grantw said:
Yes
In 1996 we all started at the same equal point but things have clearly evolved since then. It is obvious that due to their uniqueness and short supply domain names can command a very high value. I'm guessing that 99% of these people are not happy because someone else got that £10k domain for a fiver instead of them.
Yes, you are right; things
have evolved, and it might be argued that domain name speculators simply saw an opportunity to capitalise and grabbed it... and why shouldn't they. They were able to do this because there was no restriction on their use of the First Come First Served rule.
However, even when there were restrictions (as in the me.uk rules) the system was abused beyond what .me.uk was created to achieve. The .me.uk domain was intended for "personal use" but because the rules were riddled with loopholes, the domain immediately saw thousands of registrations relating to colloquiallisms and (what the more religious in our communities might regard as) vulgar and offensive terms.
Nominet's webpage
still states: "Domain Name registrations made under .me.uk are expected to be made for natural persons, such as Mr John Doe registering johndoe.me.uk".
This is not what .me.uk ended up as, and this from a domain that was supposed to be for "personal use". I'd laugh (ho ho ho) but it's actually more serious than that. It goes to the kind of 'evolved' things you cite. In its attempt to create a personal domain for use by natural persons, Nominet created a monster and the monster bit back. Similarly, in its attempts to allow fairplay and equality Nominet created a 'First Come First Served' policy that is neither regulated or restrictive.
With specific regard to Rule 7.1 and 7.2 of the .co.uk Rules, there is a distinct lack of guidance or suggestion except to say that .co.uk registrations should be used for commercial purposes. Nowhere in the Rules, will you find any reference to the acceptability of who registers and for what purpose. You might argue that this gives one the right to register hundreds or thousands of domains, but the counter-argument is that Nominet should have protected everyone's interests more equally and profoundly than the lack of protection within its Rules now dictates (and what's the point of calling a thing a rule if it doesn't).
These are both valid arguments (and I am piggy in the middle).
In any other business arena I would totally agree with you about the right to speculate, but the overriding principle of the internet is that it was founded by people, most of them unknown, who contributed essential ingredients - free and unselfishly - so the worldwide community could benefit from their efforts. When the acknowledged father of the internet - Tim Berners Lee - finished writing the tools that defined the Web's basic structure, he is reputed to have given them away, no strings attached. Such was the commitment to equality and community that the founders of the Internet displayed and such was the spirit of the internet in them thar days.
But you're right, things have evolved.
Now we regard the internet as a means to an end and a resource that it's actually okay to plunder and sod equality or community.... which kind of conflicts with Nominet's notion of acting in
the interests of the wider stakeholder communities (albeit that they have now rewritten this to "respond to the needs of our customers and stakeholders").
The Adult Industry learned early on that they could grow their industry faster on the internet without (in them days) much fear of legal action; or of even being tracked down; and they eventually hijacked a 30/35% share of it.
Now, more has been hijacked by PPC sites. Whilst one side will argue that these sites are of significant value to the wider stakeholder communities, the stakeholder communities will argue they are of no benefit at all... except to the PPC owners, their associates, and affiliates. The most commonly held view I hear is this; "if I want to search for something I'll go to Google or Yahoo! I don't want to be misled."
As I said above, they are both valid arguments, but this is the stuff that PAB consultations are made of because the PAB was created to represent the wider stakeholder communities. That; in my humble opinion; is what they have to do.
Regards
James Conaghan
AcornBot:
AcornBot:
