RE: UKNM: Marketing Quality Domains

[Lee Bryant]

I have no sour grapes; I have the names I need right now, more or less.


Call me idealistic, but I had hoped that the universal naming system for the

Internet would be based on principles of equality, accessibility and

fairness rather than on cheap, slightly tacky business models such as ticket

touts and vendors of fancy number plates.


Remember this .... the Web as the great equaliser, where the corner shop can

compete with Wal-Mart if it's got a good site and bright ideas. 


You may think that unfettered US-style capitalism is .. like ... way cool,

dude; but just as the citizens of the US took the opportunity of a so-called

"new world" to move on from the stifling and outdated ways of 18th Century

Europe, so we can take the chance to create something better than an on-line

mirror of late 20th Century capitalism.


Thanks for the debate.


All the Best,


Lee


-----Original Message-----

From: Robb Masters [

robb_mastersgyro [dot] co [dot] uk (mailto:robb_mastersgyro [dot] co [dot] uk)

]

Sent: 21 January 2000 19:20

To:

uk-netmarketingchinwag [dot] com

Subject: Re: UKNM: Marketing Quality Domains


Do you really believe that if it wasn't for "cybersquatters", lots of good

generic names would still be available? I don't. Therefore, it could be said

that cybersquatters keep these names aside for those who REALLY want them,

and are prepared to pay over the odds to get them - like tickets touts, or

the DVLA and fancy number plates. 


Nobody needs a good generic name - it *may* give you a headstart, but with a

bit of imagination there's still plenty of potential. I think lack of

imagination is the big problem here. "I want to start up a new supermarket

online. Oh no, supermarket.com has been taken by cybersquatters*! Bastards.

What will I do now?" How about (5 minutes of whois later) theweeklyshop.com,

myweeklyshop.com or yourweeklyshop.com - all still available!


So my point is this. Certain parties speculated to accumulate and invested

in something they thought would make a good return when they sold it. In a

number of cases they were successful in doing so. This is called good

business. Nobody was harmed in them doing so. Nobody had to pay them for the

domain names. If they hadn't registered them then chances are that they

wouldn't be available now (if only to the highest bidder). Why should anyone

have a problem with this? Apart from anyone who didn't do it first... which

I suspect is the root of the problem. These grapes really are sour. :-)


Declaration of interest: I own webstir.co.uk. Big money spinner, that is!

Any 6 figure offers? ;-)


End of spiel. I feel like I'm in a minority here, so I'll duck back behind

my parapet now...


* This is just an example for illustrative purpose. I'm not suggesting the

owners of supermarket.com are cybersquatters - even if the domain name was

registered in 1994 and there's no sign of a web site there...


Regards,


Robb (

robb_mastersgyro [dot] co [dot] uk

)



On Thursday, January 20, 2000, Lee Bryant <

Leetmg [dot] co [dot] uk

> wrote:


  >I reserve my applause for entrepreneurial initiative that actually

*creates*

  >something or at least fulfills a need.

[snip]

  >It is a waste of resources because money is siphoned off from the value

  >chain by parasites who contribute nothing whatsoever in return. Why do you

  >applaud that? 



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

post new media vacancies for free

uknm-jobschinwag [dot] com

 				*******************

 sponsor the uk-netmarketing list and website, contact

saleschinwag [dot] com

 for more details.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

  To unsubscribe or change your list settings go to

http://www.chinwag.com/uk-netmarketing or

helpchinwag [dot] com