[DNS] Cybersquatting

[DNS] Cybersquatting

From: Dassa <dassa§dhs.org>
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 20:04:26 +1000
|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: dns-bounces+dassa=dhs.org&#167;dotau.org 
|> [mailto:dns-bounces+dassa=dhs.org&#167;dotau.org] On Behalf Of 
|> Kirk Fletcher
|> Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2005 9:08 AM
|> To: .au DNS Discussion List
|> Subject: Re: [DNS] Cybersquatting
|> > I prefer the following definition:
|> > Cybersquatting is the act of registering a popular Internet 
|> > address--usually a company name--with the intent of 
|> selling it to its 
|> > rightful owner.
|> >
|> > The Internet address may be a company name, it may be a 
|> trademark or 
|> > it may be a more generic word, the rightful owner is someone who 
|> > intends to develop the name in conjunction with a close and 
|> > substantial connection to themselves, their interests or business.
|> Well that's silly... if it's a generic domain, how can you 
|> say it has a "rightful owner"... if this is the case, then 
|> auDA has cybersquatted on all of those generic and 
|> geographic domains.  Apparently it's OK if auDA does it?

The rightful owner of a hostname is someone who intends to use it as hostnames
were intended and opposed to someone who only licensed the name in the hopes
someone else would want it badly enough to pay an inflated price for it.  Some
may call it good business for someone to speculate, I see it as just another
form of cybersquatting.

|> If it's generic, there's bound to be more than one 
|> interested party, so is the so-called rightful owner the 
|> person willing to pay the highest price?  Is it simply 
|> whoever gets in first?  I'm afraid that your own definitions 
|> here are somewhat arbitrary

There may be more than one person who wishes to have a hostname and use it
correctly, this has been handled on a first come first serve basis.  That is a
fair enough system.  An alternative would be to have a random draw but that
adds administrative overhead.

|> I would have thought that the difference between registering 
|> someones existing company/product/trademark/etc and trying 
|> to sell it back to them, and simply registering a group of 
|> generic words would have been obvious, but I guess not.  
|> Here's a clue: the former is extortion, the latter is not.

You call one extortion and the other good business, I say they are both
different sides to the same coin and vary little.  There are laws to protect
trademark/product/company holders, there are very few protections for
individuals who wish to have a specific name that may be held by a speculator.

People say it is the market and it will rule.  I say why have two different
sets of rules.

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch 
Received on Wed Sep 28 2005 - 10:04:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sat Sep 09 2017 - 22:00:08 UTC