the same 'side' that you are in this latest .org fiasco.
I was only trying to
point out to ICANN that, if they make the .org
quote - go back the way it is 'supposed'
to be - unquote, they had
better expect plenty of repercussions from the (former)
who will undoubtedly demand the same rules be applied to .net and
My comments about domain squatters was made as an example
kind of 'snowballing effect' that will occur if ICANN pulls this .org
Look at it this way, the current ICANN board members all have
vested interests in NSI. They surely are stockholders and
on the boards of those companies who gained the latest
batch of TLD's.
This, in my opinion, points to a severe conflict of interest. OF COURSE the owners
of a company (whether they are actual partners in ownership, stockholders or other
investors) are going to make sure their own interests are served in any rulings.
If it means thousands
of other people end up getting the shaft, at least they
bucks in the process.
One point I notice a lot is that
people like to compare cybersquatting with buying undeveloped land. But
that is as far as
they want to go with the 'real estate comparison'.
What if I took
the same 'real estate scenario' and said something like "If you
develop that domain name you have to get permits to do it, just as landowners have
to do. Everything you do on that property has to be authorized, fees must be
paid, and additional taxes must be paid once the site is 'developed'" ?
Think about it, if we use your own argument about 'undeveloped land', you must
realize that all land must be properly ZONED. You cant build a business in
a residential district and you cant build a house in a business district. The
same goes for the internet and the .org names. It was ZONED (so to speak) for
organizations - including non-profits.
The .net was ZONED
for internet related sites.
The .com was ZONED for businesses only.
So, if you want to use real estate terminology for comparisons to
names, you may want to consider just how far it can
be taken. I sure
dont want to have to get my internet 'property' inspected, appraised, taxed based
on development, etc.
Investing in domains, as you said, IS no more
unscrupulous than any other type speculation. But investment is a gamble.
If the rules change with domain names, it is no different than a company you invested
in deciding to restructure themselves. It could be a good thing or a bad thing
- that's the gamble.
One point I'm most disturbed by is that NSI has
been sending me emails, as recent as last month, telling me that I should 'hurry
up and secure my internet identity by purchasing the .org versions of my domain name'.
Noone can convince me that NSI had no idea that they would be pulling this stunt
with .org's when they sent me those emails. They just wanted one last chance
to line their own pockets before they lost the .org's.
That, if studied
closely, can be shown to be a 'bait and switch' tactic. Advertising one thing
only to give another. In this case, advertising 'security of your internet
identity' just to cause it to be revoked soon after.
In a realm as
large as the internet, this 'bait and switch' technique is a felony. Punishable
by up to $100,000 per offense and 6 months in jail (dont quote me on that one, I'm
workin from memory here). I'll bed NSI sent tens of thousands of emails out
with that message on it.
Any lawyers reading this that are interested
in a statute by which to start a class action lawsuit should look into truth in advertising
law. Look up the 'bait and switch' clauses and you'll see that, in this case,
NSI just bankrupted themselves by trying to screw the public out of the .org domain
names that they so feverishly advertised as a 'smart idea', all the while knowing
that most of us wouldnt be able to keep our new domains.
I only own 2 .org domains. I could care less whether I lose them or not, it's
not important to me. But I do see how it is important to thousands, if not
tens of thousands, of others.. so, I post.