3 ms·

> The end of the article the owner talks about why he doesn't just give the domain name to Microsoft for the good of security I can't even take that type of st

by gist 7y ago

> The end of the article the owner talks about why he doesn't just give the domain name to Microsoft for the good of security I can't even take that type of statement (in the article) with a straight face. You have an ordinary person presumably of typical wealth let's say average and he should just give something away for free 'for the good of security'.

labawi 7y ago
Maybe he should ask for reimbursement on registration fees and a token manipulation fee? He registered a bunch of short domains, probably with the intent on profiteering and AFAICT he sold off some of them. By what logic or morals is he entitled to profit?
- gist 7y ago
  Where are you from where do you live? Does not work that way in a capitalistic system in the US. He has the domain and it's lawfully his to decide what to do with it. It's not owned by the public. He's not wrong for selling it for a profit anymore than someone selling their house or car will try to maximize in any legal way they can the amount they can get.
  - labawi 7y ago
    I consider ethics, morals and decency to be a higher authority than law - and I believe many other people do as well. AFAIK DNS was made to serve society, not domain speculators. IMO, domain squatters holding 90%¹ of good domains would be better served with a public whipping rather than monetary reward. Legal and practical status quo is another matter. If I go to <lastname>.com, it says for sale and probably has been since registration. What is the benefit? Would it not be better if those domains were used for a genuine purpose? I wouldn't really mind if someone else was using it. I'm in EU. I had trouble finding exact definition of speculative registration referenced in Terms and Conditions[2]: ".. complaint .. on the basis of speculative or abusive registration, as referred to in Articles 21 and 22(1)(a) of the Public Policy Rules", but here is an excerpt from eurid FAQ [3]: If you want to dispute a domain name (under .eu, ..) registration and you believe that: - you .. hold a trademark, .., family name, etc); and - the current holder has registered or uses the domain name for speculative or abusive purposes, you can challenge its registration via .. (ADR) procedure or in a regular court. AFAICT, domain speculation / squatting are explicitly forbidden, though probably sparsely enforced. I believe I have seen similar wording for applicable ccTLDs, and would not be too surprised to see something similar for .com, .org etc. ¹ Number made up. [2] https://eurid.eu/media/filer_public/f5/d2/f5d22bc1-9d62-4ba9-a81e-1a0292ef215f/terms_and_conditions_en.pdf https://eurid.eu/media/filer_public/f5/d2/f5d22bc1-9d62-4ba9... [3] https://eurid.eu/en/register-a-eu-domain/domain-name-disputes/ https://eurid.eu/en/register-a-eu-domain/domain-name-dispute...
    - gist 7y ago
      > Would it not be better if those domains were used for a genuine purpose? I own (as many others do) a vacation home. Wouldn't it be better if that home was used by someone who was homeless and needed a place to live? Why should I have enough money to keep a home empty? (Why? Because you earn money and then you can buy things that others can't, that's why it's capitalism and the way it is here). And who is talking about .eu anyway? I am not and the domain in question is not a .eu domain either. With .com the only thing that you can't do is very carefully defined by the UDRP process and there is further an entire industry devoted (like there is with real estate) to buying and selling domains that don't run afoul of those rules. You are barking up the wrong tree here honestly starting with the feeling you have that the wrong thing is happening here. It's not. And 'DNS' was not 'made to serve society' and even if it was (by some stretch) that would not prevent something else that is lawful or legitimate from happening with a registered domain name.
      - komali2 7y ago
        > Wouldn't it be better if that home was used by someone who was homeless and needed a place to live? Yes. > Why should I have enough money to keep a home empty? Because the system worked for you. It doesn't for everyone - and let's not pretend hard work correlates to the system working for someone. > that's why it's capitalism and the way it is here Nobody is denying that, but your OP is arguing that that system is immoral. I happen to agree. > And 'DNS' was not 'made to serve society' If it doesn't serve society, who does it serve? > that would not prevent something else that is lawful or legitimate We can decide what is lawful or legitimate, that's kind of the point. "But law" as an argument doesn't work. We can change the laws to reflect our values.

