Get Widget

Stop Domain Name Parking and Cybersquatting

725 Signatures
  • Start Date:
    6-12-2007
  • Last Signed:
    11-9-2009

Description:

To ICANN President and CEO, Dr. Paul Twomey We, the undersigned, are concerned about domain name parking abuse and request that ICANN revisit the Anti-Cyberssquatting Consumer Protection Act and the Trademark Cyberpiracy Prevention Act to ensure that a domain names that are parked would be available for sale at a price tag that would not be considered extortion. We request that ‘Cybersquatting’ issues be discussed, reviewed and formalized this year into a written law to help stop the continuation of domain parking as an extortionist means that cause legitimate businesses to pay high price for the domain name.
Tell a FriendCreate a CampaignBookmark
« first‹ previous12
Submitted on 6-30-2007
I think that a form of domain name 'zoning' already exists. The .gov extension is reserved for government sites, .edu for educational, etc. I also don't agree with municipal bylaws that allow for expropriation of land by local gov'ts for their own purposes. Some people don't agree that domain name ownership of certain ccTLDs should be limited to citizens of that country. But none of these points are really relevent to whether domain parking should be banned or illegal.
Submitted on 6-23-2007
I'm sorry, but I have to concur with the original petition starter of Stop Domain Name Parking and Cybersquatting. How many times have you walked past an upper class American home, only to see a gorgeous Ferrari just sitting there collecting dust. I mean come on, these cars were made to be driven. I'm going to follow suit and start a petition that legally requires all individuals not using their luxury sports cars, to be forced to accept reasonable non extortionate offers if they haven't driven their car in the last 60 days.
Submitted on 6-22-2007
We have generic product names resolve to our main company site. Big companies like P&G and Johnson & Johnson do this all the time. Many other big corporations do this as well. This is not "cybersquatting", it is smart marketing and as legitimate as SEO optimization of a website. A domain owner should be able to do whatever they wish with a name as long as it doesn't infringe on the Trademark rights of another. Our parked names redirect to our website, however, it we wanted to monetize parking on them with affiliate or paid link, that is a legitimate business use that should not be restricted. The petition is poorly worded and does nothing that current laws and UDRP/WIPO rules don't already handle. Petition to get rid of TM infringement and domain tasting if you wish, but don't take the right of a domain owner to us a domain as they wish within legal bounds.
Submitted on 6-22-2007
I think the whitehouse should go after the cybersquatters at http://www.caralarms.com/ for redirecting http://www.thewhitehouse.com/ to there website or would that be government interfierence?
Submitted on 6-21-2007
What about domain tasting (registering a domain name, parking it at a monetization page to "taste" the revenue potential, and "returning" the name within five days without having to pay for it)? This is on the agenda for the ICANN meeting in San Juan this weekend.
Submitted on 6-21-2007
It would be good if cybersquatting was fully supported and allowed. Its the same thing as buying a house somewhere, paying the fees and rents, and then not using that house for something good, but trying to sell that house for a very high price to someone that wants that house. Cybersquatters has to pay the domain fees like everyone other, so what's the problem?
Submitted on 6-20-2007
The petition uses "Cybersquatting" as a button word to get an emotional response. Here is the legal definition of Cybersquatting... "Buying a domain name that reflects the name of a business or famous person with the intent of selling the name back to the business or celebrity for a profit. The Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act of 1999 authorizes a cybersquatting victim to file a federal lawsuit to regain a domain name or sue for financial compensation. Under the act, registering, selling or using a domain name with the intent to profit from someone else's good name is considered cybersquatting." In addition, companies can successfully sue typo-squatters for owning domains that are similarly confusing. So Cybersquatting is NOT domain parking. Domain parking is an entirely legitimate use for a url, weather someone else finds it convenient or not. The domain IS being used, but perhaps not in a way someone else would want. What this "petition" proposes is claim jumping, where an anonymous person x decides they have more use for a domain than the person who purchased it... sometimes at a premium. Many times domains are monetized (the term for taking an idle domain and using it to make an income stream) while they await development. If you make widgets, you DO NOT have the right to Widgets.com, no matter how righteous you FEEL about it. If you make "Toms Titanium Widgets" and are copyright or service marked, then you DO have a right to "TomsTitaniumWidgets.Com" and probably "TomsWidgets.Com". This petition is idiotic, plays on emotions, and has no legal basis. It is a bad idea, and one that cuts both ways. If you buy a domain, it gets parked by the ISP. If you vote for this non-compus-mentus rag, I hope someone "more deserving" comes along and steals your domain!!!!
