<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_26_1757252</id>
	<title>Domain-Name Wars, Rise of the Cybersquatters</title>
	<author>ScuttleMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1246004520000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.computerworld.com/" rel="nofollow">CWmike</a> writes <i>"When FreeLegoPorn.com began publishing pornographic images created with Lego toys, Lego acted quickly. "The content available on the site consisted of animated mini-figures doing very explicit things. We were not amused," says Peter Kjaer, an attorney for Denmark-based Lego. Lego didn't go to court. Instead it filed a complaint with the World Intellectual Property Organization, which ruled in its favor. The domain registrar for FreeLegoPorn.com, GoDaddy.com, eventually shut down the site and transferred the domain name to Lego under ICANN rules. But it's not just Lego and Verizon that are suffering. Green energy is a hot topic, so cybersquatters have been targeting wind and solar energy start-ups. And malicious sites can create havoc with a brand's reputation. <a href="http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&amp;articleId=9134605">Cybersquatting activity rose by 18\% last year</a>, with a documented 440,584 cybersquatting sites in the fourth quarter of last year alone, according to MarkMonitor's annual <a href="http://www.markmonitor.com/pressreleases/pr090309.php">Brandjacking Index report</a>. And WIPO cited an <a href="http://www.wipo.int/pressroom/en/articles/2009/article\_0005.html">8\% jump in dispute filings in 2008</a>, to 2,329 complaints &mdash; a new record. Now, ICANN is preparing to open a <a href="http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&amp;articleId=9134766">potentially unlimited number of new top-level domains</a> as early as the first quarter of 2010."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>CWmike writes " When FreeLegoPorn.com began publishing pornographic images created with Lego toys , Lego acted quickly .
" The content available on the site consisted of animated mini-figures doing very explicit things .
We were not amused , " says Peter Kjaer , an attorney for Denmark-based Lego .
Lego did n't go to court .
Instead it filed a complaint with the World Intellectual Property Organization , which ruled in its favor .
The domain registrar for FreeLegoPorn.com , GoDaddy.com , eventually shut down the site and transferred the domain name to Lego under ICANN rules .
But it 's not just Lego and Verizon that are suffering .
Green energy is a hot topic , so cybersquatters have been targeting wind and solar energy start-ups .
And malicious sites can create havoc with a brand 's reputation .
Cybersquatting activity rose by 18 \ % last year , with a documented 440,584 cybersquatting sites in the fourth quarter of last year alone , according to MarkMonitor 's annual Brandjacking Index report .
And WIPO cited an 8 \ % jump in dispute filings in 2008 , to 2,329 complaints    a new record .
Now , ICANN is preparing to open a potentially unlimited number of new top-level domains as early as the first quarter of 2010 .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CWmike writes "When FreeLegoPorn.com began publishing pornographic images created with Lego toys, Lego acted quickly.
"The content available on the site consisted of animated mini-figures doing very explicit things.
We were not amused," says Peter Kjaer, an attorney for Denmark-based Lego.
Lego didn't go to court.
Instead it filed a complaint with the World Intellectual Property Organization, which ruled in its favor.
The domain registrar for FreeLegoPorn.com, GoDaddy.com, eventually shut down the site and transferred the domain name to Lego under ICANN rules.
But it's not just Lego and Verizon that are suffering.
Green energy is a hot topic, so cybersquatters have been targeting wind and solar energy start-ups.
And malicious sites can create havoc with a brand's reputation.
Cybersquatting activity rose by 18\% last year, with a documented 440,584 cybersquatting sites in the fourth quarter of last year alone, according to MarkMonitor's annual Brandjacking Index report.
And WIPO cited an 8\% jump in dispute filings in 2008, to 2,329 complaints — a new record.
Now, ICANN is preparing to open a potentially unlimited number of new top-level domains as early as the first quarter of 2010.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28488255</id>
	<title>Re:The way it should be</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246010520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, it shouldn't. That would work if everyone was a cybersquatter. But there are in fact many people who invest in domains for legitimate reasons and have larger portfolios than cybersquatters.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , it should n't .
That would work if everyone was a cybersquatter .
But there are in fact many people who invest in domains for legitimate reasons and have larger portfolios than cybersquatters .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, it shouldn't.
That would work if everyone was a cybersquatter.
But there are in fact many people who invest in domains for legitimate reasons and have larger portfolios than cybersquatters.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28487857</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28495615</id>
	<title>Re:IMHO</title>
	<author>Jaysyn</author>
	<datestamp>1246124940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't see a problem with it.</p><p><a href="http://www.thebricktestament.com/genesis/reubens\_incest/gn35\_22a.html" title="thebricktestament.com">http://www.thebricktestament.com/genesis/reubens\_incest/gn35\_22a.html</a> [thebricktestament.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't see a problem with it.http : //www.thebricktestament.com/genesis/reubens \ _incest/gn35 \ _22a.html [ thebricktestament.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't see a problem with it.http://www.thebricktestament.com/genesis/reubens\_incest/gn35\_22a.html [thebricktestament.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28490685</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28488045</id>
	<title>Not FreeLegoPorn, but real cybersquatting.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246009680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Whether Lego -- which I generally perceive as far too litigious -- was right or wrong in its action against FreeLegoPorn.com, at least that was being used to host legitimate content. What really bugs me is domain owners who buy up a bunch of domain names to extort money out of those with a legitimate interest in them, or those who buy up a bunch of domain names for no other reason than to host advertising pages (which I consider a form of DNS spam).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Whether Lego -- which I generally perceive as far too litigious -- was right or wrong in its action against FreeLegoPorn.com , at least that was being used to host legitimate content .
What really bugs me is domain owners who buy up a bunch of domain names to extort money out of those with a legitimate interest in them , or those who buy up a bunch of domain names for no other reason than to host advertising pages ( which I consider a form of DNS spam ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whether Lego -- which I generally perceive as far too litigious -- was right or wrong in its action against FreeLegoPorn.com, at least that was being used to host legitimate content.
What really bugs me is domain owners who buy up a bunch of domain names to extort money out of those with a legitimate interest in them, or those who buy up a bunch of domain names for no other reason than to host advertising pages (which I consider a form of DNS spam).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28487999</id>
	<title>It's sad.  ICANN not allowing satire.</title>
	<author>GargamelSpaceman</author>
	<datestamp>1246009380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In the US we're used to being able to parody anything without fear of copyright or trademark litigation issues.  It's sad that the ICANN doesn't work the same way.  It really should.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In the US we 're used to being able to parody anything without fear of copyright or trademark litigation issues .
It 's sad that the ICANN does n't work the same way .
It really should .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the US we're used to being able to parody anything without fear of copyright or trademark litigation issues.
It's sad that the ICANN doesn't work the same way.
It really should.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28488423</id>
	<title>Not really increasing compared to domain names</title>
	<author>Rovastar</author>
	<datestamp>1246011180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>According to netcraft in the last year there has been about 40\% increase in fully qualified domain names out there (includes subdomains not just top level so not a perfect stat but a good indication)</p><p>June 2008 172,338,726 FQDNs (http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2008/06/index.html)<br>June 2009 238,027,855 FQDNs (http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2009/06/17/june\_2009\_web\_server\_survey.html)</p><p>So really you could say that cyber squatting is decreasing relative to the increase in domain names........</p><p>Not really increasing compared to domain names</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>According to netcraft in the last year there has been about 40 \ % increase in fully qualified domain names out there ( includes subdomains not just top level so not a perfect stat but a good indication ) June 2008 172,338,726 FQDNs ( http : //news.netcraft.com/archives/2008/06/index.html ) June 2009 238,027,855 FQDNs ( http : //news.netcraft.com/archives/2009/06/17/june \ _2009 \ _web \ _server \ _survey.html ) So really you could say that cyber squatting is decreasing relative to the increase in domain names........Not really increasing compared to domain names</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to netcraft in the last year there has been about 40\% increase in fully qualified domain names out there (includes subdomains not just top level so not a perfect stat but a good indication)June 2008 172,338,726 FQDNs (http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2008/06/index.html)June 2009 238,027,855 FQDNs (http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2009/06/17/june\_2009\_web\_server\_survey.html)So really you could say that cyber squatting is decreasing relative to the increase in domain names........Not really increasing compared to domain names</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28497489</id>
	<title>Re:freelegoporn.com is not cybersquatting</title>
	<author>Sorthum</author>
	<datestamp>1246095840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most definitely correct.  This issue may become more and more relevant as soon as ICANN-has-more-domains.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most definitely correct .
This issue may become more and more relevant as soon as ICANN-has-more-domains .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most definitely correct.
This issue may become more and more relevant as soon as ICANN-has-more-domains.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28487757</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28488745</id>
	<title>PROFIT</title>
	<author>atramentum</author>
	<datestamp>1246013040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>If someone wanted to make money on this they could create a domain reg. service that registers all available tld's automatically, both as already owned tlds become available and as new tlds are introduced.

I don't think the ICANN would be happy about it, but it would be valuable for corporations that want to protect their brand.

Unless, that is, if ICANN creates a ".sucks" or ".iscrooked" tld.  (http://apple.sucks)<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...Profit !</htmltext>
<tokenext>If someone wanted to make money on this they could create a domain reg .
service that registers all available tld 's automatically , both as already owned tlds become available and as new tlds are introduced .
I do n't think the ICANN would be happy about it , but it would be valuable for corporations that want to protect their brand .
Unless , that is , if ICANN creates a " .sucks " or " .iscrooked " tld .
( http : //apple.sucks ) ...Profit !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If someone wanted to make money on this they could create a domain reg.
service that registers all available tld's automatically, both as already owned tlds become available and as new tlds are introduced.
I don't think the ICANN would be happy about it, but it would be valuable for corporations that want to protect their brand.
Unless, that is, if ICANN creates a ".sucks" or ".iscrooked" tld.
(http://apple.sucks) ...Profit !</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28488413</id>
	<title>Re:freelegoporn.com is not cybersquatting</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1246011120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I entirely agree - moreover, I would say the cybersquatters here are Lego. They're the ones who stole someone else's domain name. And are they now doing anything with the URL? Nope. That's squatting.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I entirely agree - moreover , I would say the cybersquatters here are Lego .
They 're the ones who stole someone else 's domain name .
And are they now doing anything with the URL ?
