Squatting domains with no intention to use them is stifling companies that want to start businesses. I recently researched 5 variations of a name and was shocked to find every one, even grammatically incorrect variations were taken. Now I'm forced to come up with some random name like hulu, which will require my company to spend tons of money into marketing this name to associate it with the product.

I have worked in the entertainment internet world for a long time and was in charge of securing names for new shows and was appalled at how fast people would steal the names for movies they obviously were not going to produce... particularly those registered days after the film was announced. One of these squatters even had the audacity to offer it back for a premium sum.

The .com extension should be reserved for active businesses. Not pages with adsense all over them (which incidentally according to adsense rules is against the TOS). I think if you buy a .com name you will need to show intent to use the name appropriately within 6 months or forced to give it back.

It's speculation which is just a form of capitalism. Why not go after big money speculators who buy up houses that have been foreclosed on and resell them? Most domainers I know are just small business people, trying to earn a little extra money.

Domain parking is criminal.

Economically speaking, domain parking is wasteful. It also hurts the economy by stifling business. Commerce would benefit greatly by preventing this activity. And it's painfully obvious that there is little benefit to the economy in allowing the activity. Condemning squatting has been at the top of my list of problems with the internet since I first became a web developer.

Domain parking is criminal.

My first thought was that people can invest how they choose, but then I went looking for some useful domain names to create actual sites with and discovered that the majority of the registered domain names are parked. I would be interested in seeing statistics on how many registered domain names have sites associated with them vs how many are simply parked

The domainers have gotten a bit out of hand. I think it should be legal, but there shouldn't be huge companies registering millions of domains and squatting on them. I think that it should be okay to an extent.

I acknowledge that there's nothing illegal about domain name parking; there are perfectly valid reasons to park domains. Further, it might be next to impossible to legislate or otherwise control it.

What bothers me is that some uses of domain parking are just one more way people can turn a profit without contributing _anything_ to society while potentially hampering others ability to do so. It's simply taking advantage of scarcity of resource (relatively limited # of good, key site names for a given topic) for profit.

A lot of the analogies raised don't quite get to it (e.g. someone who buys a Ferrari receives value - even if only aesthetic if they choose not to drive it. And if you want one, you can buy one, also)

An alternate analogy, that's not a great fit, but goes towards the other extreme is that of going into a small, remote town, buying the general store and then closing it and waiting until someone is willing to buy it at a high price so that it can be re-opened.

Parking a domain with a good name that someone else could use and waiting for a high bidder is capitalism, pure and simple. Capitalism isn't bad - in fact it's very good. But I prefer it when it adds value, even in a small way, to society at large.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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!!!!

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.

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.

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?

My take is to make domain parking illegal.