tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5112616498992283199.post6559523884206402678..comments2023-04-20T06:35:13.937-07:00Comments on THE Domain Page: A Reader Weighs in on the “Anti-Phishing Consumer Protection Act of 2008”Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5112616498992283199.post-20814759330560282242008-03-18T16:15:00.000-07:002008-03-18T16:15:00.000-07:00Hi Ms Domainer and Darryl,Thank you for voicing yo...Hi Ms Domainer and Darryl,<BR/><BR/>Thank you for voicing your concern about the Snowe bill. There is some risk that this bill will pass if we don't get enough people writing their Senators.<BR/><BR/>We will accept your domain name donations and credit 100% of the auction price to an Internet Commerce Association membership. <BR/><BR/>I will answer your questions about ICA. Contact me here: http://www.internetcommerce.org/contact_us<BR/><BR/>Best Regards,<BR/>Michael Collins<BR/>Internet Commerce AssociationAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5112616498992283199.post-37300556968223717832008-03-03T14:00:00.000-08:002008-03-03T14:00:00.000-08:00Dey,Thanks for yet another thought-provoking comme...Dey,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for yet another thought-provoking comment; I love the title "Just Who Is This Guy Cyber and Just What Is He Squatting?" <BR/><BR/>It would be a great article, targeted to people like my aunt and uncle.<BR/><BR/>Could you email me? <BR/><BR/>I have a question for you, but I'd like to ask it privately.<BR/><BR/>Bugzita[at]gmail.com<BR/><BR/>I'm glad that there isn't a delete button on comments.<BR/><BR/>;=)<BR/><BR/>Ms DomainerJenniferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02948542374699674802noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5112616498992283199.post-48344881704766047822008-03-03T13:04:00.000-08:002008-03-03T13:04:00.000-08:00Hi Ms. Domainer: Wow, I certainly didn't expect y...Hi Ms. Domainer: <BR/><BR/>Wow, I certainly didn't expect you to feature my thoughts on your Blog; however, I am flattered, and humbled by the gesture. When my eyes opened this morning from a decent's night sleep, the first thing that came to my mind was what I wrote in that post to you. I looked for the retrieve blog post button, but it was much too late for that. <BR/><BR/>Yes, I think it is war. ItsWar.Org is great--I love it--wish I had thought of it too! I think it is time for ICA and the entire domain industry to start doing some lobbying of its own in Washington. As I alluded to in my previous post, the current laws do not fully protect Domainers, and they should.<BR/><BR/>I had been thinking about writing an article entitled "Just Who Is This Guy Cyber and Just What Is He Squatting?" The motivation for writing this article came about a month ago when a very good friend of mine who sought my services in identifying a name for his start-up. He shared that the name that he attempted to register was being held by a "squatter" rather contemptously. It was clear that anyone that sought to protect their idea or concept was a "Squatter" to him--me included. Although he didn't refer to me as a "Squatter" to my face. <BR/><BR/>Nevertheless, my article was going to discuss the dichotomy between historic real property development vs. cyber real estate development to demonstrate that this whole "Squatter" epithet is nothing more than a faulty and flawed comparison. <BR/><BR/>Under the traditional American property regime, "Squatters" as I understand the concept, were those who somehow managed to takeover the real property owned by another person, by openly living on the property and treating it as his own. Of course the true owner always seem to live somewhere else during the "Squatters" takeover. Yet,if in fact this is the case, how does it really follow that anyone other than a person that registers a previously Trademarked domain meets the definition of a "Squatter?" <BR/><BR/>This is why this whole "CyberSquatting" concept should have never been allowed to overreach into the general domainer populace, and lexicon. Now we have CADNA, and other domainjackers trying to jack all of our domains. To these uneducated people, we are all "CyberSquatters." <BR/><BR/>In any case, I believe that we are all the rightful owners of our respective domains because we hold title to them--we registered them. Ergo, it is impossible for a legally bonafide domain registrant to ever be a real "CyberSquatter." Anyone who thinks otherwise is just plain ignorant of the true definition of the term "CyberSquatter." Is there a cyberspacelawyer in the house?<BR/><BR/>Think about it Patent, Trademark and Copyright registrants all get a limited license to their intellectual property. Domain Registration should be the same way--without reproach--assuming of course, that the registration was made in good-faith. <BR/><BR/>From what I know about you, you are a writer; I am a poet when I find the motivation to poet. When I registered my poetry compilation 10 years ago with the Library of Congress--no one could challenge my good-faith registration (copyright) because the common law copyright in the work vested as soon as I put pen to paper. <BR/><BR/>Similarly, the trademark registration process although it is a bit more lengthy, and more complicated, affords registrants more protection, once the registration gets through the opposition phase--the TM is essentially the registrants for a period of years. Domain Registrations should be the similar to the rights afforded through the Copyright process--there shouldn't be a use it or I'll contest it proposition involved at all. The early bird does in fact still get the worm, and that's why there are multiple extensions, so that domain registrants will have other options if option 1 (.Com) is gone. Instead, the American way seems at times to be: "She has it, I want it or need it--so, I am taking it by any means necessary."<BR/><BR/>ItsWar.Org! Indeed.<BR/><BR/>Dey LockettDey Locketthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15382988614712193636noreply@blogger.com