Comments inline as appropriate. 

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: dns-bounces+dassa=dhs.org§dotau.org 
|> [mailto:dns-bounces+dassa=dhs.org§dotau.org] On Behalf Of 
|> Bennett Oprysa
|> Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2005 8:59 PM
|> To: .au DNS Discussion List
|> Subject: Re: [DNS] Cybersquatting
|> 
|> The issue of cybersquatting has now come up so many times, I 
|> think we need to properly address it and dispose of it.
|> 
|> There seem to be a number of variations of what people think 
|> cybersquatting is. The correct definition is the act of 
|> registering a domain that matches the name, trademark or 
|> product of a company or person, with the intent of 
|> benefiting from the goodwill or value associated with the 
|> name, or intending to force the targeted entity to pay an 
|> inflated price to get that domain name back.

I prefer the following definition:
Cybersquatting is the act of registering a popular Internet address--usually a
company name--with the intent of selling it to its rightful owner.

The Internet address may be a company name, it may be a trademark or it may be
a more generic word, the rightful owner is someone who intends to develop the
name in conjunction with a close and substantial connection to themselves,
their interests or business.

As such, domain speculation falls under the definition I use for
cybersquatting.

I would prefer not to see anyone allowed to register a domain name they don't
intend to use at some point.

|> The act of registering numerous domains names that match 
|> generic products, services, phrases, common words etc with 
|> the intention of re-selling the domain at an inflated price 
|> is more appropriately called domain speculation, and is in 
|> no way similar to cybersquatting, the two should not be 
|> grouped for any reason.

Why not?  I consider them to be so similar as to find it very difficult to
separate.  They have similar consequences.

|> Cybersquatting has real and direct victims, and is almost  
|> universally considered unethical, immoral and usually also 
|> illegal. Domain speculation has no direct victims, the only 
|> possible negative impact is that it increases the price of 
|> the targetted domains. This does however also have the 
|> positive of driving the price of normal registrations down, 
|> as registrars and the registry get higher overall volumes of 
|> registrations.

Domain speculation has the same kind of victims as does cybersquatting, even
more actually, cybersquatting is targetted whilst speculation throws a net
over even more victims.  There will be registration growth without the
speculators so that is a red herring.  Again, more isn't always better.  The
price of names gradually comes down as the namespace grows without
speculation.

|> We already have a large number of policies in place to stop 
|> cybersquatting, making the transfer process easier will have 
|> no impact whatsoever in this regard. There is therefore no 
|> point anyone discussing the issue of cybersquatting, it is 
|> completely irrelevant to current proposals.

The discussion is about changing those policies which are the controls over
undesirable practices, of course they should be discussed.

|> If you have an issue with domain speculators, that specific 
|> issue can be discussed as some already have. I am for 
|> example prepared to have some controls in place to reduce or 
|> minimise rampant speculation, such as the 6 month transfer 
|> lock Tony suggested. Existing eligibility rules, as well as 
|> the requirement to have an ABN etc already mean we will 
|> never see the level of speculation you get in .com. I am 
|> however not interested in anyone who wants to totally 
|> prevent domain speculation. It is a perfectly legal 
|> activity, very few people will be negativelly impacted and 
|> there are a number of benefits, not just for registrars.

I see very little benefit in allowing speculation.  By definition it is a
risky business and from what we have seen in other namespaces, the negative
impact of allowing it goes far beyond any positive aspects for many years.

Allowing easier transfers doesn't mean AuDA has to allow full speculation or
open the market right up.

|> Apart from a couple of people who, for some incomprehensible 
|> reason seem intent on doing everything they can to prevent 
|> any reasonable discussion on the matter, the last few days 
|> have already seen a number of more positive suggestions and 
|> some movement towards a likely middle ground, I hope it continues.

I hope it continues also.  I don't have a problem with discussing such issues.
The more they are discussed the better understanding everyone has of them.
Please remember, middle ground is just that, compromise comes from all
parties.  Discussing concerns is the way to reach a mutually acceptable
alternative to extremes.

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch