I'm starting to feel like I'm a criminal

[binaryman]

I have been steering clear of TM issues by only regging NON TRADEMARKED names in GENERAL catagories and making sure that no-one owns a trademark on the name. But now I just read this and it seems we as domainers are "rubbish" whichever way you look at it.

"You don't "buy" a domain name. You register it. Why do I say this? No matter how many domain names are registered, the price stays the same. So you, the cyber-squatter, pay $25 or whatever to register the domain, then you take a payoff from someone else to transfer it to them. Basically, you are taking advantage of a monopoly, ICANN, to make a few bucks. **** off and die. You are providing no service to anyone, and you expect to get paid for it.

The whole reason people have been fooled into believing cyber-squatting is OK is that improper language including terms such as "buying" and "selling" have been used to describe it. I implore the press to start using proper terminology such as "registration" and "payoff" to refer to these acts when they are applied to registering domain names and transferring them in exchange for money.

I really don't care about the distinction others make between "cyber-squatting" and "domain name speculation." It's all the same to me, except that one is illegal under US law. Doesn't anyone care about ethics any more?
Solutions

I'd be just whining if I didn't offer a solution. The simplest solution would be to remove the artificial limits on the size of the top-level namespace, allowing any random string of characters to be used, except perhaps reserved ones for countries, etc. Then .com domain names would cease to be so sought-after. Another solution would be something similar to my proposal for a cooperative DNS infrastructure.

Cyber-squatting is a symptom of problems in the very structure of the Internet, one that warrants a technological and social solution, not a legal one."
Sean R. Lynch

 

[DNQuest.com]

Ok prima, I give up. I am merely using sales tax as an example. I will make my viewpoint very general now. If domains are specifically classified (which it is not now), the government may be more apt to find a way to get money from resale from the domains. Right now, nobody really knows how domains are classified (there is no code stating specifically what domains are), but rest assured, if there is code which clearly defines a certain product or service, it is easier for the government to find a way to get their greedy hands on more money. That is my only point.


The government has looked into taxing interstate internet transactions and they will revisit it again.

 

[primacomputer]

If you want to be very general with terms like “specifically classified”, “the government” and “code” then any conclusions you make based on those are equally hollow.

I don't see why you now claim that no one knows how domains are classified. You have already agreed numerous that domains are a service. Read the fine print next to the “I agree” tick box next time you register a domain.

Google for NSI v. Umbro to read about about a Judge who also agrees.

 

[labrocca]

I think he means no one knows how domains WILL be classified in the future. There are still imho going to be suits over their status and their definitions.