Hacker News Reader

"Except insolvency, nothing prevents the domain name owner from keeping the name."

Ah, the halcyon days of the Internet's adolescence.

This was before fiascos like Mike Rowe, of Canada, having his mikerowsoft.com taken away.

I just learned of this case. I would say he didn't have his domain name taken away, but voluntarily gave it up when he chose to settle (for an X-box...). I've always found it a disappointing aspect of lawsuits that they end up in settlements so often, this would have formed an interesting precedent since he might have had good chances of winning the case (real name, no intention of deception). Shouldn't there be some kind of rule that prevents lawsuits from being settled when it's in the public interest or in the interest of justice?

So he just wasn't "cool", and therefore, so weren't his URI's. :)

Working definition of "cool URI":

* All URI's currently resolving are "tentatively cool".

* Any URI that disappears and changes at any time isn't "cool" --- and never was: the "tentatively cool" designation was mistaken all along.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com