Public Comments on the "Consultation Paper on the Review on Administration and Assignment of Internet Domain Names and Internet Protocol Addresses in Hong Kong"

Subject: Comments on the IT Infrastructure consultation paper
 

The following are my comments on the IT Infrastructure consultation paper :
 

1. I believe there is no need for a reserved list or extra regulation to prevent cybersquatting. I prefer leaving them to the dispute resolution mechanism. What are we going to do with the names in the "reserved list"? Is the list open for public review or closed within "the corporation"?
2. Paragraph 37 states a "general principle to protect Internet domain names from indecency, words which are obscene, scandalous, indecent, and contrary to law or morality should not be registered." Where does this "general principle" come from? I believe this is unnecessary.
3. I believe each individual HK resident should be allowed more than one domain name, perhaps with an increasing fee for extra names. The only benefit of this restriction is "for simplicity and easy management" rather than the interest of the people.

Regards,
Ernest YIK