2 Hours On The Panel Its Clear That The New gTLD’s Are Just About The Money
I sat on a panel Friday at the Domainer Mardi Gras with Jeffrey Eckhaus from Demand Media, whose company is expected to apply for at least several new gTLD’s, Ken Hansen from Neustar whose company is trying to provide the back end for many of the new gTLD’s registries, Mike Rodenbaugh who is an attorney hoping to represent some of the applicants for new gTLD’s and who also sits on the ICANN committee working on the new gTLD’s and Mr. John Berryhill, who represents domain owners against trademark claims who appeared through Skype since Philadelphia was basically shut down by the snow storm.
(Andrew Allemann from DomainNameWire.com did a great job as the moderator)
My first thought as I found myself on stage was that I was the only one not looking to profit off the new extensions.
I think that pretty much sums up my opinion on the new gTLD’s.
Its simply a big money grab.
ICANN wants the new extensions because its going to add ten’s of millions of dollars to their coffers.
While ICANN is a non-profit corporation, we just read the compensation report the other day to discover that in addition to six figure salaries the higher ups of the non-profit receive they in additionentitled to bonus of up to 50% of their salary based on performance. To me it seems that a lot of this bonus money is going to be tied to getting the new extension approved and up and running ASAP.
Instead of awarding a new gTLD, which get competing applications to the company that would agree to provide the service for the least amount of cost to the consumer, ICANN decided to award the extension to the company will to pay the most for the privilege. Actually the proposed cost to the consumer is not even a factor in the decision of which company would receive a competing extension.
By awarding the extension to the company that pays the most, the process almost guarantees that the winning bidder will be the one with the highest cost to the consumer.
Back asswards.
Of course this is the history of ICANN.
Competitive bidding to drive prices down?
Not Allowed.
This is the same ICANN gave a no bid monopolistic contract with guaranteed price increases to VeriSign desipte the fact that other company wanted to bid on the contract and offered to provide the sames services for less money to the consumer.
It only makes common sense if a company has to pay millions of dollars to get an extension, rather than just $185K, they are going to have to charge more per domain registration to recoup their costs.
Wouldn’t you?
While some on the panel I sat in on, will tell you the whole point of the new extensions is to increase competition and lower costs to the consumer, the way the system is being set up by ICANN pretty much insures the opposite.
Those that spend the most will win and they will charge whatever they want to make their investment back.
For companies seeking to become a registry of one or more new extension the financial rewards can be substantial.
While domainers may consider such extensions like .biz and .mobi to be failures from a domain investor point of view, from the business of operating a registrar, TLD’s can be a cash cow.
Neustar a public compan y,which operates the .biz registry among other business, said there were over 2,000,000 .biz domain name registered.
At $6 per year that’s $12M in recurring cash flow.
Neustar also provides back end support for other companies looking to sponsor a new gTLD another nice money making business.
So companies like Demand Media which seem ready to apply for multiple new gTLD’s as a registry and sell the new gTLD’s as a registrar through Enom are all standing to make a big payday.
There is also plenty of room for consultants and attorneys to represent applicants through a fairly complicated process with plenty of potential for disputes and conflicts.
Trademark holder are screaming that its going to cost them a fortune to register domain names in extensions they don’t want or need.
While trademark holders can use the sunrise period to secure their domain in every new extension, registries and registrars have traditionally charged a premium price for this service, usually in the hundreds of dollars per domain per extension.
As an attorney I try to see all sides and actually for companies that have hundreds, even thousands of trademarks your talking about huge dollars.
Many trademark holders do not apply for their domains in the sunrise period, I guess hoping that other will stay away, usually just to find they then have to spend even more in UDRP or WIPO or lawsuits to get their trademark domain back.
My suggestion to avoid this ongoing mess is to give trademarked holders of famous and global brands their domains for free, or at least at a nominal charge, certainly not the premium amount past TLD rollout’s have charge.
Moreover the each registry could reserve globally trademarked brands so only the trademark holder could get the domain but no one else.
