Talk:Domaining/Archive 1

Archive 1

Domaining was previously directed to "cybersquatting" which is inappropriate and a factual misrepresentation. Domaining is a lawful business activity in which individuals and/or companies buy, sell, develop, or monetize internet domain names using a variety of strategies.

Cybersquatting is registering or using a domain name with bad faith intent to profit from the goodwill of a trademark belonging to someone else. Cybersquatting is ethically wrong, a Federal offense, and looked down upon by legitimate domain investors. Domaining and cybersquatting are not synonymous.

This was the result of an AfD discussion which determined that the two were virtually identical practices, save the difference in names. ThemFromSpace 04:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

ThemeFromSpace: The "AfD" discussion could have only been participated in by misinformed or biased individuals. The resulting decision to redirect "Domaining" to "Cybersquatting" is unacceptable. Cybersquatting is the registration of domain names that specifically infringe on existing trademarks. Cybersquatting is a Federal offense and punishable up to $100,000 per instance. "Domaining" is simply the monetization of generic (non-trademarkable) domain names via many strategies. There is nothing illegal about domaining. These are not synonymous terms or activities, and allowing a redirect of Domaining to Cybersquatting is a factual misrepresentation and a deliberate attempt to categorize domaining as a criminal activity. I can easily refute anyone's claim to the contrary, and would like to speak with a Wikipedia administrator at the earliest possible time. I am not familiar with this site and am having difficulty navigating to the proper person and location in order to get this redirect corrected. Please advise. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingwarren (talk • contribs) 04:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Without putting a value judgment on the concept of 'domaining' or 'cybersquatting', I find it astonishing that this page would be locked for editing and disallowing the creation of an article that reflects what 'domainers' might like to present in a factual manner about the concept. 'Domaining' might well have been synonymus with 'cybersquatting' at some point before the legal definition by the anticybersquatting act, the apparent change in definition should be discussed however. If the cybersquatting page only is intended for the illegal conduct, then another page, must be available for the legal conduct, no matter how objectionable to some people. As it stands, 'domaining' has not any connotation with the illegal acts prohibited by law, AFAIK. Kbrose (talk) 16:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Problem is, the users who are arguing for the change are a) very clearly facing conflict-of-interest issues that would prevent them from writing such an article, and b) the users appear curiously similar (in that several IPs and single-purpose accounts appeared at the same time, to argue the same cause). --Ckatz^chat_spy 19:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

One reason many newbies appeared to comment on this is that this was mentioned on Domain Name Wire, where people are understandably upset by the redirect. FCSundae ∨^☃ (talk) 01:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The terms Domainer and Domaining do not equate to Cybersquatting so please do not forward. Cybersquatting is illegal and properly defined on this page.

Domainer is defined by the New York Times as (Those)"who see buying portfolios of Web sites as a digital form of investing in real estate."

Defined by Forbes as a "domain trader" (Text also includes In addition to flipping, domainers have other ways of making money from their investments. Most domainers post ads on their Web sites, which can generate a decent monthly income. )

Inc Magazine defines domaining as "Domain speculation" and references "Domainers" as well.

PCWeek defines Domainers as "(Those who) build portfolios of ... domain names and profit by reselling the names or selling advertising on those sites. They may generate revenues by posting pay-per-click ads (where the site owner receives payment every time a visitor clicks on an advertising link) and other advertising content."

I hope these credible references will meet your requirement for change. Thank you Flipweed (talk) 17:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

They look good to me. I hope you don't mind that I reformatted your links a little. I'm going to see if I can find some more people to comment on this so we can get a consensus. FCSundae ∨^☃ (talk) 01:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

To WP: It would be nice to understand how "Domainers" got re-directed to "Cybersquatting" in the first place. While I can see why WP would want a notable and unbiased definition of a "domainer," unfortunately it is difficult to meet WP standards when the reasoning for the initial re-direct is not described on the "Cybersquatting" page. If a detailed explanation of the re-direct were offered, then "domainers" like myself might be better prepared to give WP what it needs to direct people to a separate "Domainers" page. For the moment I am going to assume the original writer of the article had some evidence to prove a "domainer" is a "cybersquatter." However, there is nothing in the Anti-Cybersquatting Act that I have read that refers to "domainers" as "cybersquatters." However, I am no expert on the intricacies of the Act. Regards, Stuart Wood. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.72.151.71 (talk) 15:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Protection

