How Many Domain Names Should You Protect?

Right-wing lobbyist group the Australian Christian Lobby (ACL) undoubtedly isn't thrilled that the domain name australianchristianlobby.org has been registered by Australian Cat Ladies, a group which shares the same initials but vocally supports marriage equality, a cause the Christian ACL has repeatedly argued against. I'm very willing to enjoy any embarrassment heaped on the narrow-minded bigots at the Christian ACL, but the situation doesn't demonstrate that all organisations need to register every possible URL associated with their cause.

Advising businesses to register URL variations of their name is a commonplace, often couched in terms of trademark protection. However, it's not a cost-free business. While .org and .com domain names are relatively cheap, the same isn't true of country domains.

The value of multiple domains is questionable in a world where the most common search terms include common sites. For many people, the domain name simply isn't something that registers. In that scenario, registering minor variants seems like a pointless waste of time.

A news report on the Australian Cat Ladies site describes the genesis of the site:

The writers, calling themselves the Australian Cat Ladies, pounced on the domain name AustralianChristianLobby.org when the ACL, which only uses acl.org.au, failed to buy the domain.

Saying the Christian ACL "failed to buy the domain" feels like a stretch to me. The group might equally have decided it didn't want any domains that didn't end with .au. With that said, should it decide to contest the registration of the .org site, I don't think it will have much ground: despite the name, the site doesn't attempt to pass itself off as the Christian ACL in any way, and there are many other global organisations with the same initials.

WATCH MORE: Tech News

Comments

    We all have different opinions. Some advocate bestiality, whilst others do not. Some are for polygamy, whilst others are not. Some are for inter-generational love, whilst others are not. If we adopt your logic mentioned in this article, then those in the not category for the examples that I provided are also narrow-minded bigots. In fact, without an objective moral standard from which we can base our moral opinions on, we'll all end up being bigots at some point.

      Wow. First commenter decides to equate homosexuality with bestiality and then tries to claim some kind of objective moral standard. I think that's probably the marriage equality equivalent of Godwin's Law.

        Wow. Just wow. Let's all wow. You're a journalist? Since when did a job like that drop such a basic requirement such as reading comprehension from its essential skill sets? Did he equate bestiality or was he simply demonstrating the circular, self-refuting and under-cutting logic that those such as yourselves employ in order to make some kind of emotional diatribe in guise of an intellectual argument?

        Ironically, the frequent appeal to equate reasoning such as this to ( the so-called) Godwin's Law by those unable to demonstrate cogent argumentation (or comprehension skills) do exactly what it is they're railing against - merely by employing it.

        You sir, are a hypocrite.

        Last edited 29/04/13 12:14 pm

          You, sir, need to learn to read and write. When someone argues that supporting marriage equality is logically equivalent to supporting bestiality, they're not doing so because they're seeking a rational discussion. Nor do you seem to be, come to that (to the extent you can be said to be mounting any kind of argument at all in that messed-up collection of half-formed sentences).

            No, you (unsurprisingly) don't get it. He did not equate it. He's stating that on the same logical grounds of reasoning - you (and those who gorge themselves on a rabid form of sentimentality) have ZERO basis for rejecting any other form of deviant behavior. To equate it would be to say that homosexuality is morally equivalent to bestiality. That's not the argument, and if you weren't so concerned with your own socio-reconstructionist agenda and read the comment, you'd understand that.

            Whilst I may have 'half-formed sentences', I'm not a journalist. Whilst someone has brought a reasoned argument to you, you've used it to malign and mock for the sake of an agenda. Good work.

              What utter rubbish. To deal with the simplest aspect of your poorly-formed argument: Most people (me included) would argue that bestiality should be rejected on moral grounds because there's no informed consent on the part of the animal. That's an extremely simple basis for distinguishing one form of 'deviant' behaviour from another. The idea that supporting one concept (that marriage should be freely available to all regardless of gender or religious belief) means you also support any other kind of 'deviant behaviour' and can't reject anything is the kind of slippery slope argument the ACL pushes constantly, and it's complete garbage. The idea you're not pursuing an agenda yourself is equally laughable. I'm not going to feed this particular troll further, though I will happily agree that I've mocked the (Christian) ACL. It invites mockery.

                Of course I'm pushing an agenda! But the idea that people should be ridiculed because of their unwillingness to conform to the current cultural zeitgeist is disgusting. The slippery slope has long gone. We're simply teetering on the edge of moral relativism. The the almighty god of choice has been summoned and will not take resistance lightly. Ironically.

                Again (again!) you demonstrate your inability to grasp the concept. No, I don't believe you or any other GLBT 'rights' advocates support bestiality. But your basis for rejecting it ('choice') is weak and inconsistent. Case-in-point, Australia's own ethicist Peter Singer advocates that animals can indeed respond to warranted and/or unwarranted sexual behavior, thus demonstrating (in his mind) the most vital aspect of 'choice'. This is not a 'slippery slope'. It is a fruit of humanistic sentimentality that looks to cater rather than preserve. If 'choice' is the answer - then why not polyamory? polygamy? Why take issue with those? It would seem bigoted to deny them their choice using the same rational principles. It's not a slippery slope - it's understanding the rational outcomes to that line of reasoning.

                The only reason people look at this as 'troll logic' because it so brashly confronts the glaringly fallacious and emotionally manipulative vitriol that ties so many people up in knots. It's so drenched in sentimentality that anyone who would disagree or (shock/horror), express disgust at a practise, is automatically accused of hatred and bigotry - completely unworthy of an opinion. Never mind the fact say they still genuinely care about people. It's manipulative. It's a form of societal abuse. And it's revolting.

                  No but people should be ridiculed for being bigots.
                  Which the ACL is.
                  The simple matter is that you can have all the opinions you want. Even bigoted ones. But those opinions should in no way impact the rights of individuals.
                  Gay marriage does NOT impact on the rights of Christians.
                  Christians opposing gay marriage DOES impact on the rights of gays.
                  Just as laws discriminating against people of coloured skin were repelled so will the laws discriminating against gays. This is a civil rights matter and I couldn't care less what sky fairy you believe in. It should never have an impact on peoples civil rights.

                  It boils down to two things: consent and harm.

                  Can the people involved give informed consent? Does the action cause harm to others who do not give consent?

                  Homosexual relationships are legal, the people involved give consent and it does not cause harm to anyone, therefore there is no reason not to stop homosexual marriage.

                  Bestiality is illegal because animals cannot give informed consent (if you're going to reference someone, you should give some citations otherwise you're just making an appeal to authority). It also causes harm to the animal. Same goes for all illegal relationships aside from polygamy.

                  I personally have no issues with polygamy (all parties can consent and it does no harm to anyone outside of the consenting parties) but it is a legal nightmare and cannot even be considered while homosexual marriage is still illegal. The Bible also has numerous examples of polygamy, so I'm not sure why Christians have an issue with it aside from it being outside of the cultural norm.

                  You say the "god of choice" is a bad thing. Why?

                  I say that people should not be forced to act based on other people's morals. I don't care if two guys have sex. I don't care if a guy and a girl like to eat each other's feces. I don't care if a man and a woman want to go to a church and say vows to one another in a ceremony ordained by a priest acting as a representative of their god. It doesn't harm anyone else and the people involved are able to consent to their actions.

                  Imposing your morals on other people is something that I have any issue with. Why? Because it denies them the ability to make their own choices (denying them the ability to consent to actions) and it can harm them (not allowing homosexual couples to marry denies them a whole host of rights and privileges afforded to heterosexual married couples, including hospital visitation rights, power of attorney, the ability to contest a will and various tax benefits not to mention that being shunned by a portion of society for being "deviants" is generally not great for people's mental health and leads to higher rates of depression and other mental illnesses).

                  If you think homosexuality is deviant behaviour, that it is immoral, then don't have sex with people of the same gender as you.

                I realise that using the concept of informed consent as an argument against bestiality was perhaps intended more to show that an objective line can be drawn, but it did make me chuckle somewhat.
                Should eating meat also be rejected on moral grounds as one would assume there is no informed consent on the animal's part to make its grand appearance as a roast on the dining table?
                if we don't care what the animal thinks about having its life shortened, why do we then care about what other ways it is used. is it not then "a piece of meat"?

                  Heard of vegetarianism?

              What makes homosexuality "deviant" behaviour?