The response back from the panel was a resounding No Bueno.
No to giving away domains to those global brands.
The dirty little secret of the whole deal is that while a domainer who registers a domain that’s the subject of a trademark is labeled a cybersqautter, and is subjected to a fine of $100,00o per domain, and loss of the domain, registries and registrars are perfectly fine with making money off of trademarks by selling the registrations back to the trademark holder for premium amounts.
Moreover if the trademark holder doesn’t register its domain during the Sunrise period then the registry will auction the domain off as happened multiple times in the .me release to the highest bidder, trademark or no trademark.
So lets be clear.
Domainer get fined and have their domains taken away on the basis that they can’t be allowed to make money off of a trademark.
However, a registry can hold a trademark holders hostage for hundreds of dollars per domain to get their domain registered under the Sunrise period or even auction off the trademarked domain to the highest bidder, stuff the money in their pockets and let the trademark holder and the auction winner fight it out to who should have ownership.
Aren’t registrars and registries thereby making money off of others trademarks?
Of course they are.
Sometimes a lot more than any domain would be registering and parking on a new extension.
If a domainer does it, they face fines, sanctions and ridicule. If a registry or registrar charges $250 for a domain its just good business.
If a domain owner isn’t allowed to make money off a trademark holders domains, why are registries and registrars?
Most Sunrise application are historically in the hundreds of dollars per domain, per extension, making a company like Microsoft which own hundreds if not thousands of trademark folk over huge sums to register the domains that match their mark.
Apparently many new registries have the premium fees for trademarked domains budgeted into their business plan.
Its all about the money.
The question that was raised on the panel but really went unanswered is what becomes of domainers in all this?
The lifting of price caps on domain names is still in the guidebook.
All registries want to be treated the same, new one’s and existing one’s.
So if one registry is allowed to adopt .tv variable pricing for a new gTLD then VeriSign would want to be able to operate the .com registry with no price caps.
This is not science fiction or a scare tactic, its just the way the situation currently is.
While ICANN say they want the domain names from the new extension to go to end users, the rules they set up will guarantee that most wind up in the hands of domainers.
Registries of new gTLD’s will hold back their best domains and auction them off.
I would expect most registries of new gTLD’s to follow the .me model (even the rollout of the 2 character .biz domain currently ongoing) and put any domain backordered by more than one person into a private auction (this raised over $2M for the .me registry) then auction off the few thousand of best domains they reserve, in domain industry auctions like TRAFFIC and DomainFest and online through Sedo.
There is even a movement that registries should be able to keep whatever domains they want for themselves, never making them available to the public.
Bottom line the new gTLD aren’t about the public interest.
They aren’t about giving more choices to consumers or lowering costs to consumers.
No the new gTLD’s are about the all mighty dollar.
Cash.
Profit.
Money.
More for ICANN
More for the registries.
More for the registrars.
Domainers be damned.
Trademark holders be damned.
Big money is being made
Loading ...
Alan/Snoopy: It’s not just about people fighting over money, it’s also about direct harm. If there was a net benefit to new TLDs, perhaps an argument can be made for adding a few. The parasitic business models that new TLDs present are not sufficient reason to permit them to be added to the root, when security and stability are paramount. One could have argued that wildcarding the DNS (SiteFinder) was just about money too, but that was forbidden, and for good reason. New TLD advocates instead want to move that wildcard to the top level, with a free-for-all that is focused on short-term gain for a few, at the expense of the public.
Do a search in Google for “new TLDs considered harmful” and you’ll see analysis by Tim Berners-Lee and The World Wide Web Consortium (I linked to it above, but that comment is still awaiting moderation).
[off topic alarm]
@ Duane:
“I have never heard so much BULL! While working on several sites and in the business for several years, the above quote is nothing but hot air. A .com will even outrank the cctld in the specific language. It’s because the .com TLD is trusted.”