Nope. That 's squatting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I entirely agree - moreover, I would say the cybersquatters here are Lego.
They're the ones who stole someone else's domain name.
And are they now doing anything with the URL?
Nope. That's squatting.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28487757</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28488341</id>
	<title>Whats up with this article?</title>
	<author>Nyder</author>
	<datestamp>1246010820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First off, cybersquatting isn't new at all.  Hasn't been an upsurge.</p><p>second, FreeLegoPorn.com wasn't cybersquatting.   It's an artistic website creatively using lego's to make porn.</p><p>This story should be about how Freelegoporn got fucked over by they name register.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First off , cybersquatting is n't new at all .
Has n't been an upsurge.second , FreeLegoPorn.com was n't cybersquatting .
It 's an artistic website creatively using lego 's to make porn.This story should be about how Freelegoporn got fucked over by they name register .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First off, cybersquatting isn't new at all.
Hasn't been an upsurge.second, FreeLegoPorn.com wasn't cybersquatting.
It's an artistic website creatively using lego's to make porn.This story should be about how Freelegoporn got fucked over by they name register.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28488287</id>
	<title>Re:IMHO</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246010580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Slightly disappointed therapists.com is a ad squatter. Who wouldn't love to give that one out. You could easily just change capitalization depending on who you gave it to.</p><p>Mom: home@Therapists.com<br>Creepy Chick at bar: home@TheRapists.com</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Slightly disappointed therapists.com is a ad squatter .
Who would n't love to give that one out .
You could easily just change capitalization depending on who you gave it to.Mom : home @ Therapists.comCreepy Chick at bar : home @ TheRapists.com</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Slightly disappointed therapists.com is a ad squatter.
Who wouldn't love to give that one out.
You could easily just change capitalization depending on who you gave it to.Mom: home@Therapists.comCreepy Chick at bar: home@TheRapists.com</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28487871</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28488749</id>
	<title>Re:IMHO</title>
	<author>Arthur Grumbine</author>
	<datestamp>1246013100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>-1 Coming-out-of-the-hole-you've-been-living-in</htmltext>
<tokenext>-1 Coming-out-of-the-hole-you 've-been-living-in</tokentext>
<sentencetext>-1 Coming-out-of-the-hole-you've-been-living-in</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28488503</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28488109</id>
	<title>Re:The way it should be</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246009980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not really.</p><p>1) Many legit companies own many domain names.  I doubt Google really cares about all of its 10K domain names, but even at 30 (a movie studio may have one for each movie, perhaps?) it would cost 35 billion dollars.</p><p>Did you know that Google owns about 10,000 domain names?  It'll only cost them $6.9827209090826543470930975693925e+3011</p><p>2) Shell companies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not really.1 ) Many legit companies own many domain names .
I doubt Google really cares about all of its 10K domain names , but even at 30 ( a movie studio may have one for each movie , perhaps ?
) it would cost 35 billion dollars.Did you know that Google owns about 10,000 domain names ?
It 'll only cost them $ 6.9827209090826543470930975693925e + 30112 ) Shell companies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not really.1) Many legit companies own many domain names.
I doubt Google really cares about all of its 10K domain names, but even at 30 (a movie studio may have one for each movie, perhaps?
) it would cost 35 billion dollars.Did you know that Google owns about 10,000 domain names?
It'll only cost them $6.9827209090826543470930975693925e+30112) Shell companies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28487857</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28488665</id>
	<title>Re:The way it should be</title>
	<author>Quirkz</author>
	<datestamp>1246012560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Who pays $35 for a domain? Mine are all in the $10 or $12 range. When I worked with an online retailer, we got down to $8/year with a bulk discount. If you're paying $35, you're getting ripped off.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who pays $ 35 for a domain ?
Mine are all in the $ 10 or $ 12 range .
When I worked with an online retailer , we got down to $ 8/year with a bulk discount .
If you 're paying $ 35 , you 're getting ripped off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who pays $35 for a domain?
Mine are all in the $10 or $12 range.
When I worked with an online retailer, we got down to $8/year with a bulk discount.
If you're paying $35, you're getting ripped off.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28487857</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28488583</id>
	<title>Re:The way it should be</title>
	<author>BitterOak</author>
	<datestamp>1246012080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>They should make it where the price of a domain doubles for each domain you have registered.</p></div><p>Who are <i>they</i>?  There are many companies which provide domain name registration service.  If one of them implemented the scheme you describe, business would simply go elsewhere.  Why would any registrar want to do this?  It would only cost them business.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They should make it where the price of a domain doubles for each domain you have registered.Who are they ?
There are many companies which provide domain name registration service .
If one of them implemented the scheme you describe , business would simply go elsewhere .
Why would any registrar want to do this ?
It would only cost them business .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They should make it where the price of a domain doubles for each domain you have registered.Who are they?
There are many companies which provide domain name registration service.
If one of them implemented the scheme you describe, business would simply go elsewhere.
Why would any registrar want to do this?
It would only cost them business.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28487857</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28503525</id>
	<title>Re:WIPO sucks ass crackers.</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1246201800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, if it's so easy to sue someone out of his domain, then why don't you just sue them out of it again, and move back in?<br>(Let your cousin sue, if you need to.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , if it 's so easy to sue someone out of his domain , then why do n't you just sue them out of it again , and move back in ?
( Let your cousin sue , if you need to .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, if it's so easy to sue someone out of his domain, then why don't you just sue them out of it again, and move back in?
(Let your cousin sue, if you need to.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28487893</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28490867</id>
	<title>Re:Evil cybersquatters</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246030980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The problem as I see it, is there has been no provision made to filter this crap - by any Web Search provider. <br>
[*] Don't include squatted domains in my results. <br>
But Google/Yahoo/Bing et al will not do that, it would reduce their ad-money.<br>
They also don't allow you to black-list things from your results. I absolutely will NEVER want experts-exchange to be among my search results.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem as I see it , is there has been no provision made to filter this crap - by any Web Search provider .
[ * ] Do n't include squatted domains in my results .
But Google/Yahoo/Bing et al will not do that , it would reduce their ad-money .
They also do n't allow you to black-list things from your results .
I absolutely will NEVER want experts-exchange to be among my search results .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem as I see it, is there has been no provision made to filter this crap - by any Web Search provider.
[*] Don't include squatted domains in my results.
But Google/Yahoo/Bing et al will not do that, it would reduce their ad-money.
They also don't allow you to black-list things from your results.
I absolutely will NEVER want experts-exchange to be among my search results.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28488577</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28503501</id>
	<title>Re:IMHO</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1246201680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What about alegochicken.com? ^^ Mmmmhhh... chicken!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What about alegochicken.com ?
^ ^ Mmmmhhh... chicken !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about alegochicken.com?
^^ Mmmmhhh... chicken!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28487871</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28487857</id>
	<title>The way it should be</title>
	<author>C\_Kode</author>
	<datestamp>1246008720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They should make it where the price of a domain doubles for each domain you have registered.</p><p>1. $35<br>2. $70<br>3. $105<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...etc.</p><p>That would raise the annual price of owning two domains to $105 and $210 for three, $420 for four, $840 for five and so on.  That keeps the price relatively cheap for people who just want a personal domain or small businesses, but the domain squaters will be rendered out of business for the most part.</p><p>I want to see someone squat 1,000 domains at those prices.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They should make it where the price of a domain doubles for each domain you have registered.1 .
$ 352. $ 703 .
$ 105 ...etc.That would raise the annual price of owning two domains to $ 105 and $ 210 for three , $ 420 for four , $ 840 for five and so on .
That keeps the price relatively cheap for people who just want a personal domain or small businesses , but the domain squaters will be rendered out of business for the most part.I want to see someone squat 1,000 domains at those prices .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They should make it where the price of a domain doubles for each domain you have registered.1.
$352. $703.
$105 ...etc.That would raise the annual price of owning two domains to $105 and $210 for three, $420 for four, $840 for five and so on.
That keeps the price relatively cheap for people who just want a personal domain or small businesses, but the domain squaters will be rendered out of business for the most part.I want to see someone squat 1,000 domains at those prices.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28493469</id>
	<title>Re:Evil cybersquatters</title>
	<author>visible.frylock</author>
	<datestamp>1246102440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, you just don't get it. They're guilty of the sin of speculating with their own money, which is why their legs should be broken.</p><p>Now if they were speculating with other people's money, then they would be deserving of bailouts at the taxpayers' expense.</p><p>Really, wtf people? Slashdot gets so hypocritically outraged at the weirdest fucking things. Are you also going to get out your crowbar because someone took your.name@gmail.com too? Get over it, you have no innate right to a certain string of characters, any more than the content cartels have an innate right to certain strings of bits.</p><p>If someone is hawking product under a name covered by your trademark, in the same market, using a deceptively similar logo, then that's one thing. That's trademark violation, and it's about fraud, not about intellectual property, legal opinions other than my own be damned, because I happen to be right.*</p><p>But if someone has a funny porn site that happens to have a substring of your toy company trademark in the domain name, feel free to have a nice cup of stfu with your tough shit salad.</p><p>Whoever wants to take the oblig xkcd funny, you're welcome.</p><p>* This is the correct opinion, not necessarily the establishment opinion (which, again, if it differs from mine, and ISTR it does, happens to be wrong).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , you just do n't get it .
They 're guilty of the sin of speculating with their own money , which is why their legs should be broken.Now if they were speculating with other people 's money , then they would be deserving of bailouts at the taxpayers ' expense.Really , wtf people ?
Slashdot gets so hypocritically outraged at the weirdest fucking things .
Are you also going to get out your crowbar because someone took your.name @ gmail.com too ?
Get over it , you have no innate right to a certain string of characters , any more than the content cartels have an innate right to certain strings of bits.If someone is hawking product under a name covered by your trademark , in the same market , using a deceptively similar logo , then that 's one thing .
That 's trademark violation , and it 's about fraud , not about intellectual property , legal opinions other than my own be damned , because I happen to be right .
* But if someone has a funny porn site that happens to have a substring of your toy company trademark in the domain name , feel free to have a nice cup of stfu with your tough shit salad.Whoever wants to take the oblig xkcd funny , you 're welcome .
* This is the correct opinion , not necessarily the establishment opinion ( which , again , if it differs from mine , and ISTR it does , happens to be wrong ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, you just don't get it.
