While I have little problem with the relevant exact strings being reserved at 
the top level I remain concerned about any use of "similar" or related words 
describing such restrictions on strings. The AOL name case of Scunthorpe (*) 
shows how easy it is for such things to become severe restrictions on freedom 
of naming.

I am more sceptical about attempting to restrict second level usage in the 
new TLDs. How far is this going to go? Are we then to restrict third-level or 
fourth-level usage? How about in other parts of the URL? If I make a blog 
post complaining about "Security Theatre involved in the London Olympics" the 
title of the post may be in the URL depending on the blogging software used.

The correct approach, for me, is to bring existing laws on fraudulent _use_ 
of the red cross (etc) and Olympic names up to date and provide suitable 
penalties for those seeking to create confusion. Certainly attempting to ban 
"similar" names gets us into difficult territory in terms of collisions with 
freedom fo speech. If I'm a Manchester United fan unhappy with current 
ownership of the football club, for instance, could I not register crossred 
as a domain name? So long as a reasonable person would not interpret the site 
as something official, this, IMHO, should be viable.

-- 
Professor Andrew A Adams                      [log in to unmask]
Professor at Graduate School of Business Administration,  and
Deputy Director of the Centre for Business Information Ethics
Meiji University, Tokyo, Japan       http://www.a-cubed.info/