I like your
thoughts, but this time you did not quite get the point. Let me try to answer to
your comments (MY ANSWERS ARE IN BIG LETTERS):
<<<< The names they left, e.g. "ass.com",
should then be blocked from registering and a notice should appear:
"You can access
this site under ass.sex" >>>>
I am amazed at people calling for this kind of restriction.
you guys thinking this one out?
What about the grey areas?
What about assed.com?
What about virgins.com?
What about cummings.com?
IS TAKEN AWAY ANYTHING, BUT YOU GET THE FREE OFFER TO CHANGE YOUR .COM SEX SITE INTO
A .SEX SEX SITE.
IF YOU DECIDE TO CHANGE: FINE, IF YOU DON'T: FINE, STAY WHERE
THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS, THAT IF YOU TRY TO BUY E.G. GettingItOn.sex, while
you own "GettingItOn.com", YOU GET "GettingItOn.sex" FOR FREE AND GIVE BACK "GettingItOn.com".
TO ALLOW ANY COMPETITION TO YOUR NEW THE OLD "GettingItOn.com" IS BLOCKED FROM REGISTERING
AND A WEBSITE OPENS, WHICH TELLS YOUR CUSTOMERS: WE HAVE MOVED TO "GettingItOn.sex".
What about freedom, for crying out loud? NOTHING HAPPENS TO FREEDOM. YOU JUST
GET A NEW OPTION AND MAY CHOOSE BETWEEN STAYING IN .COM OR MOVING TO .SEX.
about a legitimate domain name that currently has porn? Does that get forever banned
then? NO, NOT AT ALL, I'VE NEVER SAID ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
What about a porn word
that is used for non-porn purposes? NOTHING, BECAUSE IN THAT CASE YOU PROBABLY WOULDN'T
WANT TO GO TO .SEX.
Friedrich, you think the word "ass" is pornographic? NO, IT
WAS JUST AN EXAMPLE AND I DON'T EVEN KNOW IF THERE IS A PORNOGRAFIC WEBSITE UNDER
THIS NAME (I SIMPLY DID NOT CHECK). I WAS JUST SAYING, THAT IF THERE WAS A PORNOGRAFIC
WEBSITE UNDER E.G. THAT NAME, THEY COULD MOVE O .SEX, IF THEY WANTED.
you tell the government or any agency in control of you, that they can create these
kinds of restrictions on people---rest assured, we're headed for trouble, in a global
sense. Because they will take more and more over the years--and so slowly, you won't
even notice. This is not paranoia. This has happened plenty in this world. And the
funny thing is: each time it does, there are people who call those concerned over
THERE ARE NO RESTRICTIONS BEING INTRODUCED THROUGH THIS SUGGESTION.
then what? Try reversing extreme restrictions without some kind of revolution (in
a political sense).
<< The ones, who do not use this free-change period run
the risk that .sex becomes more profitable than .com and their competitors buy their
name after the free-change period ends, so litterally they would slowely get out
of business. >>
Why? Won't they be able to buy the domain in .sex too? And a bunch
of others? Or do you want more restrictions here too?
SEE ANSWERS ABOVE.
The only law needed would be that you have to give back your .com or dot whatever
gtld name that corresponds to your newly registered .sex within lets say 6 month.
Why would they need to surrender the domain? If you have made it illegal for
them to own it, you can just take it from them.
IT'S NOT ILLEGAL, BUT IT IS A BUSINESS
OPTION THEY GET OFFERED AND IN A WAY A SIMPLE EXCHANGE. THEY WON'T BE HURT.
I GIVE THE STREET YOU ARE LIVING AN ADDITIONAL NAME AND TELL YOU THAT YOU CAN NOW
CHOOSE, WHICH ONE YOU WANT TO USE, AM I SURRENDERING YOUR STREET NAME?? YOU SIMPLY
CAN CHOOSE, BUT YOU CAN'T USE BOTH NAMES, THAT'S ALL.
I have seen so many ill-thought
out posts in this thread.
Sorry, but it is true.
I LIKE YOUR COMMENTS, BUT THIS
TIME YOU HAVE TO THINK AGAIN.
When has the world ever benefitted from this kind
of legislation? --Legislation that had so many technical, logistical, legal, ethical
and pragmatic pitfalls--and in the end hurts more people in a more fundamental way,
than it can ever help.
NEVER, BUT HERE WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT ANYTHING LIKE