They're guilty of the sin of speculating with their own money, which is why their legs should be broken.Now if they were speculating with other people's money, then they would be deserving of bailouts at the taxpayers' expense.Really, wtf people?
Slashdot gets so hypocritically outraged at the weirdest fucking things.
Are you also going to get out your crowbar because someone took your.name@gmail.com too?
Get over it, you have no innate right to a certain string of characters, any more than the content cartels have an innate right to certain strings of bits.If someone is hawking product under a name covered by your trademark, in the same market, using a deceptively similar logo, then that's one thing.
That's trademark violation, and it's about fraud, not about intellectual property, legal opinions other than my own be damned, because I happen to be right.
*But if someone has a funny porn site that happens to have a substring of your toy company trademark in the domain name, feel free to have a nice cup of stfu with your tough shit salad.Whoever wants to take the oblig xkcd funny, you're welcome.
* This is the correct opinion, not necessarily the establishment opinion (which, again, if it differs from mine, and ISTR it does, happens to be wrong).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28488577</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28490641</id>
	<title>Re:freelegoporn.com is not cybersquatting</title>
	<author>RLmitchell</author>
	<datestamp>1246028400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I visited this site. There was nothing on the site to suggest it was parody.

It looked like a site serving those with a Lego fetish.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I visited this site .
There was nothing on the site to suggest it was parody .
It looked like a site serving those with a Lego fetish .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I visited this site.
There was nothing on the site to suggest it was parody.
It looked like a site serving those with a Lego fetish.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28487757</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28495997</id>
	<title>The word is "IMPLICIT"</title>
	<author>aqk</author>
	<datestamp>1246128480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think I have ever seen any of my kids' Legos having <i>explicit</i> sex.<br>And I somehow doubt that anyone else has ever seen this done between Legos... but if so, let's hope it is done between consenting Legos.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think I have ever seen any of my kids ' Legos having explicit sex.And I somehow doubt that anyone else has ever seen this done between Legos... but if so , let 's hope it is done between consenting Legos .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think I have ever seen any of my kids' Legos having explicit sex.And I somehow doubt that anyone else has ever seen this done between Legos... but if so, let's hope it is done between consenting Legos.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28488033</id>
	<title>Cybersquatting should be costly</title>
	<author>caywen</author>
	<datestamp>1246009620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think cybersquatting should become increasingly costly over time, with crowd ratings as the determining factor as to whether someone is in fact squatting. If, say, 85\% of people say a domain is being squatted, then the squatter's registration fee should double each successive year.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think cybersquatting should become increasingly costly over time , with crowd ratings as the determining factor as to whether someone is in fact squatting .
If , say , 85 \ % of people say a domain is being squatted , then the squatter 's registration fee should double each successive year .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think cybersquatting should become increasingly costly over time, with crowd ratings as the determining factor as to whether someone is in fact squatting.
If, say, 85\% of people say a domain is being squatted, then the squatter's registration fee should double each successive year.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28489049</id>
	<title>Re:IMHO</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246014660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If you read the first one as a five letter word + eight letter word, it has nothing to do with pens.</p></div><p>O RLY?</p><p>Seems you'll need to stare at his post a few more hours, then...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you read the first one as a five letter word + eight letter word , it has nothing to do with pens.O RLY ? Seems you 'll need to stare at his post a few more hours , then.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you read the first one as a five letter word + eight letter word, it has nothing to do with pens.O RLY?Seems you'll need to stare at his post a few more hours, then...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28488503</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28487847</id>
	<title>Re:</title>
	<author>ddubbleya</author>
	<datestamp>1246008720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How about DonkeyShowLegos.com?</htmltext>
<tokenext>How about DonkeyShowLegos.com ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about DonkeyShowLegos.com?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28488285</id>
	<title>Re:The way it should be</title>
	<author>Darkness404</author>
	<datestamp>1246010580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That is stupid. What about misspellings? It makes perfect sense certain things to certain domains. If you have a UK site that is really uk.yourdomain.com, it might make sense to register yourdomain.uk that redirects to uk.yourdomain.com. Plus, what about misspellings? And the fact that different products go to the same company, for example, Nintendo might own nintendo.com, metroidprime3.com, fireemblem.com, mother3.com, etc.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That is stupid .
What about misspellings ?
It makes perfect sense certain things to certain domains .
If you have a UK site that is really uk.yourdomain.com , it might make sense to register yourdomain.uk that redirects to uk.yourdomain.com .
Plus , what about misspellings ?
And the fact that different products go to the same company , for example , Nintendo might own nintendo.com , metroidprime3.com , fireemblem.com , mother3.com , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is stupid.
What about misspellings?
It makes perfect sense certain things to certain domains.
If you have a UK site that is really uk.yourdomain.com, it might make sense to register yourdomain.uk that redirects to uk.yourdomain.com.
Plus, what about misspellings?
And the fact that different products go to the same company, for example, Nintendo might own nintendo.com, metroidprime3.com, fireemblem.com, mother3.com, etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28487857</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28487875</id>
	<title>They should've fought for it</title>
	<author>davidwr</author>
	<datestamp>1246008840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As someone pointed out, courts are inconsistent.</p><p>Unless FreeLegoPorn knew they judges they would face would rule against them due to locally-binding precedent, they should have sued to regain the name.</p><p>This is parody.</p><p>If the local judges were likely to rule against them they should have relocated their corporate headquarters to a more judicially friendly venue, picked a new similar equally-"infringing" name, and pre-emptively sued to declare that their use was not a trademark infringement.  Then once they won that battle, sue for the old name back.</p><p>My guess is they decided it wasn't worth the expense.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As someone pointed out , courts are inconsistent.Unless FreeLegoPorn knew they judges they would face would rule against them due to locally-binding precedent , they should have sued to regain the name.This is parody.If the local judges were likely to rule against them they should have relocated their corporate headquarters to a more judicially friendly venue , picked a new similar equally- " infringing " name , and pre-emptively sued to declare that their use was not a trademark infringement .
Then once they won that battle , sue for the old name back.My guess is they decided it was n't worth the expense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As someone pointed out, courts are inconsistent.Unless FreeLegoPorn knew they judges they would face would rule against them due to locally-binding precedent, they should have sued to regain the name.This is parody.If the local judges were likely to rule against them they should have relocated their corporate headquarters to a more judicially friendly venue, picked a new similar equally-"infringing" name, and pre-emptively sued to declare that their use was not a trademark infringement.
Then once they won that battle, sue for the old name back.My guess is they decided it wasn't worth the expense.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28487757</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28487947</id>
	<title>I'm not a violent person</title>
	<author>Ralph Spoilsport</author>
	<datestamp>1246009140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>but cybersquatters should have their legs broken. Off.
<p>
RS</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>but cybersquatters should have their legs broken .
Off . RS</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but cybersquatters should have their legs broken.
Off.

RS</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28489269</id>
	<title>Re:Evil cybersquatters</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1246016040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Congratulations, you have encountered an <b>Internet tough guy</b> (<i>fortis anonymus</i>), Internet tough guys are known to lash out at others with dire threats from behind cover but are extremely docile when their actions have any consequences whatsoever. They often enjoy the thought of violence against those who annoy them but are rarely willing to carry it out. This species's preferred habitat is the mother's basement.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Congratulations , you have encountered an Internet tough guy ( fortis anonymus ) , Internet tough guys are known to lash out at others with dire threats from behind cover but are extremely docile when their actions have any consequences whatsoever .
They often enjoy the thought of violence against those who annoy them but are rarely willing to carry it out .
This species 's preferred habitat is the mother 's basement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Congratulations, you have encountered an Internet tough guy (fortis anonymus), Internet tough guys are known to lash out at others with dire threats from behind cover but are extremely docile when their actions have any consequences whatsoever.
They often enjoy the thought of violence against those who annoy them but are rarely willing to carry it out.
This species's preferred habitat is the mother's basement.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28488577</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28489465</id>
	<title>Sooo...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246017240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The domain registrar for FreeLegoPorn.com, GoDaddy.com, eventually shut down the site and <strong>transferred the domain name to Lego</strong> under ICANN rules.</p></div></blockquote><p>WHOIS:confirms. LEGO indeed now owns a domain advertising Lego Porn.</p><blockquote><div><p>Domain Name.......... freelegoporn.com<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Creation Date........ 2008-10-13<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Registration Date.... 2009-05-07<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Expiry Date.......... 2011-10-14<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Organisation Name.... LEGO Juris A/S</p></div></blockquote><p>Next question: <em>What are they going to use it for</em>?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The domain registrar for FreeLegoPorn.com , GoDaddy.com , eventually shut down the site and transferred the domain name to Lego under ICANN rules.WHOIS : confirms .
LEGO indeed now owns a domain advertising Lego Porn.Domain Name.......... freelegoporn.com     Creation Date........ 2008-10-13     Registration Date.... 2009-05-07     Expiry Date.......... 2011-10-14     Organisation Name.... LEGO Juris A/SNext question : What are they going to use it for ?
: P</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The domain registrar for FreeLegoPorn.com, GoDaddy.com, eventually shut down the site and transferred the domain name to Lego under ICANN rules.WHOIS:confirms.
LEGO indeed now owns a domain advertising Lego Porn.Domain Name.......... freelegoporn.com
    Creation Date........ 2008-10-13
    Registration Date.... 2009-05-07
    Expiry Date.......... 2011-10-14
    Organisation Name.... LEGO Juris A/SNext question: What are they going to use it for?
:P
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28489899</id>
	<title>suffering?</title>
	<author>jipn4</author>
	<datestamp>1246020840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unless Lego has gone into the porn business themselves (have they?), Lego is clearly in the wrong here; they had no right to shut down FreeLegoPorn.com  What they should be "suffering" from is a serious lawsuit for abuse of trademark law.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unless Lego has gone into the porn business themselves ( have they ?
) , Lego is clearly in the wrong here ; they had no right to shut down FreeLegoPorn.com What they should be " suffering " from is a serious lawsuit for abuse of trademark law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unless Lego has gone into the porn business themselves (have they?
), Lego is clearly in the wrong here; they had no right to shut down FreeLegoPorn.com  What they should be "suffering" from is a serious lawsuit for abuse of trademark law.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28489413</id>
	<title>Re:Evil cybersquatters</title>
	<author>Burpmaster</author>
	<datestamp>1246016940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They profit without contributing anything to society. They're parasites. Society does not like parasites.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They profit without contributing anything to society .
They 're parasites .
Society does not like parasites .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They profit without contributing anything to society.
They're parasites.
Society does not like parasites.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28488577</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28488151</id>
	<title>ICANN needs to be released of their duties</title>
	<author>binkzz</author>
	<datestamp>1246010160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Surely they are only doing this so they can make more money? Cybersquatters must be a huge source of revenue for them.<br> <br>

ICANN needs to be replaced with something more non-for-profit and preferably international, because they're just taking the piss.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Surely they are only doing this so they can make more money ?
Cybersquatters must be a huge source of revenue for them .
ICANN needs to be replaced with something more non-for-profit and preferably international , because they 're just taking the piss .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Surely they are only doing this so they can make more money?
Cybersquatters must be a huge source of revenue for them.
ICANN needs to be replaced with something more non-for-profit and preferably international, because they're just taking the piss.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28489795</id>
	<title>Re:Evil cybersquatters</title>
	<author>nadaou</author>
	<datestamp>1246019940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They are playing the role of the glazier in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics\_in\_one\_lesson" title="wikipedia.org">The Broken Window Fallacy</a> [wikipedia.org]. In this way they are economic leeches which cause a net harm to both the economy and society.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They are playing the role of the glazier in The Broken Window Fallacy [ wikipedia.org ] .
In this way they are economic leeches which cause a net harm to both the economy and society .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are playing the role of the glazier in The Broken Window Fallacy [wikipedia.org].
In this way they are economic leeches which cause a net harm to both the economy and society.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28488577</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28488005</id>
	<title>Re:The way it should be</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246009500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>using that logic a legitimate business wanting to grab up typos of their own brand are out of luck as well.</p><p>when these guys are buying domains for up to 6-8 figures each on the after market. even if it reached that level for a new registration it would make no difference.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>using that logic a legitimate business wanting to grab up typos of their own brand are out of luck as well.when these guys are buying domains for up to 6-8 figures each on the after market .
even if it reached that level for a new registration it would make no difference .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>using that logic a legitimate business wanting to grab up typos of their own brand are out of luck as well.when these guys are buying domains for up to 6-8 figures each on the after market.
even if it reached that level for a new registration it would make no difference.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28487857</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28491815</id>
	<title>suffering?</title>
	<author>plnix0</author>
	<datestamp>1246040160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <em>Suffering?</em> Lego and Verizon are the <em>oppressors</em>, as are any who claim "intellectual property rights" against innocent victims.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Suffering ?
Lego and Verizon are the oppressors , as are any who claim " intellectual property rights " against innocent victims .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Suffering?
Lego and Verizon are the oppressors, as are any who claim "intellectual property rights" against innocent victims.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28488393</id>
	<title>Domain Names Are So Ten Years Ago...</title>
	<author>thepainguy</author>
	<datestamp>1246011000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>IMO the idea of the domain name is so ten years ago. The explosion of TLDs makes it more so, as it's no longer possible to get true exclusivity on a term. In the age of Google and SEO, what matters is the number of inbound links, the naming of file names, and such. Not the domain name. I say this as someone who once made $10,000 by cyber-squatting on entegris.com back in the day (thank you Network Solutions and the ability to reserve a name 30 days before you paid for it or it just lapsed) .</htmltext>
<tokenext>IMO the idea of the domain name is so ten years ago .
The explosion of TLDs makes it more so , as it 's no longer possible to get true exclusivity on a term .
In the age of Google and SEO , what matters is the number of inbound links , the naming of file names , and such .
Not the domain name .
I say this as someone who once made $ 10,000 by cyber-squatting on entegris.com back in the day ( thank you Network Solutions and the ability to reserve a name 30 days before you paid for it or it just lapsed ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IMO the idea of the domain name is so ten years ago.
The explosion of TLDs makes it more so, as it's no longer possible to get true exclusivity on a term.
In the age of Google and SEO, what matters is the number of inbound links, the naming of file names, and such.
Not the domain name.
I say this as someone who once made $10,000 by cyber-squatting on entegris.com back in the day (thank you Network Solutions and the ability to reserve a name 30 days before you paid for it or it just lapsed) .</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28488143</id>
	<title>Re:The way it should be</title>
	<author>Red Flayer</author>
	<datestamp>1246010100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>.<blockquote><div><p>They should make it where the price of a domain <b>doubles</b> for each domain you have registered.<br> <br>

1. $35<br>
2. $70<br>
3. $105<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...etc.</p></div></blockquote><p>$70 * 2 = $105?  Maybe for extremely small values of $70<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)<br> <br>I think yoyu mean that the cost for <i>all your domains</i> doubles each time you add another domain.  This formula would be:<br> <br>Cost = $35*2^(n-1) where n = the number of domains registered.<br> <br>The problem with this is that legitimate companies' costs would skyrocket for no reason.  Consider a small US firm with three brands.  Just based on the company and the three brands, there are four domains in each of several TLDs they need to register.  At a bare minimum, they need to register the domains in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.com and in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.net.  So that's 8 domains, or $35*2^7, or $4480.<br> <br>Now consider that the same company likely needs to register another 16 or 24 domains (both defensively and to help ensure they get all the visitors trying to reach them).  The cost quickly gets astronomical.<br> <br>Now consider that if they have trademarked their brands.  Now they are required by law to defend against people using similar domains as possible competitors, or they lose their trademark.  Uh-oh.  Now, in addition to the $350/hr they pay to a law firm for trademark protection, they've got to pay tens or hundreds of thousands to protect their trademark.<br> <br>In short... nice idea, but it harms legitimate businesses to much.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>.They should make it where the price of a domain doubles for each domain you have registered .
1. $ 35 2 .
$ 70 3 .
$ 105 ...etc. $ 70 * 2 = $ 105 ?
Maybe for extremely small values of $ 70 : ) I think yoyu mean that the cost for all your domains doubles each time you add another domain .
This formula would be : Cost = $ 35 * 2 ^ ( n-1 ) where n = the number of domains registered .
The problem with this is that legitimate companies ' costs would skyrocket for no reason .
Consider a small US firm with three brands .
Just based on the company and the three brands , there are four domains in each of several TLDs they need to register .
At a bare minimum , they need to register the domains in .com and in .net .
So that 's 8 domains , or $ 35 * 2 ^ 7 , or $ 4480 .
Now consider that the same company likely needs to register another 16 or 24 domains ( both defensively and to help ensure they get all the visitors trying to reach them ) .
The cost quickly gets astronomical .
Now consider that if they have trademarked their brands .
Now they are required by law to defend against people using similar domains as possible competitors , or they lose their trademark .
Uh-oh. Now , in addition to the $ 350/hr they pay to a law firm for trademark protection , they 've got to pay tens or hundreds of thousands to protect their trademark .
In short... nice idea , but it harms legitimate businesses to much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>.They should make it where the price of a domain doubles for each domain you have registered.
1. $35
2.
$70
3.
$105 ...etc.$70 * 2 = $105?
Maybe for extremely small values of $70 :) I think yoyu mean that the cost for all your domains doubles each time you add another domain.
This formula would be: Cost = $35*2^(n-1) where n = the number of domains registered.
The problem with this is that legitimate companies' costs would skyrocket for no reason.
Consider a small US firm with three brands.
Just based on the company and the three brands, there are four domains in each of several TLDs they need to register.
At a bare minimum, they need to register the domains in .com and in .net.
So that's 8 domains, or $35*2^7, or $4480.
Now consider that the same company likely needs to register another 16 or 24 domains (both defensively and to help ensure they get all the visitors trying to reach them).
The cost quickly gets astronomical.
Now consider that if they have trademarked their brands.
Now they are required by law to defend against people using similar domains as possible competitors, or they lose their trademark.
Uh-oh.  Now, in addition to the $350/hr they pay to a law firm for trademark protection, they've got to pay tens or hundreds of thousands to protect their trademark.
In short... nice idea, but it harms legitimate businesses to much.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28487857</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28488577</id>
	<title>Evil cybersquatters</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246012020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I honestly don't quite get the beef everyone has with cybersquatters. At least not the point where their legs should broken, etc...<br>
Sure, they may not be making as good a use as you might, but why should that be the determination of who gets to take it away.<br>
Now, if it is a site that is fraudulent, I can understand that, but that is a different allegation then cybersquatting. I can also understand trademark infringement (to some extent) but this whole "my brand is x so anyone with an x in their domain name should belong to me" seems a little over the top.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I honestly do n't quite get the beef everyone has with cybersquatters .
At least not the point where their legs should broken , etc.. . Sure , they may not be making as good a use as you might , but why should that be the determination of who gets to take it away .
Now , if it is a site that is fraudulent , I can understand that , but that is a different allegation then cybersquatting .
I can also understand trademark infringement ( to some extent ) but this whole " my brand is x so anyone with an x in their domain name should belong to me " seems a little over the top .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I honestly don't quite get the beef everyone has with cybersquatters.
At least not the point where their legs should broken, etc...
Sure, they may not be making as good a use as you might, but why should that be the determination of who gets to take it away.
Now, if it is a site that is fraudulent, I can understand that, but that is a different allegation then cybersquatting.
I can also understand trademark infringement (to some extent) but this whole "my brand is x so anyone with an x in their domain name should belong to me" seems a little over the top.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28489767</id>
	<title>Re:IMHO</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246019760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.legogroupsucks.com/" title="legogroupsucks.com" rel="nofollow">Funny you should mention that...</a> [legogroupsucks.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Funny you should mention that... [ legogroupsucks.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Funny you should mention that... [legogroupsucks.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28487765</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28488297</id>
	<title>Re:The way it should be</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1246010640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Right, cause faking multiple users for that would be somehow harder than faking multiple users for every other service that has some retarded per-user limit that I use.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Right , cause faking multiple users for that would be somehow harder than faking multiple users for every other service that has some retarded per-user limit that I use .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right, cause faking multiple users for that would be somehow harder than faking multiple users for every other service that has some retarded per-user limit that I use.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28487857</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28488567</id>
	<title>Re:IMHO</title>
	<author>migla</author>
	<datestamp>1246011960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I do think "LEGO" should be allowed in any address, because "Free-You-know-what-plastic-figures-Porn" is silly.</p><p>But they won't stop you from dedicating a site to animations of LEGO figures humping, as long as you don't have "LEGO" in the adress, right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do think " LEGO " should be allowed in any address , because " Free-You-know-what-plastic-figures-Porn " is silly.But they wo n't stop you from dedicating a site to animations of LEGO figures humping , as long as you do n't have " LEGO " in the adress , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I do think "LEGO" should be allowed in any address, because "Free-You-know-what-plastic-figures-Porn" is silly.But they won't stop you from dedicating a site to animations of LEGO figures humping, as long as you don't have "LEGO" in the adress, right?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28487765</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28487831</id>
	<title>Down with Domain Resellers!</title>
	<author>Blixinator</author>
	<datestamp>1246008600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>"The domain registrar for FreeLegoPorn.com, GoDaddy.com, eventually shut down the site and transferred the domain name to Lego under ICANN rules."

So if a domain name uses a trademarked name in an 'offensive' manner, it's perfectly fine to strip ownership of the domain from the person who registered it and then give it to the company whose name was used?
-
Similar situation from 2003:
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/04/nyregion/04AMBE.html" title="nytimes.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/04/nyregion/04AMBE.html</a> [nytimes.com]

There are a few domain names I wanted that the damn domain name resellers beat me to, all I need to do is trademark a name that is a slight misspelling of the name and it's all mine!
-
Don't ruin my plan with your silly logic.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" The domain registrar for FreeLegoPorn.com , GoDaddy.com , eventually shut down the site and transferred the domain name to Lego under ICANN rules .
" So if a domain name uses a trademarked name in an 'offensive ' manner , it 's perfectly fine to strip ownership of the domain from the person who registered it and then give it to the company whose name was used ?
- Similar situation from 2003 : http : //www.nytimes.com/2003/09/04/nyregion/04AMBE.html [ nytimes.com ] There are a few domain names I wanted that the damn domain name resellers beat me to , all I need to do is trademark a name that is a slight misspelling of the name and it 's all mine !
- Do n't ruin my plan with your silly logic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The domain registrar for FreeLegoPorn.com, GoDaddy.com, eventually shut down the site and transferred the domain name to Lego under ICANN rules.
"

So if a domain name uses a trademarked name in an 'offensive' manner, it's perfectly fine to strip ownership of the domain from the person who registered it and then give it to the company whose name was used?
-
Similar situation from 2003:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/04/nyregion/04AMBE.html [nytimes.com]

There are a few domain names I wanted that the damn domain name resellers beat me to, all I need to do is trademark a name that is a slight misspelling of the name and it's all mine!
-
Don't ruin my plan with your silly logic.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28488625</id>
	<title>Re:New TLDs without regard to existing alt roots..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246012380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is why every single person here should try everything in their power to stop ICANN from doing such stupid things.<br>Opening up the TLD system is just going to cause havoc for everyone.</p><p>If only URLs were back-to-front, like it SHOULD have been.<br>What idiot decided it would be a good idea to have the current system?</p><p>It should have been protocol://continent.country.siteType.domain.sub-domain1.sub-domainN/directories<br>SiteType being organization, museum, TV, government, xxx (if only, it would help a lot if it was more regulated) etc.<br>Doesn't it just seem so much nicer this way?<br>Instead, we have the current mess which makes it so much easier to do something like http://myspace.com.iwillstealyourshit.com/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is why every single person here should try everything in their power to stop ICANN from doing such stupid things.Opening up the TLD system is just going to cause havoc for everyone.If only URLs were back-to-front , like it SHOULD have been.What idiot decided it would be a good idea to have the current system ? It should have been protocol : //continent.country.siteType.domain.sub-domain1.sub-domainN/directoriesSiteType being organization , museum , TV , government , xxx ( if only , it would help a lot if it was more regulated ) etc.Does n't it just seem so much nicer this way ? Instead , we have the current mess which makes it so much easier to do something like http : //myspace.com.iwillstealyourshit.com/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is why every single person here should try everything in their power to stop ICANN from doing such stupid things.Opening up the TLD system is just going to cause havoc for everyone.If only URLs were back-to-front, like it SHOULD have been.What idiot decided it would be a good idea to have the current system?It should have been protocol://continent.country.siteType.domain.sub-domain1.sub-domainN/directoriesSiteType being organization, museum, TV, government, xxx (if only, it would help a lot if it was more regulated) etc.Doesn't it just seem so much nicer this way?Instead, we have the current mess which makes it so much easier to do something like http://myspace.com.iwillstealyourshit.com/</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28488347</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28489793</id>
	<title>Re:freelegoporn.com is not cybersquatting</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246019880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> freelegoporn.com is not cybersquatting. It's parody</p></div><p>You are half right. It was not cybersquatting. But what is it parodying?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>freelegoporn.com is not cybersquatting .
It 's parodyYou are half right .
It was not cybersquatting .
But what is it parodying ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> freelegoporn.com is not cybersquatting.
It's parodyYou are half right.
It was not cybersquatting.
But what is it parodying?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28487757</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28490685</id>
	<title>Re:IMHO</title>
	<author>RLmitchell</author>
	<datestamp>1246028940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The blanked out image in the image gallery shows two Lego people engaged in a rear-guard action sex act.

If you owned a company that had spent decades building a reputation for quality children's toys would you sit idly by while someone appropriated the name for a site dedicated to using your building blocks to create pornographic images and stop-motion animation movies for people with a Lego fetish?</htmltext>
<tokenext>The blanked out image in the image gallery shows two Lego people engaged in a rear-guard action sex act .
If you owned a company that had spent decades building a reputation for quality children 's toys would you sit idly by while someone appropriated the name for a site dedicated to using your building blocks to create pornographic images and stop-motion animation movies for people with a Lego fetish ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The blanked out image in the image gallery shows two Lego people engaged in a rear-guard action sex act.
If you owned a company that had spent decades building a reputation for quality children's toys would you sit idly by while someone appropriated the name for a site dedicated to using your building blocks to create pornographic images and stop-motion animation movies for people with a Lego fetish?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28487765</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28490287</id>
	<title>Re:Citation Needed</title>
	<author>Jack9</author>
	<datestamp>1246024860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>PHP.COM</p><p>Back in the 90's ppl would hear about the language, see it was some other kind of site and would use perl or some other cgi language. Not sure how or why you would want to cite 2+2=4, as if that would give it more credibility.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>PHP.COMBack in the 90 's ppl would hear about the language , see it was some other kind of site and would use perl or some other cgi language .
Not sure how or why you would want to cite 2 + 2 = 4 , as if that would give it more credibility .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>PHP.COMBack in the 90's ppl would hear about the language, see it was some other kind of site and would use perl or some other cgi language.
Not sure how or why you would want to cite 2+2=4, as if that would give it more credibility.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28487963</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28490087</id>
	<title>Re:WIPO sucks ass crackers.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246022700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Epic fail.  Domain name arbitration is done through filing papers.  You don't have to show up anywhere because there is no hearing.  All you do is file paperwork.   Through the mail.  It would probably cost a few thousand at most to hire a lawyer to prepare the appropriate paperwork.</p><p><a href="http://www.icann.org/en/dndr/udrp/policy.htm" title="icann.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.icann.org/en/dndr/udrp/policy.htm</a> [icann.org]</p><p>And if you think arbitration is expensive, you should try litigation.  There's no comparison, really.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Epic fail .
Domain name arbitration is done through filing papers .
You do n't have to show up anywhere because there is no hearing .
All you do is file paperwork .
Through the mail .
It would probably cost a few thousand at most to hire a lawyer to prepare the appropriate paperwork.http : //www.icann.org/en/dndr/udrp/policy.htm [ icann.org ] And if you think arbitration is expensive , you should try litigation .
There 's no comparison , really .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Epic fail.
Domain name arbitration is done through filing papers.
You don't have to show up anywhere because there is no hearing.
All you do is file paperwork.
Through the mail.
It would probably cost a few thousand at most to hire a lawyer to prepare the appropriate paperwork.http://www.icann.org/en/dndr/udrp/policy.htm [icann.org]And if you think arbitration is expensive, you should try litigation.
There's no comparison, really.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28487893</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28491057</id>
	<title>Cybersquatting won't even seem like an issue...</title>
	<author>damn\_registrars</author>
	<datestamp>1246033380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>... after the new TLDs are sold and name resolution turns to arbitrary mish-mash.  Add to that the fantastic new spamming opportunities and just wait to see what a fantastic clusterfuck ICANN is about to unleash upon us.  Why on earth we aren't storming the compound with torches and picks I don't know; once this goes down there is <b>no undoing the damage</b>.</htmltext>
<tokenext>... after the new TLDs are sold and name resolution turns to arbitrary mish-mash .
Add to that the fantastic new spamming opportunities and just wait to see what a fantastic clusterfuck ICANN is about to unleash upon us .
Why on earth we are n't storming the compound with torches and picks I do n't know ; once this goes down there is no undoing the damage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... after the new TLDs are sold and name resolution turns to arbitrary mish-mash.
Add to that the fantastic new spamming opportunities and just wait to see what a fantastic clusterfuck ICANN is about to unleash upon us.
Why on earth we aren't storming the compound with torches and picks I don't know; once this goes down there is no undoing the damage.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28490803</id>
	<title>MarkMonitor</title>
	<author>rs79</author>
	<datestamp>1246030140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>MarkMonitor should elicit the same kind of response in your brain as "Media Sentry".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>MarkMonitor should elicit the same kind of response in your brain as " Media Sentry " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MarkMonitor should elicit the same kind of response in your brain as "Media Sentry".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28488773</id>
	<title>Re:IMHO</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246013220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Haha remember when it was expertsexchange.com? (now it's experts-exchange.com)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Haha remember when it was expertsexchange.com ?
( now it 's experts-exchange.com )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Haha remember when it was expertsexchange.com?
(now it's experts-exchange.com)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28487871</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28489303</id>
	<title>Re:IMHO</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246016280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A problem with the name "FreeLegoPorn" is that it isn't immediately clear whether the content is provided by Lego. I know I wouldn't want my company name to have an implied relationship with pornography (unless I had a porn company).</htmltext>
<tokenext>A problem with the name " FreeLegoPorn " is that it is n't immediately clear whether the content is provided by Lego .