by gist 7y ago

labawi 7y ago

Maybe he should ask for reimbursement on registration fees and a token manipulation fee? He registered a bunch of short domains, probably with the intent on profiteering and AFAICT he sold off some of them. By what logic or morals is he entitled to profit?

gist 7y ago
Where are you from where do you live? Does not work that way in a capitalistic system in the US. He has the domain and it's lawfully his to decide what to do with it. It's not owned by the public. He's not wrong for selling it for a profit anymore than someone selling their house or car will try to maximize in any legal way they can the amount they can get.
- labawi 7y ago
  I consider ethics, morals and decency to be a higher authority than law - and I believe many other people do as well. AFAIK DNS was made to serve society, not domain speculators. IMO, domain squatters holding 90%¹ of good domains would be better served with a public whipping rather than monetary reward. Legal and practical status quo is another matter. If I go to <lastname>.com, it says for sale and probably has been since registration. What is the benefit? Would it not be better if those domains were used for a genuine purpose? I wouldn't really mind if someone else was using it. I'm in EU. I had trouble finding exact definition of speculative registration referenced in Terms and Conditions[2]: ".. complaint .. on the basis of speculative or abusive registration, as referred to in Articles 21 and 22(1)(a) of the Public Policy Rules", but here is an excerpt from eurid FAQ [3]: If you want to dispute a domain name (under .eu, ..) registration and you believe that: - you .. hold a trademark, .., family name, etc); and - the current holder has registered or uses the domain name for speculative or abusive purposes, you can challenge its registration via .. (ADR) procedure or in a regular court. AFAICT, domain speculation / squatting are explicitly forbidden, though probably sparsely enforced. I believe I have seen similar wording for applicable ccTLDs, and would not be too surprised to see something similar for .com, .org etc. ¹ Number made up. [2] https://eurid.eu/media/filer_public/f5/d2/f5d22bc1-9d62-4ba9-a81e-1a0292ef215f/terms_and_conditions_en.pdf https://eurid.eu/media/filer_public/f5/d2/f5d22bc1-9d62-4ba9... [3] https://eurid.eu/en/register-a-eu-domain/domain-name-disputes/ https://eurid.eu/en/register-a-eu-domain/domain-name-dispute...
  - gist 7y ago
    > Would it not be better if those domains were used for a genuine purpose? I own (as many others do) a vacation home. Wouldn't it be better if that home was used by someone who was homeless and needed a place to live? Why should I have enough money to keep a home empty? (Why? Because you earn money and then you can buy things that others can't, that's why it's capitalism and the way it is here). And who is talking about .eu anyway? I am not and the domain in question is not a .eu domain either. With .com the only thing that you can't do is very carefully defined by the UDRP process and there is further an entire industry devoted (like there is with real estate) to buying and selling domains that don't run afoul of those rules. You are barking up the wrong tree here honestly starting with the feeling you have that the wrong thing is happening here. It's not. And 'DNS' was not 'made to serve society' and even if it was (by some stretch) that would not prevent something else that is lawful or legitimate from happening with a registered domain name.
    - komali2 7y ago
      > Wouldn't it be better if that home was used by someone who was homeless and needed a place to live? Yes. > Why should I have enough money to keep a home empty? Because the system worked for you. It doesn't for everyone - and let's not pretend hard work correlates to the system working for someone. > that's why it's capitalism and the way it is here Nobody is denying that, but your OP is arguing that that system is immoral. I happen to agree. > And 'DNS' was not 'made to serve society' If it doesn't serve society, who does it serve? > that would not prevent something else that is lawful or legitimate We can decide what is lawful or legitimate, that's kind of the point. "But law" as an argument doesn't work. We can change the laws to reflect our values.