Submitted on 6-20-2007
I think there is room for rational discourse on this topic. Simply stating that the petition is idiotic is neither constructive nor useful. There are lots of legitimate reasons for domain name parking. However, it seems like there could/should be some balance between capitalism and appropriate use. Gobbling up all the words in dictionary and waiting until someone wants to buy them doesn't seem fair to me. Capitalism does not have to trump ethics.
Submitted on 6-20-2007
I did say it was idiotic, just as I see it. I also had some other valid points in there too. Domain parking is not cybersquatting and if that is how a domain owner chooses to use the domain, it is their right. It is ridiculous to try to legislate domain parking just because someone had the foresight to get a particular url before you (you meaning anyone) did. The petition smacks of a misplaced sense of entitlement.
Submitted on 6-20-2007
Yes, you did make valid points and I acknowledged that there are legitimate reasons to park domains. You also wished ill will on the petition creator. You can say that grabbing up domain names with no intention of using them - other than to sell them for a profit is foresight. I say it's simply greed and offers no value. I'm not for bureaucracy or over-bearing legislation and there's probably no simple answer here. But, a discussion is warranted. There could be limits on how long one could park a domain without _any_ use or without relevant use (there's a tricky one to define).
Submitted on 6-21-2007
Not wishiing "ill" on the creator of the petition, I am putting shoe on the other foot. This means having something happen to you (you meaning anyone) that you would have done to another. Domain parking is legitimate, and it is up to the owner of the domain to do with as they please, it is not for another to come and take it away on any pretense. It is not time sensitive, either. If I don't drive my car, that's my choice, it is not going to be commandeered by the first self-entitled pedestrian to come by. Also, this is civil conversation, I just don't agree with alot of the people that will respond to this faux petition.
Submitted on 6-28-2007
My bad. I misunderstood your point. You're looking at the opposite side where someone's claims they have more right to a domain than the current holder. Fair enough. Perhaps better to pose the "What if" question, rather than "I hope you" in order to keep the emotion below boil(?) I suppose any bureaucratic efforts to try and make this a fair situation (if 'fair' can even be defined) are just as likely to be exploited. sigh
Submitted on 6-17-2007
The individuals who own them are looking to extort money from others who are looking to get online with their name.
I hope you're not referring to all of them since you don't know all or perhaps any of them personally.
Submitted on 6-17-2007
The wording has been changed in this petition, as you clearly had your facts ( or lack of them) wrong. it's a bit bit of a vague one sided petition if i am honest, the sign the petition link is huge, yet the oppose the petition link is a small afterthought underneath, if you want petitions like this to be taken seriously then A) Get your facts right before you start the petition,B) make it as easy and as clear to vote no as it is to vote yes.
Submitted on 6-16-2007
Wording of petition has been changed. Now it would appear that it is against selling a domain name for market value if it is currently parked. Is this what earlier signors of petition intended?
Submitted on 6-16-2007
My take is to make domain parking illegal.
Submitted on 6-22-2007
Illegal like how exactly?
Submitted on 6-17-2007
I agree 100%
Submitted on 6-16-2007
Confused as to what this petition is for. Strengthening current anti-cybersquatting laws? Making it cheaper / easier to take action against cybersquatters? Expanding them to include common words, dropped names? To make domain parking illegal?
Submitted on 2-3-2009

I stumbled upon this discussion whilst I myself was researching in to the domain name parking practice. I understand that there are many webmasters in the world with a million ideas, whom buy up domains for these ideas; but only a small percentage actually turn into a living and breathing website. The mojority of domains registered by webmasters usually expire and go back into the public domain. For me this an acceptable practice, what infuriates me, is bulk buying of domains for profit. These companies that buy up thousands upon thousands of domain names, then just park them with no useful information contained within whatsoever, just to try an extort a huge amount of money out of a small business who wishes to own the name ratblood.com for christ sake. These companies will most probably end up shooting themselves in the foot from what i've seen. Some of the names they have bought up are verging on the ludicrus.

« first‹ previous12
Loading People...