Slashdot Mirror
Cyber-Squatting vs. Legitimate Domain Brokering?
Silverhammer asks: "I just started my new job for a small Michigan company, and one of my first duties is to sell off what could be a VERY high-priced, high-profile domain name. The company registered it years ago for legitimate reasons -- before the whole *.com rush and "cyber-squatting" hysteria -- but after a corporate reorganization it fell into disuse. Now, the inevitable dilemma of "renew or sell" has finally reared its ugly head." Like it or not, domain names are marketable. Big time. But is this fair? What do you all think should
be the proper way to handle a domain name that has fallen into disuse? More in the article body...
"My question to Slashdot is a two-parter. First, the general: what is the real difference between cyber-squatting and legitimate domain brokering? Squatting for its own sake is a Bad Thing, of course, but domain names are the real estate of the 'Net and real estate is a legitimate business. Second, the specific: what's the best way for me to proceed with selling this domain? I want to keep it clean and sane, but it's still my responsibility to get the best price I can for the company. "
I'd say it is your company's to sell. I mean, this isn't one of 500 domain names scooped up to block a legitimate organization from registering it. If it was bought (or better yet, actually used) in good faith, then I say sell it.
IANAL, but I do think that the law is geared towards allowing your name to be your property if there is a good faith intent to use it, rather than speculating or ransoming good names.
When you think about it domain names are like mining claims. In the Voisy's Bay "gold rush" (they were actually mining nickel) one company spent a few million on buying up the mining rights to huge amounts of land. This cost them a fortune. (I believe around 3 million) OTOH it gave them the *chance* to make a fortune. In the case of domain names it's not really that cheap to buy up large numbers of them. But if you strike it big you're in luck and you might be able to pay off your investment.
You're asking Slashdot to help you decide upon a moral course of action? For you first duty in a new job? I don't know whether to feel honored that you think so highly of us, or appalled that you consider Slashdot a fount of moral wisdom.
Ask a technical question, fine, go for it. Ask us our opinions on philosophy, morality or politics, okay. But this is hardly to place to ask for a moral advice for a real world problem.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Consider it this way: there is no difference between brokering and squatting on a domain name. That said, I don't see anything wrong with either.
Intent is frequently cited as being the defining point, and I really have to take issue with this. A company can say anything was its intent, and trying to second-guess a corporation is just that, guessing. If we're serious about calling one thing by its proper name, we should call it exactly what it is: abandonment, of an unused domain name or unmaintained site is on it, or exchange, if a maintained site is located there.
Now for the kicker: I think that domain name costs should be much higher, not lower, than they are now, and the revenue should be fed back into infrastructure or into a trust fund. Consider this: there is a limited number of valid domain names, in the absence of alternate TLD's. Domain names are valuable. Everyone who buys one today (costing as little as about 15$US) is getting it at a fire-sale price. And who should rightfully own unassigned domain names? I think that net users should, collectively, just like the state owns unsold land. The revenue should go somewhere which benefits the net community rather than lining pockets at NSI.
--
--
There is no premature anti-fascism. -Ernest Hemingway
Brokering, on the other hand, typically refers to buying more generic names, like business.com, monkeys.com, giantdildo.com, and so on, and then selling them to whoever wants them.
There's a distinct difference here; and I think as long as your company doesn't own something like paramountpictures.com (in which case they might try to extort money from Paramount Pictures), but rather owns something like agrobusiness.com, then it's no big deal. The easiest way to get rid of it is, as others have already said, an auction. Start the bidding at what you paid for it, plus the cost of the time it takes to do the auction, so that at least you're not losing money on the deal. But don't try to extort people; it may not be illegal but I at least consider it immoral.
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
Actually, we should probably have a topical subgrouping, sort of like usenet. For instance, I think it'd be nice to know that linux stuff is under *.linux.comp and microsoft stuff under ms.comp. I want to find perl sites under perl.lang.comp and python under python.lang.comp. But I want to find the other pythons under python.reptils.animals.alt. I want to find world news under world.news and us news under us.news. I want sites on physics under physics.sci and astronomy under astronomy.sci. I want writings.rec and drawing.arts.rec and skydiving.rec, and skiing.rec and baseball.rec. I want all tv sites to be under *.tv.alt. All music sites under *.music.alt. I want geographical focused sites under their own geographical hierarchy. If you have a burger shop in Upper West Side Manhatten, then it'd better be under upper-west-side.manhattan.nyc.ny.us. If it's only pertinent to the French, then you'd better have it in .fr. But I want incorporated companies to have .com's because they are popular.
-BrentCurrently I own virtualsurreality.com after a long and intensive search to find a decent domain name. What's sad is the number of shorter ones that are squatted on by major companies simply because it's cheap to do so. As much as I hate the people who squat for money, at least they have a goal in mind. I may not find their methods ethical, but they are understandable.
moc.com is held by Marathon Oil, who currently have a much better and cooler domain name. The best I can hope for is that they are holding onto moc.com in order to keep Mobil from getting it. The problem is that moc.com is a really cool, perfectly usable, domain name that will NEVER be used. Marathon might be willing to sell it, but as they seem to have no intention of replying to inquiries (I tried), it's not likely to happen.
And Marathon isn't the only person in that boat. Take a look at think.com. Oracle acquired the name and has no intention of using it.
The main question is, has the domain name been used or unused recently and has anyone approached you in the past year with an offer to buy the domain name? If so, you have an ethical responsibility to contact them and inform them that you are selling it through whatever means you choose to. (Ethics aside, informing potential bidders can't be a bad financial idea.)
-----
No Zen is good zen
Just so you know..... .ca, you can get a .province.ca if you are provincially locate.d.. anyone can get a .municipality.province.ca, but the name you get must be related to your name/organization name.
.com is it is too flat.
.ca is about to be deregulated. I think the current system we have is excellent, and shouldn't change.. it's a perfect example of how *not* to exploit the DNS.
You must be in at least 2 provinces to get a
There are no fees.
Only 1 domain per legal entity is allowed (so you can't register 10.
This serves the original purpose of DNS.. to delegate a second-level domain (or third.. or fourth) so it can be further subdomained as per the network toplogy.
The problem with
Wanna be outraged? check out internic.ca