Quote: bewareshadows "Lets get this in perspective this is an application for a domain name. Not a ruling on the use of the word Rugby.
As the RFL did not apply, then the UK government is bound to put across it's opinion to try and sway the arguement in favour of the IRB, rather than the other application.
You can try and buy any name on the internet, as far as I am aware this type of thing only crops up where different people apply for the same name.
I'm sure there are lots of other derivations that can be used instead.
Rugby.com
rugby.org
rugby.net
rugby.co.uk
rugby.TV
etc
Unless I've miss read the purpose of the body involved.'"
Actually to get a domain name you have to apply to the company that registers that TLD, now in the case of the companies that run .com/.co.uk/.org and the other current domains they pretty much let anyone have the domain if it isn't currently in use - but in theory they could say "No sorry we don't want to sell you a domain" and there would be nothing you could do.
It is for this reason that companies like Coca-cola applied for .coca-cola - essentially to stop anyone else from being able to use the domain.
So, the IRB could in fact turn around and if (for example) Leeds Rhinos apply for Leeds.Rugby say "No sorry, we don't want any Rugby League teams using .rugby" It would be their TLD to do with what they wish. Worse, someone could setup a domain called Leeds.Rugby and do nothing but talk down and post false comments about Leeds Rhinos and it would be the IRB who have final say if they site should be taken down or not.
I understand the RFL didn't apply, but if anything I would argue that either of the 2 companies who also applied for .rugby are more likely to be unbiased in the use of the .rugby domain that the IRB is.
All that, plus it annoyed me that the Government again presumes we don't exist.
