Has anyone read the infuriating artice from NPR about us "Cyber-squatters"

[floname]

This really screwed up my day when I read this!

By the time you get to the end, and your temper needs a splash of cold water - read on to some of the comments that were posted by us cyber-squatters who are bit more versed in the industry.

NPR Story on New TLDs

Pay close attention to Stephen Douglas' & David Costello's response. They really sum it up well & serve up a steamin hot plateful of watch your mouth stew, lol!

Kudos to those in our industry who fight the idiots and stop nonsense stories like these from further tarnishing it.

 

[Infoproliferati]

I don't get why anyone would begrudge domain investors for the unavailability of dot com names. So what if a domain is parked? So what if the landing page has the "under construction" notice? So what if it hasn't been developed for 5 years or more?

I remember randomly typing place(.)com in the ad bar. A link is provided to haven2(.)com. There the owner explains why he isn't selling his generic domains or why he might consider selling. Now there are many today who'd bid an arm and leg for such a domain. These people understand the internet. There are others who'll go crazy at the fact that the owner is just "sitting" on the domain and not doing anything productive with it. These folks just don't get it.

 

[floname]

I tried to post my .02 cents, but for some reason it wouldn't show up in the comments:

So for what its worth,

"Domains are a bit of a rogue industry. Not enough people know enough about it to form an arguable opinion. Uninformed & otherwise ridiculous stories like this are what contribute to the reclusive & greedy reputation that domain investors are cloaked by. Without understanding the inner workings of the industry, how can NPR publish such a perfectly 1 sided & misleading article?

Shame on ANY representative of ICANN for even affiliating themselves with this type of misrepresentation of an industry they are charged with PROTECTING!?! More proof that this "not for profit" entity can barely raise their snouts from the "fee" trough long enough to ask for more!

 

[draggar]

Your comment was posted - I saw it yesterday. (I still see it now - 3rd comment down just below Bill from Nashua, NH)

Actually - it's posted twice - one with a real name and the other with your username.

 

[JB Lions]

It's like an article full of idiots. Besides hating capitalism, thinking that this - "So instead of dot-com, it can be dot-my-brand or dot-my-community, like the dot-Inuit community." Will work. Dot com is just way too ingrained.

 

[floname]

Your comment was posted - I saw it yesterday. (I still see it now - 3rd comment down just below Bill from Nashua, NH)

Actually - it's posted twice - one with a real name and the other with your username.

OK, I see it too - maybe a glitch or something yesterday. I guess I was a bit fired up after reading it & wanted to be heard, hence the 2nd post.

---------- Post added at 02:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:21 PM ----------

I don't get why anyone would begrudge domain investors for the unavailability of dot com names. So what if a domain is parked? So what if the landing page has the "under construction" notice? So what if it hasn't been developed for 5 years or more?

I couldn't agree more. I think its this type of mentality that's behind imminent domain laws. Our big fat brother has the power to take land from us as he sees fit. Unfair UDRPs really aren't much different. ICANN should call it "iminent domaining"

 

[zabijaq]

People were always like this. Blaming others from their own failure.
Why didn't those "critics" reg those domains years back?

At times when first people with bright ideas start to buy domains as investment, everybody could do that. Only few have vision. And years after, those lazy retarded uncretive constant failure people this that they will step-up by tearing down those successful.

I'm in online biz (of any kind) for about 4-5 years. Theer were good times & bad times. I still missed years, I could start earlier. I've lost decent amount of traffic just by running first blogs on freeblog services. I've made tons of mistakes, I've overslept some good times in some niches.
But these are my small failures, I blame me.
But there are still tons of people who will blame everybody around, you know, such people that can be jealous when you got cancer and they don't.

 

[Tia Wood]

Ridiculous article. Stephen's comment was excellent.

 

[shags38]

Crash Pedders is a beef jerkey

 

[grcorp]

It's like an article full of idiots. Besides hating capitalism, thinking that this - "So instead of dot-com, it can be dot-my-brand or dot-my-community, like the dot-Inuit community." Will work. Dot com is just way too ingrained.

My thoughts exactly. Even .net, which has been around just as long as .com has barely caught on in such a widespread manner as .com has.

TLDs such as .travel haven't even come close to being established, so good luck with .mybrand and .facebook.

If you want a great domain name, you have to pay up to own it. The same way that if you want a mansion in Malibu, California, you'll have to pay $x,xxx,xxx-$xx,xxx,xxx to get it. Nothing's stopping you from living in a $5,000 semi detached in Detroit, the same way that nothing's stopping you from owning a hyphenated, 25 character domain name in the .biz extension. Quality comes at a price, and by investing in a quality domain name for your business, it shows people just how seriously you take it.

