Return to wgc Forum - Message Thread - FAQ

Username: kodo
Date/Time: Sun, April 16, 2000 at 10:16 PM GMT (Sun, April 16, 2000 at 5:16 PM EST)
Browser: Microsoft Internet Explorer V5.0 using Windows 98
Score: 5
Subject: Speculators do not want new names added.


Well freidrich, if I made a point against myself, then so did you. I don't agree with your logic at all. In my opinion, ".net" and ".org" should never have become substitutes for ".com". I know that it is too late to change that now. But a lot of small organizations lost what little chance they had of looking legit when this happened. Now we have porno sites, e-commerce sites, and private homepages that have com/net/org addresses. By letting anyone register here it ruined the meaning of what the domain stands for.

I support chartered TLDs. There would not be any enforcement with the "Internet police watching" as you say. You would apply for a domain like "". The registrar who sells the domain ".bank" would ask you to prove that you are indeed a legitimate bank. And, if you could not do so -- you don't get the domain name. End of problem. So, no there would not be any sort of confusion or enforcement going on. Either you qualify to be in that domain or you don't.

And as far as giving the people who have pre-registered domains "first pick" on new gTLDs... ABSOLUTELY NOT !! What makes you think that you deserve any special favors because you own a "dot com" name. Why? So you can turn around and cybersquat the new name too? That is the whole point of adding new TLDs is to stop the artificial scarcity that people like you,"Great Domains", and NSI have created. You should not get squat - zero! zilch! nada! nothing! nein! not one thing! You are not special. You own a couple "dot coms"... who cares?

You are combining the term "trademark holder" with "domain name holder" for you own convenience. Someone like Coca-Cola or McDonalds who have distribution in over 120 countries and have spent BILLIONS trying to market and establish their names have more of a claim than you. If anyone would be worried it would be them. But, the courts and the law is there to back them up. If someone buys the name "Coca-cola.beverage" then they should expect to get sued in no time for copyright infringement.

But, because you own "" and I register "domain.web" what gives you the right to claim that you have rights to the word 'domain'? Is it because you own a "dot com" of the same name? Now it would be a different story if you trademarked the name "" and I turned around and bought the name "FriedrichDomainNames.web". You would then have a legitimate case against me and we would both use the Universal Dispute Resolution Policy set forth by ICANN -- and you would win the case.

But, just because you own a "dot com" name (that is not trademarked) does not give you any sort of prior claim to your name. In fact it does the best thing possible in a capitalistic society- it opens you up to competition! For once you would actually have to go toe-to-toe with someone else who has another domain in your area! The general public would benefit from this, because now instead of only having "" to buy domains from. They could visit my site "domain.web" or some other guy's site, "" and now since we are all competing for the customer's business our prices would come down as we try to out-do each other. And, in the end the customer would win! More places to buy domains from and a cheaper price to buy it.

People like you are simply "SORE LOSERS" because you don't like the idea of competition in your market place. It's all good with you as long as you get first choice and you get to stay one step ahead of everyone else with your unfair market advantage. But, god forbid we open up competition and level the playing field so that everyone gets a fair chance for easy to find, cheap and plentiful new domain names.

I will say it once more for clarity:



Message Thread:

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy