"Mark Sutcliffe of CanWest News Service calls for end to "domain hogging" "If you don't use a domain, it should get thrown back and opened up."
I'm sure corporations would love that.. Is AOL a domain-hog taking the love out of the Internet (Love.com) and redirecting it to their dating site? How about CNET with their terrific inactive names like Kids.com ..it's a dressed-up paid-search parking page.. Couldn't Disney or Nickelodeon do a better job with Kids.com? How about companies like IAC, Demand Media and Marchex who have invested collective billions buying domains (for cash) and developing them to limited and varying degrees? How many domain-names are too-many? Who gets to say what is 'active' or 'developed'? Who gets to judge what is acceptable development progress year to year? A lot of domain registrants are making a fortune slowly developing media companies around their names. Can latecomers rewrite the rules surrounding name ownership because they fell asleep at the wheel and missed one of the greatest opportunities of their lifetime... or because they are not satisfied with the pace of a potential competitor's development? Should we live in a "domain police state", under the constant specter of being unseated from our names because somebody else might want what we have? Does this apply to large companies or just to cottage industry folks without the means to resist such proposterous inequity.
Funny enough you never read stories like this relating to hard assets, real estate.. tangibles.. but there is an entitlement mindset on the Internet where old-schoolers wax philisophical about the simpler times and many of those folks feel like they shouldn't have to pay for things, they should be free on an as-needed basis, forever. I view this article as high minded socialist fluff mixed with a twist of naive utopianism, but the fact that he wrote the piece at all indicates to me that some traditional media folks are starting to realise they have been outflanked. They are slowly "getting" the importance and value of .com domain names and are shocked to find them 'gone'. If everyone could just be satisfied with those traffic-less .info's, .mobi's and .biz's, you wouldn't read a story like this.
In the end if you want to see the culprit responsible for the lack of "good" available domain names in the coveted .com suffix, look in the mirror. There are nowhere near enough meaningful domain combinations in .com land for everyone to own even a single name. It is simply not possible. There are just too many people, too many businesses on this planet. So if Mark wants a great .com domain name.. or even an average domain name.. he is going to have to do what everyone who wants something of finite quantity and great desirability does.. He will have to reach into his wallet and pay the party he wishes to displace. Just as they will have to pay him once he owns a domain name and doesn't wish to give it up.
Welcome to capitalism and free-enterprise Marko!~ ;)