Dear List,
I really hate to wade into these circular arguments and have refrained
from doing so for a long time, but I see several real problems with the
position advocated here by Mr. Chvostek. To wit:
> I register a domain "walshclothes.com" in the hope that maybe it'll
> be worth something someday. Some guy in Fresno starts a clothing
> company, and without knowing anything about the Internet, calls it
> Walsh Clothes. Years/Months/Weeks later, he realizes he'd better
> have a domain name, but walshclothes.com is "taken", and points to a
> page that invites him to place a bid to get control over his own
name.
First of all, this is a pretty simplistic example, but let's say
someone does want to register such a clunky domain name and gets around
to it first (and this assumes the 20 other Walsh Clothes in the world
haven't gotten to it already). What kept the 20 other Walsh Clothes
guys/girls from doing it? As someone said, ya' snooze ya' lose. Next,
it might be a smart idea for the Fresno Walsh Clothes guy to do a
domain search before selecting a name for his company (I do it, lots of
people do it, before setting up new companies). Maybe it would cause
him to come up with a better name for his company and allow him to get
a domain that is not already taken. And third, there are multiple ways
of expressing domain names (walsh-clothes, clothesbywalsh,
walshclothing, walshclothesfresno, etc., etc.) to allow someone to work
around the fact that walshclothes.com was taken already. Continuing
right along . . .
> This guy in Fresno is just a simple fashion designer. An artist. He
> doesn't have the hundreds or thousands to spend to get the domain.
> He was hoping (nay, expecting) to give $35 to Network Solutions. He
> offers to pay for any existing time on the registration along with
> transfer fees that might be imposed by the registrar....
If anyone is thinking of charging hundred or thousands to sell that
domain, they are more simple-minded than our fashion designer (who
indeed must be simple-minded to go to NSI to register his name). By
the time our Fresno guy finds this enterprising domain registrant, he
or she probably would be willing to let it go for the registry fee just
to be rid of it. And why should our Fresno "artist" expect to find a
given domain available any more than anyone else who does a domain
look-up? Some are taken, some aren't. Should have thought of it
sooner, guy. Anyway, I go back to what I said before: Aanyone
starting a new business ought to do a domain search for the business
name, just as in the pre-'net days people did trademark searches. Part
of the process of doing business these days. But to continue . . .
> Notwithstanding the fact that I wouldn't do this in the first place,
> what should my response be? *I* certainly don't own "Walshes
> Clothes", and my use of the domain is exclusive. If I have it, he
> can't.
>
> People have called this "domain prospecting". As if there are domain
> mines (or oil fields) and they have as much right as anyone to "get a
> piece of the action" by staking a claim on a piece of electronic
> land.
>
I'm not sure how to respond to these statements, since I am really not
sure what is being said here. Anyway, one way to view social and legal
processes -- it is as valid as any other approach, and is the basis for
constitutional law in the U.S., for instance -- is "that which is not
forbidden is allowed." We can come up with endless names for things,
like "domain prospecting," but if it does not fall into the technical
and legal definition of "domain squatting" (i.e., registering an
already registered tradename as one's own domain and waiting for the
real tradename owner to come offering to buy it), there is nothing
forbidding it. And therefore it is allowed (and I could reasonably
argue that if I did not register the name, someone else would -- and
not necessarily our friend in Fresno, either). I think you could make
the same argument with vanity license tags: If I register "Walsh"
because it is my dog's name or my girlfriend's name or my favorite pulp
novel character or whatever, and someone whose last name is "Walsh"
then wants it and thinks it would help promote his business or law
practice (or whatever), I think the proper response of DMV would be,
"Tough. Pick another name, that one's already taken." How is it any
different with domain names?
> I disagree with this completely. If you register and hold a domain,
> you make it unavailable for use elsewhere. If I want to buy a car
> and keep it 50 years then sell it as an antique, I'm not taking
> anything away from anyone else. But domains are unique keys in a big
> indexing system we use to keep track of resources on the Internet.
> We refer to information by associating it with symbols like domain
> names; the keys are the symbols and the index lives in our heads. If
> we assign value to the keys instead of the data they lead to, we risk
> making the Internet a vehicle for opportunists whose ethical
> standards are dictated solely by their profit margin.
Again, I think the logic here is at best naive, at worst more than
fuzzy. If I happen to like the phone number 697-4992 and I request it
from the phone company, but then along comes some new entrepreneur who
starts a pizza parlor and wants the number because it spells out the
words "MY PIZZA," am I infringing on his rights? By definition, any
possession of anything limits the possession of the same thing by
someone else. I buy an antique car and keep it in the garage. An
aficionado of that car accuses me of being selfish and hogging a
resource that he would put to better use by displaying it (and winning
prizes at antique car shows). Is this a logical or proper argument?
While the numbers assigned to web locations are an indexing system, the
names assigned to domains have as much purpose as marketing tools (or
personal ego builders, or memory devices, or search engine hit
builders, or anything else one wants to use them for) as anything else.
They are therefore legitimate commercial property, just as is the lot
on the corner downtown (another limited resource) that I buy first in
the hopes that someone else will come along and pay a higher price for
it to put their clothes store on. As long as I am not breaking a law
or regulation, who is the store owner or anyone else to say I do not
have the right to do so? Do the words "free-market economy" have any
meaning? As for "risking" making "the Internet a vehicle for
opportunists whose ethical standards are dictated solely by their
profit margin," I think we have long since passed the point of that
risk . . . or am I surfing a different Internet than our correspondent
here {"I'm shocked! I'm shocked! There is gambling going on here! I
shall close this place immediately!")?
> That's not the Internet I grew up in.
Geez, there goes the neighborhood . . .
Anyway, my own policy is to have a good reason before I register a
domain name, but if I think a name is clever or might have a value or
good use to it or to be otherwise useful, I am not persuaded to let it
go by just because someone somewhere might have some use sometime for
the same name. And I think many people would agree with this approach.
My two cents worth.
Frank J. Yacenda
President & CEO
Alpha Opportunities
dotyourdomain.com
Domains just $14.99/year
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
