[Tfug] Domain names

[David Cowell]

The intrinsic issue that seems to be percolating to the top here is
whether "ownership without significant social benefit" is a good thing.

Obviously (to some of us) it isn't. (Of course, the word "significant"
is pivotal here, too.)

The idea of profiting from something that you have done only the
rudimentary groundwork on seems parasitic to most of us... but ICANN
selling masses of domain names to "wholesalers" is the root of this
particular problem. "Should" ICANN or "shouldn't" ICANN?

Ya see, someone has to pay for the domain name system and to keep ICANN
viable. If the whole thing is not going to be sponsored by someone (say
a government), it will almost surely be a profit-making venture. (Even
if it IS sponsored, it could still be profit-making.)

The scum who sit on domain names make it possible for any domain names
to be available at all, in a system like this.

Is this right? Well, come up with an alternative that keeps all the
present "stakeholders" happy. It won't be easy.

The present system of ownership rights for incrementally small
contributions puts a logjam into efforts for progress by those people
who are not loaded with money (the all powerful solvent for most access
problems in our society).

This is why so many people like socialistic answers. Whether THAT is a
reasonable approach is another question.


On Sun, 2008-01-27 at 10:39 -0700, johngalt1 wrote:

> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "John Gruenenfelder" <johng at as.arizona.edu>
> To: "Tucson Free Unix Group" <tfug at tfug.org>
> Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2008 4:32 AM
> Subject: Re: [Tfug] Domain names
> 
> 
> > On Sun, Jan 27, 2008 at 02:49:12AM -0700, Bowie J. Poag
> > wrote:
> >>
> >>Careful -- Telling someone their brilliant investment idea
> >>is worthless
> >>(domain squatting) is no way to make friends. :)
> >
> > Good point.
> >
> > On the other hand, I am willing to state, here and now,
> > that such persons are
> > a blight on the Net and society at large.  It's the
> > equivalent of my being
> > able to "reserve" possible book titles for that library I
> > plan to personally
> > write later on,
> 
> An academic analogue...
> 
> Or how about reserving a concept not accomplished or fully
> realized? (US Patents, esp software patents) Then one is
> able to parasitically sue the people who made the idea work?
> 
> > and then auctioning them off because I've got better
> > things to
> > do than write 4.6 billion pages of text.
> >
> > Sadly, after I wrote the last email, I looked around some
> > more.  Seems like
> > most of the registrars actively support this sort of
> > activity with "reseller
> > accounts" and such.  I guess it won't be getting better
> > any time soon.
> 
> How does acting as a seller for a registrar perpetuate
> squatting?
> 
> Oh, maybe just answered my question... By being able to buy
> domains at a "wholesale" rate?
> 
> >
> > *sigh*
> >
> > P.S. I don't mean to disparage any TFUGgers, but if you're
> > squatting you
> > should really consider a more gainful line of employment
> > and/or investment.
> > :)
> 
> 
> Gainful as in the guy in town who sold wallstreet.com,  was
> it? Or was it business.com?
> 
> Or perhaps gainful like the login.com guy who sold former
> ISP domain, aces.com to a gambling concern?
> 
> Is the complaint that the squatter "is not using" the
> domain, except to make an unreasonable profit off of it?
> 
> If the owners had some content associated with those domain
> names, would that make their unavailability less
> distasteful?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >
> > -- 
> > --John Gruenenfelder    Research Assistant, UMass Amherst
> > student
> >                        Systems Manager, MKS Imaging
> > Technology, LLC.
> > Try Weasel Reader for PalmOS  --  http://gutenpalm.sf.net
> > "This is the most fun I've had without being drenched in
> > the blood
> > of my enemies!"
> >        --Sam of Sam & Max
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Tucson Free Unix Group - tfug at tfug.org
> > Subscription Options:
> > http://www.tfug.org/mailman/listinfo/tfug_tfug.org
> >
> >
> >
> > -- 
> > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.12/1245 -
> > Release Date: 1/26/2008 3:45 PM
> >
> 
> 
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://tfug.org/pipermail/tfug_tfug.org/attachments/20080127/06340df7/attachment-0002.html>