I know I would n't want my company name to have an implied relationship with pornography ( unless I had a porn company ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A problem with the name "FreeLegoPorn" is that it isn't immediately clear whether the content is provided by Lego.
I know I wouldn't want my company name to have an implied relationship with pornography (unless I had a porn company).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28487765</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28487765</id>
	<title>IMHO</title>
	<author>Jaysyn</author>
	<datestamp>1246008300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It sounds like LEGO are being IP bullies.  If they can do that to FreeLegoPorn.com, they can probably do it to LEGOSucks.com.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It sounds like LEGO are being IP bullies .
If they can do that to FreeLegoPorn.com , they can probably do it to LEGOSucks.com .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It sounds like LEGO are being IP bullies.
If they can do that to FreeLegoPorn.com, they can probably do it to LEGOSucks.com.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28488347</id>
	<title>New TLDs without regard to existing alt roots...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246010820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Now, ICANN is preparing to open a potentially unlimited number of new top-level domains as early as the first quarter of 2010.</i></p><p>Well, this should prove interesting, since the alt root I'm associated with (<a href="http://www.opennicproject.org/" title="opennicproject.org">OpenNIC</a> [opennicproject.org]) hasn't received notification from ICANN as to how colliding TLDs will be handled. And I don't know of any other alternate roots that have been contacted either.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now , ICANN is preparing to open a potentially unlimited number of new top-level domains as early as the first quarter of 2010.Well , this should prove interesting , since the alt root I 'm associated with ( OpenNIC [ opennicproject.org ] ) has n't received notification from ICANN as to how colliding TLDs will be handled .
And I do n't know of any other alternate roots that have been contacted either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now, ICANN is preparing to open a potentially unlimited number of new top-level domains as early as the first quarter of 2010.Well, this should prove interesting, since the alt root I'm associated with (OpenNIC [opennicproject.org]) hasn't received notification from ICANN as to how colliding TLDs will be handled.
And I don't know of any other alternate roots that have been contacted either.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28488517</id>
	<title>/. of archives in 3 ... 2...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246011600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can just see the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. effect on all the cache &amp; archive servers as everyone tried to hit them to see the lost content.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can just see the / .
effect on all the cache &amp; archive servers as everyone tried to hit them to see the lost content .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can just see the /.
effect on all the cache &amp; archive servers as everyone tried to hit them to see the lost content.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28488269</id>
	<title>I missed out on FreeLegoPorn?!?!</title>
	<author>erroneus</author>
	<datestamp>1246010520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Crap!  Why didn't someone tell me!?  Is this site now operating under a different name?  I expect this is a very funny thing to see.  Is there a mirror or cache or wayback or anything of this site?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Crap !
Why did n't someone tell me ! ?
Is this site now operating under a different name ?
I expect this is a very funny thing to see .
Is there a mirror or cache or wayback or anything of this site ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Crap!
Why didn't someone tell me!?
Is this site now operating under a different name?
I expect this is a very funny thing to see.
Is there a mirror or cache or wayback or anything of this site?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28490197</id>
	<title>quibble about a non-issue</title>
	<author>that this is not und</author>
	<datestamp>1246023840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><em>Green energy is a hot topic, so cybersquatters have been targeting wind and solar energy start-ups. And malicious sites can create havoc with a brand's reputation.</em></p><p>Startups, by definition, don't have a brand, or a reputation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Green energy is a hot topic , so cybersquatters have been targeting wind and solar energy start-ups .
And malicious sites can create havoc with a brand 's reputation.Startups , by definition , do n't have a brand , or a reputation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Green energy is a hot topic, so cybersquatters have been targeting wind and solar energy start-ups.
And malicious sites can create havoc with a brand's reputation.Startups, by definition, don't have a brand, or a reputation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28487871</id>
	<title>Re:IMHO</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246008840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>penismightier.com? Who will think of the pen companies?<br>analbumcover.com? Who will think of the RIAA?<br>therapists.com? Who will think if the US Therapy association?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>penismightier.com ?
Who will think of the pen companies ? analbumcover.com ?
Who will think of the RIAA ? therapists.com ?
Who will think if the US Therapy association ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>penismightier.com?
Who will think of the pen companies?analbumcover.com?
Who will think of the RIAA?therapists.com?
Who will think if the US Therapy association?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28487765</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28489351</id>
	<title>Lego is the cybersquatter here.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246016580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cybersquatters are people/companies who grab domain names and then fail to use them for legitimate sites that match the domain name.  If the Lego corporation grabs freelegoporn.com and fails to use it to host free Lego porn, then the Lego corporation is guilty of cybersquatting.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cybersquatters are people/companies who grab domain names and then fail to use them for legitimate sites that match the domain name .
If the Lego corporation grabs freelegoporn.com and fails to use it to host free Lego porn , then the Lego corporation is guilty of cybersquatting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cybersquatters are people/companies who grab domain names and then fail to use them for legitimate sites that match the domain name.
If the Lego corporation grabs freelegoporn.com and fails to use it to host free Lego porn, then the Lego corporation is guilty of cybersquatting.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28489265</id>
	<title>Re:IMHO</title>
	<author>againjj</author>
	<datestamp>1246016040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Duh.  And the other two are the same way (explicitly listing them, as you seem to have missed the point):<br>
an-album-cover =&gt; anal-bum-cover<br>
therapists =&gt; the-rapists</htmltext>
<tokenext>Duh .
And the other two are the same way ( explicitly listing them , as you seem to have missed the point ) : an-album-cover = &gt; anal-bum-cover therapists = &gt; the-rapists</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Duh.
And the other two are the same way (explicitly listing them, as you seem to have missed the point):
an-album-cover =&gt; anal-bum-cover
therapists =&gt; the-rapists</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28488503</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28487735</id>
	<title>First post squat.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246008240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First post squat.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First post squat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First post squat.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28488185</id>
	<title>Re:freelegoporn.com is not cybersquatting</title>
	<author>Crash Culligan</author>
	<datestamp>1246010220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <b>Delusion\_</b>: freelegoporn.com is not cybersquatting.  It's parody.  The difference is crucial.</p><p>Just because a rights-holder says otherwise doesn't make it so.</p></div> </blockquote><p>Seconded. In fact, I remember another case where the court&mdash;<em>wrongly</em>&mdash;grabbed a domain name simply because of its resemblance to another site: <a href="http://www.etoy.com/" title="etoy.com">etoy.com</a> [etoy.com] vs. <a href="http://www.etoys.com/" title="etoys.com">etoys.com</a> [etoys.com]. etoy came first, but somehow eToys managed to suck up to a judge and lay claim to etoy.com, however temporarily. It may have had something to do with the fact that eToys thought it had a trademark for a vibrant, useful <em>commerce</em> site while that Johnny-come-earlier was pushing that wishy-washy pinko <em>art</em>.</p><p>This is the sort of thing the judiciary has to consider carefully when looking at a case where domain names rub a little too close together. And with the press continuing for domain names, the situation will only get worse.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Delusion \ _ : freelegoporn.com is not cybersquatting .
It 's parody .
The difference is crucial.Just because a rights-holder says otherwise does n't make it so .
Seconded. In fact , I remember another case where the court    wrongly    grabbed a domain name simply because of its resemblance to another site : etoy.com [ etoy.com ] vs. etoys.com [ etoys.com ] .
etoy came first , but somehow eToys managed to suck up to a judge and lay claim to etoy.com , however temporarily .
It may have had something to do with the fact that eToys thought it had a trademark for a vibrant , useful commerce site while that Johnny-come-earlier was pushing that wishy-washy pinko art.This is the sort of thing the judiciary has to consider carefully when looking at a case where domain names rub a little too close together .
And with the press continuing for domain names , the situation will only get worse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Delusion\_: freelegoporn.com is not cybersquatting.
It's parody.
The difference is crucial.Just because a rights-holder says otherwise doesn't make it so.
Seconded. In fact, I remember another case where the court—wrongly—grabbed a domain name simply because of its resemblance to another site: etoy.com [etoy.com] vs. etoys.com [etoys.com].
etoy came first, but somehow eToys managed to suck up to a judge and lay claim to etoy.com, however temporarily.
It may have had something to do with the fact that eToys thought it had a trademark for a vibrant, useful commerce site while that Johnny-come-earlier was pushing that wishy-washy pinko art.This is the sort of thing the judiciary has to consider carefully when looking at a case where domain names rub a little too close together.
And with the press continuing for domain names, the situation will only get worse.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28487757</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28488319</id>
	<title>ep0!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246010700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">a fact: FreeBSD too many rules and has ground to a consiDer that right</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>a fact : FreeBSD too many rules and has ground to a consiDer that right [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>a fact: FreeBSD too many rules and has ground to a consiDer that right [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28488001</id>
	<title>Re:The way it should be</title>
	<author>Blixinator</author>
	<datestamp>1246009440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>But would they really want to get rid of what I would imagine to be one of their biggest sources of revenue?

Just using the numbers and the method you provided as an example[ $(35((n^2+n)/2))) for n domain names], someone would have to buy 44-45 domain names to bring in the revenue that one squater would bring in for buying 1,000 domain names at $35 each</htmltext>
<tokenext>But would they really want to get rid of what I would imagine to be one of their biggest sources of revenue ?
Just using the numbers and the method you provided as an example [ $ ( 35 ( ( n ^ 2 + n ) /2 ) ) ) for n domain names ] , someone would have to buy 44-45 domain names to bring in the revenue that one squater would bring in for buying 1,000 domain names at $ 35 each</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But would they really want to get rid of what I would imagine to be one of their biggest sources of revenue?
Just using the numbers and the method you provided as an example[ $(35((n^2+n)/2))) for n domain names], someone would have to buy 44-45 domain names to bring in the revenue that one squater would bring in for buying 1,000 domain names at $35 each</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28487857</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28489017</id>
	<title>Re:The way it should be</title>
	<author>basementman</author>
	<datestamp>1246014360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah because it's totally impossible for people to fake their whois information. ICANN is shitty enough already, we don't need to make it worse.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah because it 's totally impossible for people to fake their whois information .
ICANN is shitty enough already , we do n't need to make it worse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah because it's totally impossible for people to fake their whois information.
