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). --Ckatzchatspy 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)