Re: [wg-review] [IDNH] & @Large Members Organization

["Chris McElroy" <watch-dog@inreach.com>]

Cindy, just a note. Just because someone got to a domain name first doen't
mean they took it hostage no more than someone who bought a piece of land
before someone else. Would you call someone that bought the house you were
thinking of buying a House Squatter and that they were holding your house
hostage because they wished to make a profit do to making the move first?
Domain Buyers did not make the rules. The registrars and ICANN made the
rules. They made the rule "First Come First Serve" just like land in the
pioneer days. To fault them instead of those who created the sytem is
misguided.

There are those who file TM'd names as domains intending to profit off a
company. They are cybersquatters. Simple. I think the TM Holder has every
right to go after them. But one who files generic words used everyday are
not Cybersquatters just because they are speculating on a name's value. The
fact is most domain name speculators lose a lot more money than they make. A
few make a profit from the sale of a few names. These conflicts that have
been blown out of proportion by misinformation to and from the media. The
fact is only a small % of disputes involve cybersquatting.

Reverse domain name hijacking is where someone wants a domain name you have
and files a TM and/or company name identical to the domain name, then uses
WIPO arbitration to take the name from the registrant who thought of it
first. This is not protection of Intellectual Property. Not in the spirit of
TM law.

When Proctor & Gamble, Microsoft, and AOL register thousands of domain names
and in the case of Proctor & Gamble, sell them for huge profits, they are
not called cybersquatters. Only when individuals do it is this term applied.
Doesn't that seem a little one-sided to you?

Chris McElroy aka NameCritic


----- Original Message -----
From: "Cindy Merry" <tomerrys@inter-linc.net>
To: <sotiris@hermesnetwork.com>
Cc: <wg-review@dnso.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2001 1:12 AM
Subject: RE: [wg-review] [IDNH] & @Large Members Organization


> Again on the limiting TLDs.  I've had several circumstances where I have
> been unable to get the "best" domain name for my clients and someone else
> was already using or holding hostage that name.  Having the name I wanted
> attached to a TLD besides .com still isn't the most optimal in the
business
> world, especially with the present consumers understanding of how to find
> something on the Internet.  Sometimes I think the hype surrounding the
TLDs
> is amusing to some degree for those of us in small businesses.  I find
that
> having an existing brand name that I have to use different medias to
> advertise is still the answer to finding customers.  So what if I have
> cindymerry.com or cindymerry.biz or cindymerry.travel.  I have still got
to
> find a way to communicate to my potential customers how to find me.  The
> last time I typed Cindy Merry into a search engine it took me to a site
> with  ladies...well you know:)...  Most of my customers and the average
guy
> using the Internet don't seem to be in to typing  .    anything after a
> name.  For clarification I don't have a domain name under my name, nor did
> I want one.  The real hostage on domain names is the business with an
> already established name that they have spent a lot of time and money
> promoting that is taken by someone else.  As far as I can see with TLDs,
> the TLD that wins is the TLD that the consumer becomes most familiar with
> using.
>
> So I guess what I'm asking is how limiting TLDs controls the flow of
> information?
>
> Thanks,  Cindy Merry
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-wg-review@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-review@dnso.org]On Behalf
> Of Sotiropoulos
> Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 10:14 PM
> To: Cindy Merry
> Cc: wg-review@dnso.org
> Subject: RE: [wg-review] [IDNH] & @Large Members Organization
>
> "Cindy Merry" <tomerrys@inter-linc.net> wrote:
>
> >...I also think that most of the people who are on the work group appear
> to care very much about what is being done.  And I'm not sure that being
> paid
> >to be here is bad...  Sometimes I represent clients and their causes
> (getting paid) and I still strongly believe in that cause as a private
> person, an
> >individual.
> <..snip..>
> >I definitely agree that the flow of information should never be
controlled
> by any entity.
> <..snip..>
> >The one thing I still don't understand is why limiting the number of Top
> >Level Domain names is considered a good thing?  If this is a
communication
> >device why can't there be a plethora of TLDs?
>
> Most likely because many of the people who *are* paid to be here,
represent
> interests that wish to control the flow of Information.
>
> Sotiris Sotiropoulos
>           Hermes Network, Inc.
>
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>

--
This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html