Thanks for the upvote! ;) I think we have a misunderstanding here. First thing to clarify, I think, is whether the owner of the "avtr" name gave it up willingl

Thanks for the upvote! ;) I think we have a misunderstanding here. First thing to clarify, I think, is whether the owner of the "avtr" name gave it up willingly. If he didn't, the discussion it closed: it was at best bullyish. But what I understood from the article is that it was mutual: > ... but I wanted to explore opportunities to work with you to acquire the name. In the past, we have offered product in exchange for social domain names. One case in mind was for the new movie Avatar , we were able to give promotional items to the owner of twitter.com/avtr for Coke Zero. I read this as a transaction. Now, the GP is still very very upset. Personally, I think it simply isn't GP's business what the avtr owner did with his domain. It's very much like Richard Stallman berating you rudely in public for buying commercial software. His ideals, just like GP's, should not dictate what one does with his property, time and money. If the GP thinks offering "useless plastic crap" was an offence, he's free to reject such an offer whenever it's made to him. But I do not understand why we should all align to his standards and refuse transactions we may find profitable or charitable or just the right thing to do. Not to mention that a promotional item can easily be anything from a t-shirt to a bike or a car. Now again, if I misunderstood something I apologize. But I find the GP to be the one trying to push things here, not the big corporation.