I guess if the service is initaiily going to be email - then the domain would have to be one that (a) people are going to feel comfortable with giving out (b) will roll off the tongue easily (c) will not be regularly miss-spelled after being heard.
And yes, all the decent ones do seem to have been taken ;-)
My own view is that a compound name shouldn't combine more than two words. And each word should embody a different concept.
What concepts would people regards as appealing?
Green issues? Privacy? Freedom? What about humour? or aspiration? Maybe create a bunch of headings, and list words under each
BTW, maybe terms like "online" and "internet" make names sound rather 90s.
I guess it's all just semiotics, really. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiotics
________________________________________ From: Anna Morris [say.hello.to.anna@googlemail.com] Sent: 12 December 2011 21:20 To: D.Bolton U0970268 Cc: manchester@lists.fsfe.org Subject: Re: [Manchester] Legal position of hosts
Hey, sorry I haven't read all of the below, bit tired. Been thoughtshowering name again. Most of the good ones are taken tbh, its a bit of a shit, However, Cloudfromspace is available where FROM is FReedomOnlineManchester. Ok. Its stupid. FROM Is a great and appropriate acronym though, as is MINE (manchester internet enterprise) but there is just nothing available with them that I can think of without being mad like cloudfromspace.
Anyone have any ideas?
Anna
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 5:46 PM, D.Bolton U0970268 <U0970268@unimail.hud.ac.ukmailto:U0970268@unimail.hud.ac.uk> wrote: Hi Folks,
A little more on the lega postion of hosts if their users do naughty things....
There is a useful paper here: http://pcmlp.socleg.ox.ac.uk/sites/pcmlp.socleg.ox.ac.uk/files/liberty.pdf
Hosts in Europe seem to get some protection - although not as much as they get in the USA. I have no idea whether English law overides Eurpean law, though. English law is quite damning on ISPs - as past case law seems to regard an ISP as a publisher, even if they are only blindly storing and forwarding material from elswhere. See http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rnc1/Judge_and_Jury.htmlhttp://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/%7Ernc1/Judge_and_Jury.html and http://www.nominet.com/disputes/caselaw/index/godfrey/
The main problem areas seem to be related to the UK libel laws, copyright infringement, and "illegal" images. However, it seems that there is some protection for hosts if they don't select who is using the site, and they don't actively monitor data. Once notified of possible dodgy data, though, then the host is obliged to look at it and do something about it. In the UK, due to the outcome of the infamouse Godfrey vs Demon case (see above), hosts have usually deleted content at the slightest sniff of trouble - even if the content was legal.
I guess if a server was encrypted to a level where admins can't read any of the traffic - and the users were not "selected" by the host organisation, then the admins could be protected to some extent. But - if a complaint was received - then the only option might be to instantly "suspend" a user's account, as there wouldn't even be an option to look at the content passing through the system. Unfortunately, the act of allowing users to push encrypted material through the server might be construed under law as complicity - ie. deliberately setting up a system that could be used for nefarious purposes.
Any comments? Whose going to the MFS xmas do at MadLab tomorrow?
David
_______________________________________________ Manchester mailing list Manchester@lists.fsfe.orgmailto:Manchester@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/manchester
-- www.ethical-pets.co.ukhttp://www.ethical-pets.co.uk - The pet shop thats all sorts of ethical!