Dot-Sucks Is Much Ado About Nothing New

To hear people's stories, the arrival of the domain dot sacks [.sucks] informs us of the last days on the Internet, as we know. Recently leaving Senator Jay Rockefeller said about the new domain expansion: "... little or no public benefit value. It's just a predatory shakedown plan." Virginia's US representative Bob Goodrate says trademark owners are "shaken" . And in New Zealand and Vancouver, Canada, there are several blog posts, and there are commentaries in the newspaper that fall into the sky.

why? Some entrepreneurship is because it recognizes that there is a big market for domain expansion and has the nerve to demand prices that are the dreams of all hardworking capitalists-traffic may bear ! To make matters worse, these villains accuse large companies that want to protect their names rather than individuals who want to be ashamed of themselves! For example, if Apple or Microsoft wants to protect the brand, they must pay $ 2,500 per year. On the other hand, poor Joe Shmoo can get a dot sack for $ 250. Oh, unfair!

How did this tragedy happen? Where were the regulators when needed? ICANN [international company with assigned name and number] is a non-profit company that appears to control the Internet with the consent of 111 countries, and no one protested the name when it was proposed Say, you didn't have permission to stop it. Prepaid fees have been bid [$ 185,000 is the starting price for the new extension, which is rumored that ICANN has approached 3 million].

The sarcasm may conclude that no one complained. This is because someone who has taken that kind of money wanted to own the right to distribute domain extensions themselves. Regarding ICANN, we received funds and carried out until we noticed that a public relations disaster occurred. At that time, he complained to the FTC and Congress and executed. Unfortunately it is too late. This is because six years ago, they broke off meaningful relationships with these entities in an attempt to free themselves from the malicious perception of the American Internet. And the Canadian company that has a license to mint dot sucking is Canadian. It's ironic

But is the dot sack really internet satan? After all, domain games are not strangers to predators and shakedown artists. Anyone who owns a domain and holds it for sale at a higher price than it paid to hear some people tell it, to their ultimate success on the web It is a malicious troll to deny access. What is a successful registration that does not attempt to operate dotnet and dot organization at all registered dotcoms for brand protection sales? What about companies that have purchased "theirbrandsucks dot-com" too carefully? And all this, even before the arrival of new GTLDS [Generic Top-Level Domains] such as Dotsac, which has been attracting attention from commercial efforts that focus on brand name exclusivity.

Regardless of the idea of ​​this extension, there are advocates for this extension. If the number of large companies like Apple registering them is any indication, stay here. Prior to 2000, Ralph Nader was not as a consumer advocate, but a dot-sat domain, a dot-dot knot fair [.itsnotfair], a dot-claim [incorporated, but claims to pay extra money for "thinking their brand" Instead, he urged regulators to prohibit companies from registering domains to protect themselves.

Dotsac does not inform you of the "last day", everyone! It's just the same thing and we need to get used to it!