Duane, you know nothing about search engines whatsoever. It’s OK to be wrong, but it’s never OK to be wrong AND forceful about it…
The reason .com generally appears to “rank higher” isn’t because it’s somehow entered as a “trusted TLD” within the search engine algorithm. It’s because .com is the standard-bearer TLD and as such, most meaningful, aged and well-linked development is on that platform. You’re seriously mixing up correlation and causation.
Quite to the contrary, search engines actually ADVANTAGE relevant ccTLD’s in such a way that gTLD’s do not enjoy. To put it another way- if you and I both started right now on development projects trying to sell Hoodiliehoo’s to people in Western Samoa, you could use Hoodiliehoo.com, I could use Hoodiliehoo.ws and presuming both had a generally cogent SEO scheme, I would almost certainly rank higher than you amongst search queries originating from Western Samoa.
As an aside, I realize that it hasn’t received much acceptance from unproductive, buy-and-hold “domainers” (mainly because the direct navigation/ppc revenue model doesn’t work very well for any extension other than .com), but for savvy developers targeting the US market, the .us extension is search engine gold, not only for the relative availability and low aftermarket costs associated with fantastic, commercially relevant keywords in .us (that in .com would be five or six figure names) but because in keyword spaces that have competition gaps, the ccTLD actually benefits the overall development scheme…
Anyway, sorry to drift off topic, but this is something that clearly needed to be corrected. It’s an enormous misconception.
George, just curious. Does anyone know Tim Berners-Lee current opinion on this?
Any article for the google search you mentioned was dating back to 2004 – a lifetime in this space.
Additionally, a large number of extensions have been added since then so can the same sense of damage be applied when we are all too familair with how these extensions will all turn out and quite likely be able to predict the effect on the net. An effect I am assuming is far less than once thought.
Tim Berners-Lee is a hell of a lot smart than me but a current opinion would be nice since we have essentially stood the test of time with new extensions
Alan: All the arguments from 2004 still ring true today (I deconstructed them in an ICANN comment that I linked to earlier, but that comment is still waiting moderation). Do a search for:
“New top level domains considered harmful kirikos”
and one can find my comment from April 9, 2009. Let me paste it below, and see if it makes it on this blog:
1) “The tree structure was an improvement over the previous flat space of host
names. It reduced the chaos, by allowing new names to be allocated in
sub-domains without recourse to a central registration system.”
A world of infinite top level domains goes backwords to a flat space, instead
of a tree structure, and would be a step backwards and not an improvement.
2) “There have been temptations for the registry companies to consider
themselves owners of unclaimed names.”
Indeed, ICANN seems to want to institutionalize this, through bad policy, by
auctioning entire gTLDs to the highest bidder.
3) “And because the DNS tree is so fundamental to the Internet applications
which build on top of it, any uncertainty about the future creates immediately
instability and harm.”
ICANN through its push to create massive numbers of new gTLDs over the
objections of the public causes instability and harm. ICANN is creating
uncertainty about the future.
4) “Our first instincts, then should be not to change the system with anything
but incremental and carefully thought-out changes. The addition of new
top-levels domains is a very disturbing influence. It carries great cost. It
should only be undertaken when there is a very clear benefit to the new domain.”
Instead of the above well considered incremental approach (even advocated by
the Department of Commerce, NTIA and DOJ) ICANN proposes a wild-west free for
all.
5) “The chief effect of the introduction of the .biz and .info domains appears
to have been a cash influx for the domain name registries.”
That’s a diplomatic way of saying “these are failed gTLDs.” Only the registries
have received the main benefits.
6) “After an unstable period when the first come first served system was in
play and greedy squatters grabbed domains simply for speculation, it has now
settled down.”
It has now settled down implies stability.
7) “Introducing new TLDs has two effects.
The first effect is a little like printing more money. The value of one’s
original registration drops. At the same time, the cost of protecting one’s
brand goes up (from the cost of three domains to four, five, …).
The value of each domain name such as example.com also drops because of brand
dilution and public confusion. Even though most people largely ignore the last
segment of the name, when it is actually used to distinguish between different
owners, this increases the mental effort required to remember which company has
which top level domain. This makes the whole name space less usable.”
