Hello, --- Bill Weinman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > George, I apologize if my lack of a reply offended you. > > I'm not saying that the owner of bearheart.com is bad, just that they > are > using the system for something other than what it was intended for.
That's the thing, I wasn't offended at all. I just found it ironic that you were upset that your UNINVITED offers to the owners of bearheart.com were ignored, yet on the other hand when you INVITED offers for bw.org, you decided to ignore at least one. :) > Businesses that register thousands of domain names for strictly > speculative > purposes are operating outside the rules of the system. They are > also, > arguably, polluting the namespace and preventing others from using it > for > its intended purpose. Personally, I think that's a bad thing -- it's > counter to what I think the Internet is good for. Hang on there, "operating outside the rules of the system"? And exactly which rules are those entities violating? Indeed, they are operating fully within the rules. Unless you want to change the rules somehow. They're not "polluting the namespace", either. The namespace is a set of identifiers, e.g. movies.com, sex.com, hotels.org, etc. What you've said is that you LIKE the names, they're not pollution, but that you'd prefer other people (including yourself) own those same names to put DIFFERENT CONTENT on them. That's a big difference, the namespace itself, and the content that resides on websites associated with those names. I'd love to see the rules you propose that accomplish the banishment of these "speculators" from the system. Numerical limits on domain name ownership? Mandatory content rules for websites? This I have to see..... If you take a walk along the downtown of most cities, you'll see parking lots. In 5 or 10 years, some of those parking lots might turn into skyscrapers, or stores, or other more intensive forms of land use. Similarly, domain names might be used in less intensive forms (parked pages) for a time, by their owner. Why are they to be demonized, when they've paid their registration fees (just as a parking lot owner pays his/her property taxes), follow their registration agreement to the letter, etc.? We live in a capitalist society, where one can own as many parking lots or domain names as we can afford. If you think you can do better with a certain property, you're free to buy them out, but don't take it personally if they say "No thanks" or ignore you. Sometimes "parking lot" owners get offers from people that want to turn those lots into green spaces, and of course the offers are low, reflective of the revenues associated with free parks. If instead the parking lot owner prefers to wait for a Donald Trump to turn his parking lot into a snazzy new hotel, at much higher prices, he or she is doing nothing wrong (indeed, they're being rational, acting out of self-interest, seeing that the property finds its highest economic use, thereby promoting economic efficiency). In conclusion, I'd love to hear precise rules proposed to "curb" this "bad" speculation that some folks think exists. Sincerely, George Kirikos http://www.kirikos.com/ _______________________________________________ domains-gen mailing list [email protected] http://discuss.tucows.com/mailman/listinfo/domains-gen