ICANN is shitty enough already, we don't need to make it worse.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28487857</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28488187</id>
	<title>Re:freelegoporn.com is not cybersquatting</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246010280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>you said it before i could =(</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>you said it before i could = (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you said it before i could =(</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28487757</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28488085</id>
	<title>Re:Down with Domain Resellers!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246009860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You're not the first person to notice that the domain name system is under the control of an organisation that puts "intellectual property" rights above everything else. That's a situation that most people on Slashdot would normally be wary of. But proposals to put the control of the system under a more representative governance - for example, to hand it over to a representative international organization - are represented as attempts by the evil United Nations to "take over the internet".</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're not the first person to notice that the domain name system is under the control of an organisation that puts " intellectual property " rights above everything else .
That 's a situation that most people on Slashdot would normally be wary of .
But proposals to put the control of the system under a more representative governance - for example , to hand it over to a representative international organization - are represented as attempts by the evil United Nations to " take over the internet " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're not the first person to notice that the domain name system is under the control of an organisation that puts "intellectual property" rights above everything else.
That's a situation that most people on Slashdot would normally be wary of.
But proposals to put the control of the system under a more representative governance - for example, to hand it over to a representative international organization - are represented as attempts by the evil United Nations to "take over the internet".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28487831</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28503417</id>
	<title>the "World Intellectual Property Organization"</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1246201080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>the World Intellectual Property Organization, which ruled in its favor</p></div><p>No shit? Who would have thought, that an organization, who names itself after something that does not exist, is 100\% biased? ^^</p><p>On the other hand: Who are they, and how can they "rule" anything? Sure, they can all sit down, play important, and sing a scrap of paper. So what?</p><p>My answer would be, what the composer Brahms responded to a review of his latest symphony: "Dear sir: I am seated in the smallest room in my house. I have your review in front of me, and very soon it will be behind me."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the World Intellectual Property Organization , which ruled in its favorNo shit ?
Who would have thought , that an organization , who names itself after something that does not exist , is 100 \ % biased ?
^ ^ On the other hand : Who are they , and how can they " rule " anything ?
Sure , they can all sit down , play important , and sing a scrap of paper .
So what ? My answer would be , what the composer Brahms responded to a review of his latest symphony : " Dear sir : I am seated in the smallest room in my house .
I have your review in front of me , and very soon it will be behind me .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the World Intellectual Property Organization, which ruled in its favorNo shit?
Who would have thought, that an organization, who names itself after something that does not exist, is 100\% biased?
^^On the other hand: Who are they, and how can they "rule" anything?
Sure, they can all sit down, play important, and sing a scrap of paper.
So what?My answer would be, what the composer Brahms responded to a review of his latest symphony: "Dear sir: I am seated in the smallest room in my house.
I have your review in front of me, and very soon it will be behind me.
"
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28488907</id>
	<title>Re:WIPO sucks ass crackers.</title>
	<author>ACMENEWSLLC</author>
	<datestamp>1246013880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I went through WIPO arbitration.  Someone wanted to take one of my domains away from me.   I replied with a proper reply and ended up keeping my domain.</p><p>The arbitration goes to an individual or multiple individuals.  It really depends on the individual you get.   Looking through prior arbitration, I saw how mine could have gone either way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I went through WIPO arbitration .
Someone wanted to take one of my domains away from me .
I replied with a proper reply and ended up keeping my domain.The arbitration goes to an individual or multiple individuals .
It really depends on the individual you get .
Looking through prior arbitration , I saw how mine could have gone either way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I went through WIPO arbitration.
Someone wanted to take one of my domains away from me.
I replied with a proper reply and ended up keeping my domain.The arbitration goes to an individual or multiple individuals.
It really depends on the individual you get.
Looking through prior arbitration, I saw how mine could have gone either way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28487893</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28487893</id>
	<title>WIPO sucks ass crackers.</title>
	<author>Kenja</author>
	<datestamp>1246008900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Cant afford to send a legal team to Sweden? Then you lose. Company I work for had their domain (and thus their company name) taken away, not because it was being misused or anything like that, but because we couldn't afford to go defend ourselves.

Now if you go to the domain there's just a diatribe against us full of false claims and BS.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Cant afford to send a legal team to Sweden ?
Then you lose .
Company I work for had their domain ( and thus their company name ) taken away , not because it was being misused or anything like that , but because we could n't afford to go defend ourselves .
Now if you go to the domain there 's just a diatribe against us full of false claims and BS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cant afford to send a legal team to Sweden?
Then you lose.
Company I work for had their domain (and thus their company name) taken away, not because it was being misused or anything like that, but because we couldn't afford to go defend ourselves.
Now if you go to the domain there's just a diatribe against us full of false claims and BS.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28488229</id>
	<title>Re:The way it should be</title>
	<author>Minwee</author>
	<datestamp>1246010400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, it's a good thing there are 10,000 other domain squatters with very similar names all sharing the same PO box with me.  This way we can each just buy one for the lowest price.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , it 's a good thing there are 10,000 other domain squatters with very similar names all sharing the same PO box with me .
This way we can each just buy one for the lowest price .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, it's a good thing there are 10,000 other domain squatters with very similar names all sharing the same PO box with me.
This way we can each just buy one for the lowest price.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28487857</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28487905</id>
	<title>North Korea prepares to wipe out Hawaii +1, Fake</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246008960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>as reported by <a href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=105928945" title="npr.org" rel="nofollow">National  Propaganda Radio</a> [npr.org] and Slashdot reports on cybersquatters.</p><p>NPR has dramatically increased its coverage of Generation Z music and drastically reduced its coverage of real news.   Of course, the U.S.A. has collapsed so any real news is very scarce.</p><p>Have a Kim-Jong iL-fun-filled weekend.</p><p>Yours In Socialism,<br>K. Trout</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>as reported by National Propaganda Radio [ npr.org ] and Slashdot reports on cybersquatters.NPR has dramatically increased its coverage of Generation Z music and drastically reduced its coverage of real news .
Of course , the U.S.A. has collapsed so any real news is very scarce.Have a Kim-Jong iL-fun-filled weekend.Yours In Socialism,K .
Trout</tokentext>
<sentencetext>as reported by National  Propaganda Radio [npr.org] and Slashdot reports on cybersquatters.NPR has dramatically increased its coverage of Generation Z music and drastically reduced its coverage of real news.
Of course, the U.S.A. has collapsed so any real news is very scarce.Have a Kim-Jong iL-fun-filled weekend.Yours In Socialism,K.
Trout</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28487757</id>
	<title>freelegoporn.com is not cybersquatting</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246008300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>freelegoporn.com is not cybersquatting.  It's parody.  The difference is crucial.</p><p>Just because a rights-holder says otherwise doesn't make it so.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>freelegoporn.com is not cybersquatting .
It 's parody .
The difference is crucial.Just because a rights-holder says otherwise does n't make it so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>freelegoporn.com is not cybersquatting.
It's parody.
The difference is crucial.Just because a rights-holder says otherwise doesn't make it so.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28489849</id>
	<title>Re:The way it should be</title>
	<author>harlows\_monkeys</author>
	<datestamp>1246020360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Pick the right state, and you can incorporate for around $25, so it would be $35 for the first domain in your name, then $60 per subsequent domain ($35 for the domain, $25 for a corporation to register it).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Pick the right state , and you can incorporate for around $ 25 , so it would be $ 35 for the first domain in your name , then $ 60 per subsequent domain ( $ 35 for the domain , $ 25 for a corporation to register it ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pick the right state, and you can incorporate for around $25, so it would be $35 for the first domain in your name, then $60 per subsequent domain ($35 for the domain, $25 for a corporation to register it).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28487857</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28499945</id>
	<title>Re:freelegoporn.com is not cybersquatting</title>
	<author>hords</author>
	<datestamp>1246114980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Years ago, a friend and I used to own sandels.com and we were selling shoes on it. Sandals Resorts filed a complaint on WIPO and ended up taking the domain from us. They must have let it go, because now some cybersquatter is using the domain to advertise travel, cruises, etc. Seems silly to spend so much money to get the domain, only to let it go again.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Years ago , a friend and I used to own sandels.com and we were selling shoes on it .
Sandals Resorts filed a complaint on WIPO and ended up taking the domain from us .
They must have let it go , because now some cybersquatter is using the domain to advertise travel , cruises , etc .
Seems silly to spend so much money to get the domain , only to let it go again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Years ago, a friend and I used to own sandels.com and we were selling shoes on it.
Sandals Resorts filed a complaint on WIPO and ended up taking the domain from us.
They must have let it go, because now some cybersquatter is using the domain to advertise travel, cruises, etc.
Seems silly to spend so much money to get the domain, only to let it go again.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28488185</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28489039</id>
	<title>Re:IMHO</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246014540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://the-op.com/media/image2.php?ep=303&amp;i=8855&amp;cat=6200" title="the-op.com" rel="nofollow">analrapists</a> [the-op.com].com? Who will think of analyst-therapists, such as Tobias?</htmltext>
<tokenext>analrapists [ the-op.com ] .com ?
Who will think of analyst-therapists , such as Tobias ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>analrapists [the-op.com].com?
Who will think of analyst-therapists, such as Tobias?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28487871</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28488317</id>
	<title>Re:Citation Needed</title>
	<author>Darkness404</author>
	<datestamp>1246010700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually, if I remember correctly there was a misspelling of Google that used to direct you to a site full of adware and other forms of malware. Not sure how much it really hurt Google but I imagine it was a pain for many users at that time.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , if I remember correctly there was a misspelling of Google that used to direct you to a site full of adware and other forms of malware .
Not sure how much it really hurt Google but I imagine it was a pain for many users at that time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, if I remember correctly there was a misspelling of Google that used to direct you to a site full of adware and other forms of malware.
Not sure how much it really hurt Google but I imagine it was a pain for many users at that time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28487963</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28492249</id>
	<title>Re:Down with Domain Resellers!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246044420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But proposals to put the control of the system under a more representative governance - for example, to hand it over to a representative international organization - are represented as attempts by the evil United Nations to "take over the internet".</p></div><p>Until a few months ago it was my opinion that internet governance hat to be done by an international organisation. However in the last few months, my government (Germany) has done so much to damage the internet (censorship, block infrastructure, politicians demand youth protection blocks for games/sites/etc.) that I am now convinced that this would be even worse. Too many countries' politicians are old and afraid of the internet. All they want to do is censor, restrict and block. We're doomed either way.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But proposals to put the control of the system under a more representative governance - for example , to hand it over to a representative international organization - are represented as attempts by the evil United Nations to " take over the internet " .Until a few months ago it was my opinion that internet governance hat to be done by an international organisation .