Couldn’t have said better myself.
activity to reserve domain names, a rush one cannot afford to miss in order to
protect one’s brand. There is a rash of attempts to steal well-known or
valuable domains. The whole process involves a lot of administration, a lot of
cost per month, a lot of business for those involved in the domain name
business itself, and a negative value to the community.”
ICANN’s mission is security and stability. Notice the massive instability they
are proposing violates their mission. This puts into question their continued
stewardship of the root.
9) “When the benefits of the new domain itself are small or negative (as we
discuss below), then one looks for incentive. The large amount of money that
has changed hands for domain names might lead a person to suspect that this was
the motivation.”
Of course it’s the motivation. ICANN is driven by the desire for more
expansion, the desire to pay above-market salaries, the desire to engage in
world travel, etc. ICANN does not act like a non-profit.
10) “The root of the domain name system is a single public resource, by design.
Its control must be for and, indirectly, by the people as a whole. To give away
a large chunk of this to a private group would be simply a betrayal of the
public trust put in ICANN.”
There you have it — “a betrayal of the public trust.”
Very well put George. So now the question is, can anyone stop the trainwreck from actually happening or is it far too late? Can anyone reign in ICANN?
Good question, Steve. Under the “Affirmation of Commitments” document, ICANN appears highly vulnerable if they proceed with new TLDs. Point 4 of that documents includes the following:
“To ensure that its decisions are in the public interest, and not just the interests of a particular set of stakeholders, ICANN commits to perform and publish analyses of the positive and negative effects of its decisions on the public, including any financial impact on the public, and the positive or negative impact (if any) on the systemic security, stability and resiliency of the DNS.”
When has ICANN done this, in particular the “negative” effects, especially economic/financial? We’ve had whitewash reports like the Carlton report which don’t meet that high standard of ensuring that decisions are in the public interest.
Also 9.3 of that document includes the following:
“ICANN will ensure that as it contemplates expanding the top-level domain space, the various issues that are involved (including competition, consumer protection, security, stability and resiliency, malicious abuse issues, sovereignty concerns, and rights protection) will be adequately addressed prior to implementation.”
The DOC was very careful (in point 5) to say “Nothing in this document is an expression of support by DOC of any specific plan or proposal for the implementation of new generic top level domain names (gTLDs) or is an expression by DOC of a view that the potential consumer benefits of new gTLDs outweigh the potential costs.”
So, ICANN has a tough road ahead, if one follows the letter of that document. Of course, they might ignore their obligations, in which case one will have to attempt to get the DOC, GAC, politicians, etc. involved, to rein them in.
George,
Thanks for the above. The problem with ICAAN is they play the role of the evil mother in law for all of us. We are married to them and the only way to get rid of the evil empire is by divorce (selling your names) but this is obviously not an option.
Its also obvious that most domainers don’t care about ICAAN and their policies and ICAAN is very much aware of that. We as an industry are very self centered in the belief that our mother in law (ICAAN) will always do whats best for the kids (domain owners) but that is pretty far from the truth.
Its really no different than the level of trust we put in our politicians with the effects very similar (higher taxes, less benefits etc) so how do you propose domainers work together or even independently to become more engaged in ICAAN issues?
I for one believe ICA was a good idea in concept but the agency is poor at best. Yes, there are many wins but from a PR standpoint they have about as much affect as bringing domain owners (not just typical domainers) together as Mother Parker’s Homemade Jam from Wisconsin. In fact, if there is a Mother Parker in Wisconsin she probably has more subscribers.
Our entire industry is grouped of people who love to attend conferences and will band together for a night of fun half way across the globe yet getting people to actively participate, join and promote anything outside of selling domains to one another or developing yet another unwanted parking service is practically impossible.
Also, the element of entitlement by many domainers is not an argument that can be logically used to present reasons for change to ICAAN but most comments I’ve read on the ICAAN posts have sounded like they were written by a 12 year old girl.
