All day long, I’ve considered writing a follow up post to yesterday’s. Wanted to address certain things time and word-count constraints wouldn’t let me in that post. However, I couldn’t help but ask myself…
Is it necessary?
So while I hadn’t quite made up my mind what to write, I didn’t think it would be a follow up post to last nights.
Then I’d only just gotten home from work when I was presented with the fact that LIB had launched a new site and I knew I absolutely had to read it before I could write today’s post. And…
Well, I guess you can’t teach an old dog new tricks.
Moving on, I want to tell a very short and simple story.
Once upon a time…
In the days long ago, when Legoland was very small and had little variation and limited options and the real estate was abundant, there was established a small business. A very small business it was. So small, that it only existed as a small shop at the edge of no where.
The business was called The Centre.
The proprietors of The Centre never imagined or anticipated the exponential rate at which their business would grow… And grow it did.
But growing took time and while business was booming, the owners never though to also grow their vision. But some lessons will be learnt, one way or another.
Pretty soon, The Centre outgrew that little store they had in the hinterlands of Legoland and it was pretty obvious where they should move to next: the centre of Lego City.
Only one problem, the wide range of land which had been prime, virgin and available earlier had all been bought up by a set of more forward thinking people. People who, interestingly, had nothing to do with the business but were now charging exorbitantly to sell spaces in the city centre to the highest bidder.
Are these people wrong for owning property they knew was best suited to someone else? Property that was initially available to any and every one.
What is the big deal about cyber squatting?
Should first come, first serve in buying domain names no longer be a thing?
The website for the White House is whitehouse.gov/ You know why, because by the time it occurred to them to have a site, whitehouse.com was already taken. Not even the American government could bully the original buyers and as they were not willing to buy it, they got creative and created ‘.gov’ for all government bodies.
Another example, Twitter’s popular video sharing platform – Vine – is hosted at vine.co/ not vine.com/ The latter was taken and rather than engage the ‘cyber squatter’ who’d already taken up the name (long before twitter came up with the concept of Vine), they got creative. They understand the reality of first come, first serve and even though they had the resources, they choose to respect it. Noble people.
Now let’s come down to Nigeria, people are giving a certain someone flak and terming him a parasite because he owns a domain name which is perfectly suited to someone else. Why? I am not endorsing his tactics or strategy but we have to be objective in the specific matter of him buying those domains. Personally, I see nothing wrong in the matter. I work in an organisation that has had to shell out some serious, painful dough to cyber squatters because people did not have foresight to purchase those domains early on. I hold no grouse against the cyber squatters for that. They are simply shrewd business people who have chosen to take the risk of (legally) purchasing something they hope will become more valuable down the line. Emphasis on “hope”. As has been proven, there are no guaranties in the matter.
We see this principle play out every day in real estate, no complaints. Why are folk then so upset about the same principles being applied in cyber space? Online real estate is real estate too.
So again, I ask. What is the big deal about cyber squatting?