              There is a very simple and logical way to separate homosexuality from the other examples listed (excepting polyamory, which I personally have no issue with but it is a legal clusterfuck). Homosexuality can (and typically does) occur between two consenting adults. Bestiality and pedophilia cannot.

              There is no reasoned argument to bring bestiality into this discussion. It is a clear tactic to try and make homosexuality look like some sort of deviance. Saying that those who support bestiality would consider those that do not to be bigots is at best irrelevant.

                Wow...ok, I guess I need to clarify...

                Firstly, I didn't equate homosexuality with bestiality, or at least that wasn't my intention. I was merely just trying to point out that we all have differing opinions, and that if we were to follow the logic used in the article, we would all end up being bigoted to some degree. This would mean that the ACL can just as easily claim that proponents of marriage-equality are also bigots. Really was just trying to point out that it cuts both ways and doesn't really achieve much. If anything, it just causes further conflict.

                  Thanks for the clarification. Don't think the expanded argument has much merit though; marriage equality wouldn't eliminate the more specific Christian approaches to marriage, despite occasional claims to the contrary (if it were true that changing marriage laws would force churches to recognise those approaches, why do Catholic churches still routinely refuse to marry divorced people within the church after almost 40 years of no-fault divorce in Australia?) Bigotry is about defining other groups of people as deserving lesser rights. Marriage equality doesn't do that; arguing that marriage is exclusively a Christian institution (which is nonsense in a legal sense anyway) does.

                  I can't seem to reply to your thread Angus. Is that because I'm a guest?

                  Anyway, to those that think I'm trying to troll, I sincerely am not. I'm just trying to point out an inconsistency. And I believe it to be an important inconsistency.

                  My point that we're all bigots to some degree still stands. And I don't understand how you can't see this. Many moons ago marriage was defined as the formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which the man and woman became husband and wife. Now the 'marriage equality' movement is trying to re-define marriage to be between two 'consenting adults' to allow for homosexuals to get married. Those against the redefinition of marriage are often called bigots because they are against this redefinition.

                  Now let's just speculate that in about x years when marriage between homosexuals becomes commonplace, there may be those that want to further re-define marriage to be between two 'consenting human beings' to allow them to marry younger human beings. Will not those against this new redefinition of marriage will be called bigots because they are defining other groups of people as deserving lesser rights?

      I have an objective moral standard. It's based around treating people equally, allowing 2 adults who aren't hurting anyone or anything do what they want in the privacy of their own home and not being a douche.
      It's a simple code but works well for me.
      Bigots like you really do make me sick though I have to say.
      How you can live your life filed with such hatred I don't know.
      But hey people like you used to think women shouldn't vote and that blacks shouldn't be able to marry, or vote, or be allowed in the same areas as whites. And we moved on from that. So I'm hopeful.

      Some advocate consenting adults to be able to have equal relationships with each other while others do not.

      When you say "inter-generational love", somehow I don't think you mean the very commonly accepted practice of a 20 year old marrying a 60 year old but instead you're talking about pedophilia.

      Stay classy.

    "I’m very willing to enjoy any embarrassment heaped on the narrow-minded bigots at the Christian ACL".

    It's statements like that that will result in my deciding not to read this site anymore.

      Good. Please go and take your narrow-minded bigotry and hate with you.

        That sounds very narrow-minded and bigoted to me.

          "You're being intolerant of my intolerance" is just a hair's breadth above "I know you are but what am I?" in terms of arguments.

            While it may be a hair's breadth above "I know you are but what am I?", it is still a very valid point to make. It demonstrates that the whole "you're very narrow-minded and a hateful person" statement is actually quite hypocritical.

              Calling someone narrow-minded or bigoted is not necessarily hypocritical.

              It is bigoted to deny people the right to marry based solely on their sexual preference. It is denying one group of people equal rights and basically saying that they should not be seen as equals. To tell someone that they are being bigoted is not an act of bigotry unless you are also trying to deny them rights or class them as lesser people for it.

              Telling someone to shut up is not the same as denying them the right to speak. No rights are being infringed on by providing a counter-argument because having an opinion does not allow your opinion to be unopposed. If you can't oppose an opinion, then it's impossible to have a right to an opinion because some people will always hold contrary opinions and those who say their opinion first would automatically "win".