I protected the page for the time being because there is a clear AfD redirect and merge decision that should not be circumvented without a new consensus. If there is a consensus to unprotect the page or create a separate article on Domaining, I'll unprotect it immediately. (I have no opinion whatsoever on the outcome of the AFD and this is neither an attempt at censorship nor an attempt to impose a one-sided view. Build a new consensus, and the article will be unprotected.) --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 17:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

another opinion

Please stop associating domaining and domainer with cybersquatting. This is ridiculous. How am I a cybersquatter if I registered the domain name toy.com, car.com, television.com, dictionary.com, book.com etc.??? No way. These are legitimate investments that are no different than buying a piece of premium real estate. Developing those generic web properties into active sites that provide information, products or both is a very legitimate business. Please change this incorrect redirect as it is de-valuing YOUR service. While wikipedia is a new and for the most part accurate resource this redirect for these two terms is a major dis-service to the thousands of legitimate business owners that have invested huge amounts of time and resources to improve the content of the internet. If you don't agree please explain how generic domain names purchased is good faith by web developers and investors is not a legitimate business venture. Best Regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 00wikican (talk • contribs) 00:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

different target?

How about changing the redirect to Domain name speculation ? --Versageek 01:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

How about redirecting that one to cybersquatting, too. ¦ Reisio (talk) 02:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Spamdexing is probably a more appropriate merge target for both subjects. --Versageek 04:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I am thinking about acquiring Idiots.com and building it out. How would you two like to be profiled on the home page? Stuart. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.72.151.71 (talk) 15:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

You'd have to pay several hundreds of thousands of dollars... you know why? :p After purchasing a domain for such a fee, any profile on the site would be an exercise by its namesake. ¦ Reisio (talk) 16:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

lol! Hey, I fully admit bias here, which is why I won't be taking any admin actions on this topic. I spend most of my time on wiki cleaning up linkspam, a significant portion of which is placed by domain farmers. Despite my bias, I do believe that you are correct about the current redirect. --Versageek 15:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

There is bias the way it is. I am FOR the proposed change. The suggestion to redirect domaining to domain name speculation is the right thing to do. Redirecting to cybersquatting is not all that different than redirecting Used car salesman to Crook, Baseball player to Anabolic steroid, or eBay to Ticket scalper. Each has its share of bad apples, but the current classification that way is simply prejudice or bias, which I don't think belongs in editing an encyclopedia. Domainer should also be adjusted the same way Mbeatty (talk) 03:49, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Assistance please for uploading foundational article on Domaining and Domainers

I would like to upload an article I have authored which explains domaining (and the term domainers), and which will provide Wikipedia users with unbiased information and many useful related links that will allow them to explore domaining as a legitmate industry separate and apart from the condemned activities of cybersquatters.

Can an administrator please help me proceed? I will have to build the internal and external links referenced in my article, but can do so in about 1.5 hours if I can have a page to work with. Thank you. Kingwarren (talk) 22:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

You can use the page Domaining/sandbox to upload your new article. Kbrose (talk) 23:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

You'll also need to accept that your article - once added - will be treated as any other article, and you cannot claim ownership over it if others choose to copy edit or otherwise rewrite it. Often, people closely connected to a particular subject (and new to Wikipedia) do not realize that articles are not "owned" by any one contributor. Your article will probably - given that it is written by people close to the industry - focus primarily on what you feel are the positive aspects of domaining. If other editors add properly sourced material critical of domaining, you'll have to accept it. You may even have to withdraw from editing the article once it is initially posted, in favour of commenting on the talk page. (This is per the conflict of interest guidelines.) Please feel free to ask if you have questions about this. --Ckatz^chat_spy 02:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Rfd

I have nominated this redirect for discussion at Wikipedia: Redirects for discussion. FCSundae ∨^☃ (talk) 01:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments to Wikipedia Regarding Domaining Page Submission

I would like to respond with a few comments. I do understand that the number of links I submitted in the Domaining article was excessive. Agreed. I was trying to provide an accurate picture of the domain industry, and domainers, as a legitimate group who are ethical, well-organized and who do not deserve to be associated with the crime of cybersquatting. While my comments were perceived as "biased" by one Wikipedia commenter, I can only say that his perception is a projection, and a gross overgeneralization which itself cannot be justified.

We all know that cybersquatting exists and is wrong, but if one were to visit the domainer sites and tradeshows, reference our trade associations, and work within the greater industry, then you would see just how unjust it is that the whole domain name industry has been characterized at Wikipedia as cybersquatters or scammers. Ironically, I find those statements to be born of extreme ignorance of our industry and heavily injected with personal bias against all people who invest in domain names for whatever reasons.

I know that what I am sharing here is factual and objective, not merely subjective, but it is hard to prove a negative, i.e. that the majority of domainers don't engage in cybersquatting. This is why I tried to provide so many links ... so that I could provide Wikipedia staff, and eventually their users, with the names and faces of real people, real businesses, and a greater context around our industry that has absolutely nothing to do with cybersquatting.