Of course, you, Michael Berkens, Phil Corwin and a few others have and continue to make strives in this industry fighting for everybody’s rights but unless you read Mike’s blog these issues are rarely if ever presented outside of this arena. An arena unknown to 99% of domain owners.
Your thoughts on a stronger foundation to tackle ICAAN issues would be most appreciated here or somewhere else.
With regard to questions 24 & 25: the most important domain name story, I’m hung up on the passing of Verisign’s BTAPPA – Bulk Transfer After Partial Portfolio Aquisition of Dot Coms and Dot Nets, and ICANN is aware of me and answered my snail mail, which is published with permission at my Rant Blog about BTAPPA, linked to, above. Jorge Amodio suggested it’s a thick soup I am brewing, but if I have to go down, first I’m going to make some noise! If you Google BTAPPA, it is searchable at least by Louise’s posts.
Glad everyone had good weather at DomainFest!
Your post on the New gTLD raises serious and valid concerns about ICANN. ICANN’s plans are even more worrisome on the new Internationalized Domain Names gTLDs also known as IDN gTLDs. We continued to alert ICANN over the years, most recently on Jan 26, 2010 specifically on the EOI, http://forum.icann.org/lists/draft-eoi-model/msg00188.html and in Oct 09 on the New gTLDs overall http://www.icann.org/correspondence/fattal-to-beckstrom-15oct09-en.pdf .
ICANN’s inability to address these serious and valid concerns over the years is what led you and many to this inevitable conclusions you reached that ICANN is primarily focusing on the money, and which is in conflict with its Affirmation of Commitments (AOC) Agreement with the US Government. I actually share the opinion of many around the world that it is the Power first, and then the Money.
The real question to ask is: How Can ICANN fulfill its AOC mandate and prove to all its stakeholders it is NOT after the money Nor the power in order to and gain their much needed trust and support in its supposed bottom up multi stakeholder model?
Regards,
Khaled Fattal
Chairman and CEO
The Multilingual Internet Group
& Member of ICANN President’s Advisory Committee on IDNs (ICANN) http://www.icann.org
*Live Multilingual Translator, http://www.LMTranslator.com
*Ankabooot Global Social Network, http://www.Ankabooot.com
*WebSynegys Inc. http://www.WebSynergys.com
*Global Secure Web Certification http://www.securebyssl.com
*Multilingual Internet Names Consortium, (MINC) http://www.minc.org
Personal blog: http://www.khaledfattal.blogspot.com
After all the ‘end of domaining’ threads I’ve seen around the various fora – here’s finally something that really could be the end of domaining as we know it – variable pricing for existing TLDs will surely be a major threat to all domain owners, even if they grandfather the existing registrations for a period of time.
I also agree that Registrars and Registries should be made as accountable as Registrants for TM infringing regs, why absolve any one party of the wrong doing while penalising the other?
And you’re totally right when you say the release of new sTLDs will cause more harm than good to the average consumer, specially with the way the registries milk the extension, which they would need to after paying big sums to be granted rights to the same.
For a non-profit ICANN surely seems to only be about making profit, think it needs a complete overhaul, including caps on salaries and bonuses.
The question here is with so many new registries, how many will actually make a profit? 10-20% at the very most if I was to take a wild guess.
Thanks for a great article Michael, hopefully people who can make a difference will read it and something might be done about this mess.
Great article Mike. I couldn’t agree more. ICANN is a sour excuse for a non-profit. As with any “governing body”, the temptation to abuse for monetary gain is clear, present & extremely hard to resist.
No matter what justification they place on their actions, someone’s getting the shaft and nearly 100% of the benefits will favor those with deep pockets and more influence. The cost will certainly rest on the shoulders of the end users. It’s sad.
