Domain name speculation doesn't merit bad image

February 21, 2000 In 1626, Peter Minuit traded some useful but inexpensive household items for what would become one of the most valuable pieces of real estate in the world — Manhattan. Two centuries later, the California Gold Rush lured thousands of starry-eyed prospectors to the Sierra Nevada. Today's gold rush centers on Internet "real estate." Hungry cyberspeculators are staking their claims, hoping to strike pay dirt in a domain name.
The Internet, once the province of researchers and the military, is now recognized as the medium for much of our future commerce. Domain name investors are combing the Net for a marketable piece of real estate, hoping it will become the next Manhattan.
Are there any good names left, or have they all been scarfed up by greedy Internet "squatters?" Good names are becoming an endangered species, but they can be found. I recently registered audiorecordings.com, bestsecretaries.com, goldforecast.com and madiera.com, and I'll soon resell them for a handsome profit.
So what's the problem? For me, the problem was that I crossed the line that distinguished a "domain name speculator" from a "domain name cybersquatter." Seven months ago, I discovered a treasure trove of unregistered domains that contained famous trademarks such as ABCnewscast.com, NBCsportscast.com, WWFcast.com and DJIAforecast.com. Being a dyed-in-the-wool opportunist, I registered 132 of them, envisioning the day when I would get calls from organizations eager to pay me gobs of money for the names.
Since then, I've deliberated a lot about the ethics of using someone else's brand name, and I decided to "repatriate" those 132 names, offering them free of charge to their corporate owners. I see it as an opportunity to be part of a solution rather than part of a problem. I'm no saint, but for me this opportunity is more important than the chance to make a quick buck. (The list can be seen at www.namezebra.com.)
The domain name industry has garnered a sleazy image for several reasons:

There's no consistency to the valuation of domain names. Highly publicized sales have seduced many speculators into thinking that their names must surely be worth six figures, even though they contain misspellings or are hopelessly tacky. (Recently, auction sites listed "realyesstate.com" for a mere $750,000 and "baby2k.com" for a more down-to-earth $325,000.)

The market will ultimately dictate a name's value, but speculators should realize that these big-dollar sales are very rare.

Because of the Internet's "Wild West" mentality, users ignore laws and common courtesy, believing that anonymity equals impunity. Anyone who's ever been in a chat room knows that it's standard procedure to embellish upon who we really are. (After all, how could everyone be a 25-year-old supermodel or a Mercedes-driving tennis pro/millionaire/rock star?) The Net is a nonstop masquerade ball.

If Internet users are willing to stretch and break laws, government intervention will follow as surely as night follows day. Regulation is antithetical to the Internet. If we want it to be free, we have to mind our manners.

The question I want to address is this: Is domain name speculation a bad thing? My emphatic response is "No!" The Gold Rush and the Oklahoma Land Rush were catalysts for the development of frontiers. Hardy pioneers survived while others failed.

In the final analysis, the survivors were decent, industrious folk who turned the wilderness into cities and villages. Today's land rush is taking place on the Internet and, as in the Wild West, the survivors will be the strong and the principled.