 

[floname]

Good words from everyone here.

At the end of the day, you get EXACTLY what you pay for..

 

[cbk]

"Cyber-squatting, as it's known, has led to a whole spate of oddly-spelled company names and web addresses."
I cant emphasize this enough and I do get asked this question sometimes from possible end users. A cybersquatter is not a person who buys many domain names for future development or resale. It is someone who buys a domain name and tries to sell it to a trademark holder.

"So what you're left with is people trying to figure out a nonsense word that nobody has the rights to, and naming their company after that."
Google, Godaddy,Microsoft,REMAX, Twitter. Youtube, Craigslist, have rights and a lot of people figured it out.

"But there's a second way to fix this mess: Extend the number of top level domain names -- from your basic dot-coms and dot-orgs -- by adding tons more."
First we need to educate the vast majority of the population on what a domain name is.

“Where all I have to do is remember your name, and I've searched for your name online and it takes me to your website.”
I do that daily it is called Google or Yahoo which ever you prefer.

“Over the next year -- perhaps longer, but maybe in that time frame -- basically, anyone could apply for a top-level domain name. So instead of dot-com, it can be dot-my-brand or dot-my-community, like the dot-Inuit community. Or perhaps dot-Facebook. The feeling that all the good names are taken doesn't have to be true anymore.”
Again, they do not understand 85%+ of the US population does not know what a domain name is so by adding more TLD’s at this time they will not get it and they will be more confused. Dnforum will have to add a TLD appraisal section.

 

[grcorp]

“Over the next year -- perhaps longer, but maybe in that time frame -- basically, anyone could apply for a top-level domain name. So instead of dot-com, it can be dot-my-brand or dot-my-community, like the dot-Inuit community. Or perhaps dot-Facebook. The feeling that all the good names are taken doesn't have to be true anymore.”
Again, they do not understand 85%+ of the US population does not know what a domain name is so by adding more TLD’s at this time they will not get it and they will be more confused. Dnforum will have to add a TLD appraisal section.

Adding onto that, this won't stop reservation of top keywords from repeating itself as was the case with second level domains under regular TLDs.

Soon, the .flicker tld will be taken, and gosh darn it, I guess I'll have to settle for .flickr and complain about that "cybersquatter" that took .flicker!

 

[AMERICAR]

Google Loses Bid To Dismiss 'Typosquatting' Case

http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=130003

This type of publicity doesn't help the cause ..

 

[floname]

Google Loses Bid To Dismiss 'Typosquatting' Case

This type of publicity doesn't help the cause ..

I agree that it doesn't help, but rather adds even more confusion to the folks already mystified by the whole subject. Unfortunately, the media fails to differentiate cyber/typo squatters from domain investors. That said, I don't see anything wrong with google being held responsible for aiding blatant typo squatters like the domain mentioned in that article.

 

[acesfull]

NPR = Not Publicly Responsible

 

[Diabro]

I agree that it doesn't help, but rather adds even more confusion to the folks already mystified by the whole subject. Unfortunately, the media fails to differentiate cyber/typo squatters from domain investors. That said, I don't see anything wrong with google being held responsible for aiding blatant typo squatters like the domain mentioned in that article.

Are not typo squatters a subset of domain investors? Domainers have a largely deserved reputation. Anyone reading these forums could see that.

 

[ksinclair]

Dont get mad; get blogging, get emailing. its up to us, to educate about direct navigation.

 

[floname]

@ Diabro:

I see nothing wrong with owning a typo of a generic term - such as say AirFafes(dot)com

There are thousands of "domainers" that own names like these, earn revenue by redirecting type in traffic & stay well within the realm of domain investor and not to mention the law. If you own wwwGoogle(dot)com - your making money from someone Else's obvious trademarked brand. That is what constitutes a sqatter.

 

[Diabro]

@ Diabro:

I see nothing wrong with owning a typo of a generic term - such as say AirFafes(dot)com

There are thousands of "domainers" that own names like these, earn revenue by redirecting type in traffic & stay well within the realm of domain investor and not to mention the law. If you own wwwGoogle(dot)com - your making money from someone Else's obvious trademarked brand. That is what constitutes a sqatter.

Unfortunately I do not think the vast majority of the population make that differentiation. It will take a lot to change their minds. When I told a friend of mine, who is a techie, that I have a few domain names he called me a squatter. That is what I feel most people think.