As far as TM domains, no one makes more from them than the registries/registrars. They too have their buckets up when its raining cash. Want proof? Do a search for “ipad” in the domain names category on ebay & see all the absolutely ridiculous variations of apple’s trademark name & product .coms that are being pedaled to the highest bidder. Literally hundreds & that’s not including the ones that have already sold. If you safely estimated that the “landrush” that occurred the day apple announced this product was worth 5000 domain registrations – at $8 each, that’s a quick (& conservative est.) $40K. It’s despicable that they – the “enablers” are not held to any standard of protection or responsibility at all!
My personal opinion is that ICANN needed to develop a standardized process for considering new gTLDs after the .xxx fiasco, especially as the introduction of additional gTLDs has always been part of its mission statement. That said, the decision to consider applications for an UNLIMITED number of new gTLDs was unwise and has led to all sorts of unintended consequences that nonetheless should have been foreseen. Trademark interests were right to be concerned about the potential for unlimited gTLDs to abet cybersquatting, but they overplayed their hand with ICANN’s acquiesence, forming the IRT as a group which had no precedent in ICANN history and which operated in blatant violation of relevant provisions of ICANN bylaws. ICA spent a huge amount of time last year opposing the IRT’s operating manner and its unbalanced trademark “solutions”, especially Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS), and that protest- joined by many other voices – led to formation of the STI and recommendations for a far more balanced approach.
Throughout the past year ICA has called for a policy process for comprehensive UDRP reform that would address the concerns of both registrants and complainants with the current process, and that request is now being echoed from other quarters and it appears that UDRP reform will in fact be taken up in 2010. Putting the UDRP providers under contract to ICANN should be a centerpiece of that effort, as it is astounding that WIPO, NAF, etc. have no contractual constraints or guidance once they receive their ICANN accreditation – which is why you see outrageous proposals for “fast track UDRP” based on Supplemental Rules authority meant for minor technical and administrative matters. The stakes for domainers are of course enormous, and ICA will likely be engaged in that debate — alas, without any significant support from the average domainer (more on that subject at the end of this posting).
Overall, the new gTLD process has been remarkable in that just about everybody involved in it – both those who believe that new gTLDs will be beneficial and are seeking to apply for new gTLDs, as well as those who think there is no need and that the whole project is a scam and a shakedown – are manifestly unhappy with how ICANN has handled things. The latest fiasco, IMHO, is the Expression of Interest concept proposed by potential gTLD applicants – intended to speed up the process, it has resulted in a utterly foreseeable debate about what the EOI should be that will likely further delay development of the final applicant guidebook and opening of the application window.
There are many legitimate reasons to be concerned about new gTLDs. ICANN’s own technical study suggested that introduction of significant numbers of new gTLDs in advance of implementing DNSSEC could risk crashing the DNS itself – see my October 2, 2009 post at internetcommerce.org for more background – surely, maintaining the security and stability of the DNS should be Job One for ICANN and take precedence over any other projects or considerations.
However, I do NOT believe that variable pricing spillover at .com or other incumbent gTLDs is one of them. ICA has spoken out against that prospect repeatedly, and our efforts have been rewarded. ICA’s comment letter on the 3rd Draft Applicant Guidebook (posted at the ICA website on November 24, 2009) notes that a very significant change has been made to the proposed registry contract to prevent registries from engaging in differential pricing, other than allowing higher renewal fees for “premium’ domains. The ICA letter states:
Prohibition of Differential Pricing
ICA has consistently urged that the New gTLD Registry Agreement (RA) specifically prohibit the practice of “differential pricing” of domain renewals, as this could allow registries to operate as private sector taxing authorities. Registries should receive adequate profit for the technical service they provide, but they should not be permitted to take unfair advantage of the success of enterprises developed at particular domains.
We are therefore pleased that revised Section 2.10 of the latest RA contains the following provision: “Registry Operator shall offer all domain registration renewals at the same price, unless the registrant agrees to a higher price at the time of the initial registration of the domain name following clear and conspicuous disclosure of such renewal price by Registry Operator.” This addition effectively forecloses the ability of a registry operator to assume that tax authority role based upon a domain’s post-registration economic performance. While we remain concerned that a registry could charge a higher annual renewal fee to the registrant of a premium generic or brand domain than for a non-premium domain, for provision of the same technical service, it is nonetheless a significant step in the right direction. However, the provision should be further clarified so that the term “initial registration of the domain name” clearly refers to the first time the domain is registered by any registrant, and does not encompass any subsequent change in domain ownership due to a sale or the domain being acquired on a drop catch. In other words, the pricing rule that accompanied a particular domain at its inception should carry over to any subsequent acquirer regardless of how they obtained it.
