe it is a bad idea for many reasons:
1) It lacks oversight. One person is not enough to take away somebody's
business. If that one person is bad at
their job, it would be horrible and eventually, every company hires somebody who
is bad at their job and
takes a while to replace them.
2) It changes the rules mid-game. People have developed their websites already
based on naming
which made it a hassle for companies to take what they wanted without reason.
This lowers the
bar making those with money have a huge advantage over the rest of the world.
3) The policy is not clear and seems to lack a reasonable time and appeals
process. We've seen
companies make mistakes in the past and blanket-sue grandmas for sharing
Metalica without a
computer. If a company makes a mistake, what is going to stop them? The one
reviews this? What if the company swears under oath it is right? What is the
lying? Will the company be stopped from doing it ever again?
4) These rules are a dangerous precedent. The government of the USA has been
taking domains with
incorrect justification and "missing" and taking others domains by accident.
Its been a failure of
an idea for fairness and for the average user. Why is this lack of
accountability being expanded?
In summary, DO NOT DO URS. Its bad. It needs to have protections built in