3 ms·

It's not that it's 'more popular.' That's not the debate. The debate is that the .com site is being squatted. If it was some 4chan interior design company with

by Shinkei 13y ago

It's not that it's 'more popular.' That's not the debate. The debate is that the .com site is being squatted. If it was some 4chan interior design company with even some legitimate business, then the debate would be over. Do you think it's a bad precedent if Google becomes popular and you can show that a person subsequently registered all the single permutation misspellings of Google and then tried to sell them back to Google? Or even worse, told them they would post porn redirects at all the sites if they didn't buy them at huge markup? Go read about the Whitehouse.com history.

pbhjpbhj 13y ago
Define squatted (or define legitimate use) - if the owner is using the domain for email and simply finds serving advertising provides some income, is that squatting; given there is no confusion issue. If they have a project in hand, or bought it to give to their child when they're 18, or ... are all those squatting? How about, as for me, they renewed for a client and then the client didn't pay but now wants "their" domain back. Is me having that and serving ads to recoup costs (rather than wasting time on courts), is that squatting? >Or even worse, told them they would post porn redirects at all the sites if they didn't buy them at huge markup? // Extortion and practices intended to affect the business of a RTM are already unlawful of course.
- Shinkei 13y ago
  The courts can decide squatted/legitimate use. I mean, were you using email@4chan.com before 4chan.org was starting up? And for that matter why would you be saving 4chan.com for your child? Are you 'speculating' that it will be worth more over time? Or is their name Mrs. Four Chan? It should be easy to make your claim if it's bona fide. Again, this is a 'I know it when I see it.' That client thing is shitty and that sounds like actually you have a great argument. Especially if you just post your negative blog post/review of that company redirected from that domain.
- Dylan16807 13y ago
  It's less about what you do with the domain and more about the method of choosing the domain. If your domain is blatantly copying a company name, and it's not your company name, you're not in a strong position. By copying I mean something like paypa1.com, not something like paypalsucks.com. If you have a domain where you do nothing on it, but it's not copying anything either, that's squatting but nobody is going to care. If you hold a client's site hostage for not paying, yeah that sounds like squatting. So what, that's not a value judgement.
  - pbhjpbhj 13y ago
    >If you hold a client's site hostage for not paying, yeah that sounds like squatting. // Am I supposed to give them product without receiving payment?
    - Dylan16807 13y ago
      There's a reason I put the 'not a value judgement' comment. You have justification, but you are still doing it.
      - pbhjpbhj 13y ago
        Alright but if the definition of squatting doesn't help with the value judgement, ie some squatting is justified, then that's no great help towards deciding how to delineate allowable behaviour wrt domain holding, is it? I considered the purpose of the definition of squatting was to define behaviour which was considered unhelpful and was to be discouraged in some way.
        Dylan16807 13y ago
        It's still ICANN's right and responsibility to get that domain back to the business the site is actually for. You might have a moral justification in witholding the domain until you're paid, but it's not yours.
        13y ago
brokentone 13y ago
Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitehouse.com http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitehouse.com

by Shinkei 13y ago

pbhjpbhj 13y ago

Define squatted (or define legitimate use) - if the owner is using the domain for email and simply finds serving advertising provides some income, is that squatting; given there is no confusion issue. If they have a project in hand, or bought it to give to their child when they're 18, or ... are all those squatting? How about, as for me, they renewed for a client and then the client didn't pay but now wants "their" domain back. Is me having that and serving ads to recoup costs (rather than wasting time on courts), is that squatting? >Or even worse, told them they would post porn redirects at all the sites if they didn't buy them at huge markup? // Extortion and practices intended to affect the business of a RTM are already unlawful of course.

Shinkei 13y ago
The courts can decide squatted/legitimate use. I mean, were you using email@4chan.com before 4chan.org was starting up? And for that matter why would you be saving 4chan.com for your child? Are you 'speculating' that it will be worth more over time? Or is their name Mrs. Four Chan? It should be easy to make your claim if it's bona fide. Again, this is a 'I know it when I see it.' That client thing is shitty and that sounds like actually you have a great argument. Especially if you just post your negative blog post/review of that company redirected from that domain.
Dylan16807 13y ago
It's less about what you do with the domain and more about the method of choosing the domain. If your domain is blatantly copying a company name, and it's not your company name, you're not in a strong position. By copying I mean something like paypa1.com, not something like paypalsucks.com. If you have a domain where you do nothing on it, but it's not copying anything either, that's squatting but nobody is going to care. If you hold a client's site hostage for not paying, yeah that sounds like squatting. So what, that's not a value judgement.
- pbhjpbhj 13y ago
  >If you hold a client's site hostage for not paying, yeah that sounds like squatting. // Am I supposed to give them product without receiving payment?
  - Dylan16807 13y ago
    There's a reason I put the 'not a value judgement' comment. You have justification, but you are still doing it.
    - pbhjpbhj 13y ago
      Alright but if the definition of squatting doesn't help with the value judgement, ie some squatting is justified, then that's no great help towards deciding how to delineate allowable behaviour wrt domain holding, is it? I considered the purpose of the definition of squatting was to define behaviour which was considered unhelpful and was to be discouraged in some way.
      - Dylan16807 13y ago
        It's still ICANN's right and responsibility to get that domain back to the business the site is actually for. You might have a moral justification in witholding the domain until you're paid, but it's not yours.
        13y ago

brokentone 13y ago

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitehouse.com http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitehouse.com