| |
In lugnet.general, Kenneth Wright writes:
>
> At this point, I look at a "community purchase" of the site as a form of
> damage control. We have a chance to grab up what was a very useful site to
> LEGO enthusiasts, and make it so once again. It may encourage and reinforce
> this type of internet opportunist behavior at the moment, but if we take
> this as a lesson learned to be more aggressive in protecting our domain
> names, we can keep it from happening again.
I probably shouldn't say this but I will.
I think the idea of donating money to buy back the domain name,
while certainly very thoughtful, would be foolish to execute.
If this were LUGNET itself, to which I have paid a membership
fee and am more than happy to make donations to, the case would
be different. But in this case it is a personal site that was
"owned" by Todd, for his own personal use. If it expired, for
whatever reason, then so be it. That's his business. I've no
real inclination to help fund buying it back for whatever reason.
On top of that I feel that paying $550.00 to buy back a personal
domain name is not smart. It's just a name. There are plenty
of others available for gobs less. While someone may develop
an affection for a particular domain name, in this case I feel
it's just best to let it go, and go start a new one.
If we had to buy back the LUGNET domain for that, only then would
I consider it. But even then, I would question how wise it
is to spend that much money on a name, when a new domain could
be started and that money could be put to better use. Links
can be updated. I'm sure people wouldn't have too much
trouble finding the new home.
KDJ
_______________________________________
LUGNETer #203, Windsor, Ontario, Canada
|
|
| |
> I probably shouldn't say this but I will.
>
> I think the idea of donating money to buy back the domain name,
> while certainly very thoughtful, would be foolish to execute.
> If this were LUGNET itself, to which I have paid a membership
> fee and am more than happy to make donations to, the case would
> be different. But in this case it is a personal site that was
> "owned" by Todd, for his own personal use. If it expired, for
> whatever reason, then so be it. That's his business. I've no
> real inclination to help fund buying it back for whatever reason.
I am very glad you said this, and appreciate that you did so in a reasonable
and thought-out manner. My original idea was just that... an idea. One
that sought a resolution to the problem, and was in no way a perfect
solution... and in many ways quite flawed. Feedback on such an idea is
important, with both good and bad points brought to light.
> On top of that I feel that paying $550.00 to buy back a personal
> domain name is not smart. It's just a name. There are plenty
> of others available for gobs less. While someone may develop
> an affection for a particular domain name, in this case I feel
> it's just best to let it go, and go start a new one.
I agree here absolutely. I would not, for a second, shell out $550 dollars
to obtain a personal website domain name. But, at approximately .50 a pop,
it didn't seem like such a bad price to avoid any further headaches and
confusion.
I would also like to clarify this: I do not have any kids to worry about
wandering into an adult oriented site, nor do I have any sites with a
fibblesnork link, nor did I have any affection for the fibblesnork domain
name as it was a personal site belonging to Todd Lehman. My suggestion was
strictly one of concern for the LEGO community as a whole, with the cheapest
possible resolution to the matter.
Humbly,
Ken Wright
|
|
|