An example for the reviewers of Wikipedia which will hopefully illustrate my point. Suppose one Wikipedia administrator was convicted of a terrible crime, and by association all wikipedia admins suddenly began being accused of the same terrible crimes and were castigated publicly. For one, we know that you are not responsible for the bad acts of another person, and ultimately his poor choices do not reflect on you personally or negate all of the good will and collective hard work done at Wikipedia. This parallels the damage that was being done by redirecting domaining and domainers to cybersquatting. The bad acts of a relative minority were being used to humiliate and disparage a large group of people who have worked ethically and responsibly for years, and always within the law and within their rights of domain name registration.

Thank you for being willing to work with me on this important subject. Domainers, as a large group, are basically investors, internet enthusiasts, and people who have careers in a variety of fields. They are reasonable people with families, the same hopes and dreams as everyone else. And moreover, have notable achievements in life. The extensive list of domainers I provided to you, and their associated websites (in my original submission), are a small representative sample of the quality of individuals involved in the domain name industry. One of my investment partners is a board certified psychiatrist working everyday to help people with mental health disorders. Another of my domainer friends heads a non-profit fund raising organization. Yet another is a professor of economics at a major university. Many of my peers are attorneys, stay at home moms, realtors, high-level techies, college students, you name it. This diverse group of people interested in domaining are everyday people with intact values and a guiding set of principles that govern their choices in life. And they have specifically avoided internet crimes and cybersquatting. I know this on a personal level which is why I was so incensed and outraged that a couple of Wikipedia admins took it upon themselves to publicly denigrate so many reputable people.

Thanks again for considering these comments, and for allowing me a voice on this critical issue.

Addendum: Another reason I included so many industry links is I want the Domaining page to be an actual resource for anyone who searches on domaining and is interested in learning more about it. The links I provided you are high quality, relevant, and central to understanding the domain name industry. Please consider allowing me to perhaps place the links at the bottom of the article such that Wikipedia users will have a great resource guide for learning. Kingwarren (talk) 13:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I am shocked about the way Wikipedia is handling information about serious e-business. Why does Wikipedia make censorship and does not allow to publish correct information about Domaining? (Comment by a user from Europe, my native language is not english) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.121.41.205 (talk) 08:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Another Opinion

There is a real difference between "cybersquatting", which is the illegal misuse of someone's trademark, and "domaining" which consists of many potential legitimate business practices. Legitimate domainers try to predict trends and ideas in terminology and register generic domains that could become valuable in the future. They also buy, sell, and trade valuable generic domains. No one is quite sure who coined the terms "domainer" and "domaining" but it is well known within the industry as a person who speculates in, buys, sells, and trades in domain names. There are certainly some domainers who are cybersquatters, but to place them all in that category would be completely wrong.

Trademark attorneys often try to portray legitimate domainers as cybersquatters to make their cases but they often lose and in fact are sometimes guilty of using the portrayal in an attempt at reverse domain hijacking.

"Domaining" and "Domainers" are both established words and practices. There are several trade shows that refer to and invite domainers. There are also several trade magazines dedicated to the legitimate practice of "domaining". There are at least two trade associations representing domainers as part of their charter. I'd like to list a few of these resources below...

Domainer's Trade Publications

• http://www.domainersmagazine.com/ (online, print, and kindle)
• http://www.moderndomainer.com/ (online and print)
• http://www.domainnews.com/ (online)
• http://www.dnjournal.com/ (online)
• http://www.domainnamewire.com (online)
• http://www.domainertv.com/ (online)

Domainer's Events

• http://domainermardigras.com/
• http://www.domainroundtable.com/aboutus/index
• http://targetedtraffic.com/who-should-attend.php
• http://domainfest.com/who-should-attend (they like to use the term "domain name professionals" but they know what a domainer is.)
• http://domainerdinner.com/
• There are also several domainer events held in Europe. Maybe someone can fill this in for me?

Domainer's Trade Associations

• http://associatedcities.com/
• http://www.internetcommerce.org

I'm sure that this mis-characterization is a misunderstanding, and I pray that Wikipedia doesn't ever end up the same as DMOZ. That would be a tragedy.joezeppy (talk) 22:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Clear Link Needed to "Domaining" Sandbox

To Wiki Administrator: It's been 5 days since I submitted a very thorough Domaining page to Wikipedia. Could Wiki admins post a visible, and easily accessible link to the Sandbox page so that visitors can find the page and offer input/additions? I am concerned that the current domaining page (under review & editing) is difficult for visitors to find. I cannot locate a link to it even from the domaining discussion page.

Also, is there a reason why the redirection of domaining to "cybersquatting" can't be discontinued now ... while the domaining page is developed. This remains highly offensive, and unnecessary. Thanks. 71.76.222.163 (talk) 00:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Unprotected...

... per article in sandbox. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 01:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1