Discussion in 'General Board' started by kendalcottages, Nov 7, 2011.
...and also in the top 10 most read stories with this:
Wayne Rooney and a decade of .uk disputes
Sadly not for a good reason.
What a nonsense. Some looney lawyer generated story hoping to start a rush of drs cases.
We caught the hyphenated Wayne Rooney and within hours had offered it for free to them. Guess what they didn't want it lol and never even replied.
I've spoken to domainers who have caught lots of domains for people and gave it to them for free asking nothing in return. Where is that published?
That's irrelevant - like arguing that articles should not be written about burglaries because coverage is not given to organisations dedicated to helping the victims of burglaries. Chalk and cheese.
Your wrong Edwin.
This article is fluffy. Not well written and covering ten years about a service that handles domain problems led by the Wayne Rooney story.
If a story like this covers such a span why not mention that some times people do good work.
Some domainers have saved companies and organisations fortunes catching and handing over names immediately.
That makes a balanced argument to me.
Dog bites man - no news
Man bites dog - front page coverage
You're not going to see prominent coverage being given to the occasional domainer "good deed" as that's just not newsworthy enough. Not to mention that it's "unprompted do-gooding" in the sense that domainers take it upon themselves to FIRST catch the names and THEN offer them to the relevant companies, rather than offer a "save your name" service directly to companies. And in the overwhelming majority of cases the names don't get handed over to the rightful owners - whereas you could make a case that in instances where the domain is a "non generic" it should be handed over 100% of the time or not caught at all.
It was a bit of a vapourous chip wrapper of a story. A non-entity.
Will be easily forgotten and seen straight through by anyone - from either side - who either knows anything of the subject or does a little research.
Happy birthday DRS. Don't be upset if you don't get a card from me!
good does not sell. Which is an unfortunate consequence of the current state of humanity, we are more interested in who is sleeping with who or what celebrity flashed their junk than we are interested in someone doing something that helps another.
The journalist of course has a lack of understanding in what is a bona fide market, a market of speculation, there is one thing to speculate years in advance on the possible future value of a name and another to register a domain name which is simply more squatting than speculative.
If I bought land speculating that there would be future use, or indeed were I to buy WR 1 registration plate would that be considered squatting? clearly not.
It is unfortunate that many domainers simply are opportunists to lazy too research, so they just register typos and clearly squat on a name for the sole purpose of selling to a TM holder after the fact.
For those domainers claiming to buy domains for the purpose of giving them away then its down to you to issue a press release, whether or not it gets picked up is one thing, but its a "fluff piece" for your business and if enough domainers were so generous then it would certainly clean up the industry and spin a more positive side to the industry of domaining.
I chatted with a another domainer about the idea of having a "domain amnesty"
Whereby anybody with questionable domains hands them over to the "amnesty holding" website. Legitimate rights owners who can demonstrate their rights can claim their domains.
The site can give an explanation of how and why some domains have been or were registered, focusing the info on the the lack of clarity, naivety on the registrants behalf, evolving industry, greater understanding of what does and does does not count as an infringing domain, the fact that some domainers are opportunists but the majority are not, etc etc. It could go some way to putting a positive spin on the industry.
It takes about 30 seconds and a few clicks to delete a domain name and surrender the registration. Any domainer with the will to do so could clean up their portfolio by teatime. No need for amnesties, third party interventions or public disclosures. Just click click click clean.
The DRS explanation pages at Nominet need more clarification in layman terms concerning:
Summary and full decisions when and how they are applied. I've had buyers try their arm with the summary decision route (£200) to later find out they need to pay the full decision price (when the respondent replies) (£750). By then I've gone to the cost and time of replying. The prices need reviewing also. They should be more like £350 & £1,000. The pound is not worth as much as it use to be.
That the complainant has to prove two components to their case "rights" and "abuse". Anyone that thinks they have "rights" soon forgets or dismisses the "abuse" reasoning to their case. My understanding is that Nominet will accept applications based just on "rights" claims and they are reviewed and accepted by Nominet staff. How about an extra layer of credibility with each application reviewed by a legal expert for soundness.
I suggested that each claim is subjected to a credibility / due diligence check prior to acceptance during the recent DRS consultation. At a cost of an initial fee.
Of course the downside of this is that if this was the case then the complainant may just go away, take into account the 'relatively' free advice and come back with a more rounded argument - which is somewhat a bias against the respndant.
As it panned out they brought in the Summary Decision.
Never had much dealings with unlawful domain names however I have obtained a few domain names in the past, on behalf of popular figures and handed them over without charge, by prior arrangement.. Cybersquatting or namejacking, call it what you will, is pretty daft. I am all for a good fansite but developed in the appropriate manner.
Separate names with a comma.