Your version of right and wrong are skewed 180 degrees from mine.
I consider "manipulating" the paper trail to change ownership without the
consent of the original registrant a crime, while I think registering
generic domain names for investment purposes is perfectly acceptable.
(Incidentally, I think the law is on my side.)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Chvostek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "DomainGuideBook.com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2001 2:24 AM
Subject: Re: Domain held up at Network Solutions
>
> Ah, I guess I didn't really pick up on Steve's lack of association
> with the domain.
>
> My comment regarding company name or trademark was because NSI wants
> a level of confidence before accepting FAX authorizations. If there's
> an "A+ Welding Corp" owned awldco.com and goes bankrupt, and the former
> owners lose interest in the domain, it is still possible for another
> company with the same name to acquire the domain. And if I was running
> a company that sold Awls out of stores Washington DC and Ontario, and
> the domain awldco.com represented how I present my company, I would not
> have a problem "manipulating" the paper trail so that I could use the
> domain.
>
> So ... I approve of free-market first-come-first-served access to the
> DNS for *legitimate* use, but I have a *big* problem with sqatting.
> Same with generic domains. Unilever was first into the soup kitchen
> for the domain "mouthwash.com". Ya snooze ya lose. But the domain
> naming system is supposed to exist to allow easier access to IP-based
> resources on the 'Net. Domain names are not a resource, they are an
> index. People who hold domain names for ransom for the sole purpose of
> making a buck are just parasites. I hold them in the same regard as
> spammers and virus programmers.
>
> I guess it all depends on your definition of "legitimate". I *don't*
> consider the Internet to be an oil well which I can tap until it is dry,
> then move on. I value the Internet as a resource for the exchange of
> information. Squatting, like spam, devalues the resource by making it
> more difficult and expensive to operate.
>
> p