However in the last few months , my government ( Germany ) has done so much to damage the internet ( censorship , block infrastructure , politicians demand youth protection blocks for games/sites/etc .
) that I am now convinced that this would be even worse .
Too many countries ' politicians are old and afraid of the internet .
All they want to do is censor , restrict and block .
We 're doomed either way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But proposals to put the control of the system under a more representative governance - for example, to hand it over to a representative international organization - are represented as attempts by the evil United Nations to "take over the internet".Until a few months ago it was my opinion that internet governance hat to be done by an international organisation.
However in the last few months, my government (Germany) has done so much to damage the internet (censorship, block infrastructure, politicians demand youth protection blocks for games/sites/etc.
) that I am now convinced that this would be even worse.
Too many countries' politicians are old and afraid of the internet.
All they want to do is censor, restrict and block.
We're doomed either way.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28488085</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28489015</id>
	<title>Should isn't Could - Re:The way it should be</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246014360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I like it.  But they'll just use shell companies or a list of fake domain "owners".</p><p>A big part of the problem is laziness - users seem to only remember the DNS part of the URL and treat the path name as forgettable.  The web works fine even if your site is a subdirectory of a domain or a sub-domain (though there are specific technical differences).  If more sites were content to exist in directories of a domain, it might even reduce DNS traffic on the web!!!</p><p>Another solution would be to require DNS registrants to link to legal trademark granted by their country, as in "www.trademark.countrycode".  This has its own problems.  One is that people equate domain registration with free speech, which again points to people's desire to have their "own" site (meaning their own DNS name) not understanding that it makes almost ZERO difference whether your site is in a subfolder or a seperate domain name.  It's just another entry in the multi-homed apache config file to equate each of those domain to a path on the web server.  A URL that's just a domain like www.skateboardcity.com just looks cleaner than us.angelfire.com/~bbart/skateboardcity/welcome.html</p><p>This desirability causes domain registration become a kind of security, like stocks or bonds, used for speculation instead of their real purpose: the worldwide dissemination of amusing kitten photos.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I like it .
But they 'll just use shell companies or a list of fake domain " owners " .A big part of the problem is laziness - users seem to only remember the DNS part of the URL and treat the path name as forgettable .
The web works fine even if your site is a subdirectory of a domain or a sub-domain ( though there are specific technical differences ) .
If more sites were content to exist in directories of a domain , it might even reduce DNS traffic on the web ! !
! Another solution would be to require DNS registrants to link to legal trademark granted by their country , as in " www.trademark.countrycode " .
This has its own problems .
One is that people equate domain registration with free speech , which again points to people 's desire to have their " own " site ( meaning their own DNS name ) not understanding that it makes almost ZERO difference whether your site is in a subfolder or a seperate domain name .
It 's just another entry in the multi-homed apache config file to equate each of those domain to a path on the web server .
A URL that 's just a domain like www.skateboardcity.com just looks cleaner than us.angelfire.com/ ~ bbart/skateboardcity/welcome.htmlThis desirability causes domain registration become a kind of security , like stocks or bonds , used for speculation instead of their real purpose : the worldwide dissemination of amusing kitten photos .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like it.
But they'll just use shell companies or a list of fake domain "owners".A big part of the problem is laziness - users seem to only remember the DNS part of the URL and treat the path name as forgettable.
The web works fine even if your site is a subdirectory of a domain or a sub-domain (though there are specific technical differences).
If more sites were content to exist in directories of a domain, it might even reduce DNS traffic on the web!!
!Another solution would be to require DNS registrants to link to legal trademark granted by their country, as in "www.trademark.countrycode".
This has its own problems.
One is that people equate domain registration with free speech, which again points to people's desire to have their "own" site (meaning their own DNS name) not understanding that it makes almost ZERO difference whether your site is in a subfolder or a seperate domain name.
It's just another entry in the multi-homed apache config file to equate each of those domain to a path on the web server.
A URL that's just a domain like www.skateboardcity.com just looks cleaner than us.angelfire.com/~bbart/skateboardcity/welcome.htmlThis desirability causes domain registration become a kind of security, like stocks or bonds, used for speculation instead of their real purpose: the worldwide dissemination of amusing kitten photos.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28487857</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28488149</id>
	<title>Re:Citation Needed</title>
	<author>GargamelSpaceman</author>
	<datestamp>1246010160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>+1 Insightful.</htmltext>
<tokenext>+ 1 Insightful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>+1 Insightful.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28487963</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28487751</id>
	<title>Now what's next?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246008240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Green energy is a hot topic.</p></div><p> So, are we going to start seeing greenporn.com?<br>windpowerporn?<br>solarporn?<br>solarandwindporn?<br>How about epaporn?<br>electric-car-porn?<br>porn-in-a-electric-car.com?<br>icemeltingporn?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Green energy is a hot topic .
So , are we going to start seeing greenporn.com ? windpowerporn ? solarporn ? solarandwindporn ? How about epaporn ? electric-car-porn ? porn-in-a-electric-car.com ? icemeltingporn ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Green energy is a hot topic.
So, are we going to start seeing greenporn.com?windpowerporn?solarporn?solarandwindporn?How about epaporn?electric-car-porn?porn-in-a-electric-car.com?icemeltingporn?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28488913</id>
	<title>Oh please</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1246013940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>people see a market and grabbed up something they believed would be of value later. Big deal.</p><p>And ICANN shutting down that brick based porn cite is a shame. Completly outside the point of trademark and copyright. It was a blow to free speech.</p><p>I bunch of companies whining that they didn't have the foresight to get a domain and they get to just shut people down for the sole reason that they are a big company.</p><p>It's a shame.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>people see a market and grabbed up something they believed would be of value later .
Big deal.And ICANN shutting down that brick based porn cite is a shame .
Completly outside the point of trademark and copyright .
It was a blow to free speech.I bunch of companies whining that they did n't have the foresight to get a domain and they get to just shut people down for the sole reason that they are a big company.It 's a shame .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>people see a market and grabbed up something they believed would be of value later.
Big deal.And ICANN shutting down that brick based porn cite is a shame.
Completly outside the point of trademark and copyright.
It was a blow to free speech.I bunch of companies whining that they didn't have the foresight to get a domain and they get to just shut people down for the sole reason that they are a big company.It's a shame.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28487963</id>
	<title>Citation Needed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246009260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"And malicious sites can create havoc with a brand's reputation."</p><p>Apparently, proving this statement is left as an exercise for the reader.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" And malicious sites can create havoc with a brand 's reputation .
" Apparently , proving this statement is left as an exercise for the reader .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"And malicious sites can create havoc with a brand's reputation.
"Apparently, proving this statement is left as an exercise for the reader.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28488503</id>
	<title>Re:IMHO</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246011480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you read the first one as a five letter word + eight letter word, it has nothing to do with pens.</p><p>A bit like the Italian division of a company called Powergen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you read the first one as a five letter word + eight letter word , it has nothing to do with pens.A bit like the Italian division of a company called Powergen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you read the first one as a five letter word + eight letter word, it has nothing to do with pens.A bit like the Italian division of a company called Powergen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28487871</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1757252_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28489017
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28487857
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1757252_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28497489
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28487757
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1757252_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28490287
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28487963
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1757252_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28488187
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28487757
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1757252_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28488005
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28487857
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1757252_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28503501
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28487871
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28487765
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1757252_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28488287
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28487871
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28487765
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1757252_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28499945
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28488185
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28487757
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1757252_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28488229
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28487857
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1757252_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28488583
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28487857
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1757252_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28488149
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28487963
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1757252_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28490867
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28488577
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1757252_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28503525
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28487893
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1757252_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28488749
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28488503
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28487871
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28487765
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1757252_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28490641
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28487757
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1757252_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28488567
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28487765
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1757252_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28489049
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28488503
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28487871
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28487765
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1757252_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28488143
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28487857
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1757252_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28489265
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28488503
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28487871
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28487765
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1757252_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28492249
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28488085
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28487831
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1757252_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28488317
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28487963
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1757252_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28489795
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28488577
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1757252_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28489303
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28487765
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1757252_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28489413
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28488577
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1757252_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28488001
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28487857
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1757252_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28488413
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28487757
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1757252_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28489767
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28487765
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1757252_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28487875
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28487757
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1757252_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28488625
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28488347
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1757252_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28489039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28487871
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28487765
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1757252_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28488907
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28487893
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1757252_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28489849
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28487857
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1757252_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28493469
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28488577
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1757252_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28488297
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28487857
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1757252_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28489015
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28487857
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1757252_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28488285
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28487857
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1757252_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28488255
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28487857
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1757252_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28489269
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28488577
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1757252_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28488773
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28487871
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28487765
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1757252_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28488665
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28487857
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1757252_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28490087
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28487893
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1757252_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28488109
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28487857
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1757252_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28489793
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28487757
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1757252_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28495615
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28490685
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28487765
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_1757252.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28487751
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_1757252.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28487963
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28488149
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28488317
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28490287
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_1757252.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28487757
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28489793
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28490641
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28497489
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28488185
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28499945
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28488187
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28487875
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28488413
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_1757252.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28488269
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_1757252.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28487857
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28488297
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28488583
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28488109
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28488229
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28488255
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28488285
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28489849
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28488143
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28488005
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28489017
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28488665
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28488001
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28489015
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_1757252.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28487893
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28490087
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28488907
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28503525
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_1757252.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28487765
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28487871
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28488503
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28488749
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28489049
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28489265
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28488773
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28489039
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28488287
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28503501
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28489767
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28488567
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28490685
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28495615
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28489303
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_1757252.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28488151
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_1757252.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28489465
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_1757252.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28487831
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28488085
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28492249
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_1757252.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28488033
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_1757252.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28488347
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28488625
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_1757252.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28488577
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28490867
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28489795
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28489413
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28493469
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28489269
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_1757252.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28488423
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_1757252.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28488045
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_1757252.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1757252.28487947
</commentlist>
</conversation>