              Notice how it all gets pointlessly circular? That's because the hypocrisy is demanding that your own opinion go unopposed is denying others the right to say their opinion.

              There is no actual supporting argument to differentiate between homosexual and heterosexual relationships for the purposes of marriage. You can't use religion to define it because laws cannot and should not be based on religious doctrine, particularly because not everyone follows the same religion nor do followers of a religion necessarily agree (it's not hard to find Christians that vehemently oppose the ACL).

                Thank you for putting it in better words then I could.
                My words would have likely used a lot more swearing.
                But yes essentially calling someone on their bigotry is not bigoted.
                It is not denying them their right to have an opinion. It's just saying their opinion is bigoted. :)

                  Ok let me try to explain...

                  My point is, that when other groups (eg. those for polyamory or pedophilia) also want to get married based solely on their sexual preference, what would you say to them? Would you say 'oh sorry, you can't get married because marriage is between two consenting adults only'? Would they not challenge the notion that marriage has to be between only two consenting adults? And then with that notion ingrained into their mindset, would they not think you are bigoted for denying them rights to marry? Why wouldn't they think anyone opposed to their point of view are bigots since they would not be treated equally?

      It's not like it's an attack on Christianity or anything. Most Christians I know also hate the ACL and don't consider them representative of their community.

      I could be wrong, but I think ronvanwegen's problem might be the use of the word "Christian" to preface ACL. To my mind this sentence could be read to imply that Christianity is what make them 'narrow-minded bigots'.

      Just 'narrow-minded bigots at the ACL' would have been better - and much harder to disagree with at that!

        Fair point, but since the article describes two different ACLs, using 'Christian' to identify one seemed the best move. I'm very aware that many (probably most) people who identify as Christian wouldn't necessarily endorse the Christian ACL approach.

    I frequently face a similar issue with websites I register (especially those with a commercial interest)... At what point should you start registering the domains similar to your own that you have no interest in?

    Say you are creating a product and you're not sure if it will be viable. You're probably willing to throw $100 at the domain registrations (and get the .lasttwoletters .com .org .net .co etc), but you probably aren't willing to throw $1k at it (and get all abbreviations or the less used .info etc). In a year's time the product may be viable, but presuming it's not Google, you're still going to question throwing $1kpa at it to keep all the domains you need. By the time your product is big and the cost can easily be absorbed, someone is sure to have sniped some subset of those domains (they don't have to take all of them, for $10pa they can still do you significant damage).

    What's the winning play?

      With the introduction of open TLD registration, this article becomes effectively moot anyway. With the limited TLDs, people afraid their name might get used for another site registered all of them. With open TLDs, hopefully people will realise that it will be impossible to protect their name across all TLDs and they should just settle for the one they intend to use.

        I'm not convinced. Most of the new TLDs fall into one of two categories: specific to a given brand (.amazon, .apple) or specific to a given business/product line (.bank, .app). Ignoring the brand-specific ones (who presumably won't allow third-party subdomains), you'll still be left with a limited (though somewhat increased) pool of options.

        For example, if I'm going to create an android sports app called Asdfgh, I likely will be choosing from asdfgh.com, asdfgh.co, asdf.gh, asdfgh.sport, asdfgh.app, etc. I'm not going to register asdfgh.finance or asdfgh.dentist as these are irrelevant to me, but I am still left with a number of legitimate sounding domains that I need to choose from. I'm also unlikely to register the .asdfgh TLD, unless I am in a very big way; however, I now have to keep an eye out to make sure nobody else does, and to make sure I grab asdfgh.* on any new relevant TLDs that come up.

          But who says that Apple computing company and Amazon online store should get those and not Apple Farmers of the World and Amazon National Park?

            I'm not saying they should, but I'm not sure how that's relevant.

            Last edited 07/05/13 3:37 pm

    "Christian ACL" is redundant, and is a giveaway as to the real purpose of the article.

      Considering ACL is ambiguous in this article, the adjective isn't redundant at all. There are two ACLs here, one is a Christian group and the other is a cat-oriented group. It's just a descriptor, not some thinly veiled way of the author saying "but seriously fuck all Christians amirite?".

    A big thanks to Angus and many others for a valuable lesson in "Don't feed the trolls 101"

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now