Rest assured that ICA will continue to pursue that additional clarification.
Finally, as regards support for ICA by the average domainer – ICA’s Board did everything it could to build a broad grassroots organization but just kept hitting a wall of domainer indifference. Granted, ICA had some communications issues in the past, but throughout 2009 we put a huge emphasis on communicating what we were up to and why it was important to the average domainer. As stated above, we spent 2009 fighting like hell for the industry and succeeeded in blocking the IRT recommendations and differential pricing. These achievements were met with utter indifference by the great majority of domainers.
I have met great people in the domaining community and formed lasting friendships with many – but it’s hard to overstate how discouraging it is to be at a major domainer meeting (and this happened time and again) and hear leading domainers make a pitch for ICA support only to be met by a mix of indifference and complaints – even though a basic annual membership was about the same price as one night’s lodging at the conference hotel. ICA’s end of 2009 appeal for support from domainers likewise fell on deaf ears and closed checkbooks.
Fortunately, Mike Berkens and a handful of other prominent industry leaders, both individuals and companies, understand that this industry, like every other, needs to be seen and heard in DC, ICANN, and other decision centers if it is to have a shot at a prosperous and respected future. As to Alan Dunn’s question above as to how to get the mass of domainers to play a greater role in ICANN issues, and his observation that 99% don’t comprehend the importance of the public policy process, I would just say that ICA tried but the average domainer does not seem to want to participate or to care about the impact of the policy process on their livelihoods – a situation for which I leave the explanation to others.
A simple solution for the trademark holders on how to handle being held hostage by registrars of new tlds.
1 – During sunrise period, do NOT buy the new url for your trademark. Instead send a cease-and-desist on the sale of your tradmark on that extension to the REGISTRAR. Yes, it will be ignored at that time.
2 – When you trademark gets sold, aggresively pursue legal damages from both the cybersquatter and the registrar.
3 – If the trademark holder does not send in the C&D, they should forfeit the ability to sue the registrar.
Then make examples of both. Don’t just win the case, crush them. Put them out of business, take all their personal wealth, and garnish their future income. You want the bastards living out of a cardboard box thereafter.
In the 70s and early 80s, unscrupulous lawyers would sue companies on false advertising charges for millions. McDonalds as famouly sued for serving “millions and millions”. These unscrupulous lawyers won many such cases, until the companies woke up and started counter suits. They never let up legal pressure, never stopped, until they won and then pressed and received their damages.
The point was made. Unscrupulous behavior against the company would lead to ruin, not riches. Different example, similar situation, hopefully same result.
An honorable solution for the registrars would be to have trademark holders send in legal and verifiable documentation of their trademark holdings, and these urls would remain unsold. A settling out period before release to allow for contesting trademarks (“Delta dot whatever”… faucets or airline?) resulting in either a permanent lock if a clear holder cannot be determined or release at regular REG FEE to the winner.
Shirt Guy
This would be a very expensive approach for trademark holders.
Each case that’s filled is going to cost thousands if not five figures to prosecute.
Figure that most people engaging regularly in typos squatting are not US based, hard to find and have no assets to seize.
Unfortunately Phil, this “industry” is made up of both professionals like Mike Berkens and George Kirikos and John Berryhill and others who understand and appreciate the tremendous work that you have done on behalf of all Domainers, and those amateurs who have no concept on how this world works. Without representation in DC and ICAAN, the domain “industry” is doomed and headed for oblivion.
Unlike our biggest “enemies”, the trademark industry who are ALL professionals and understand the need to have one voice speak for them, amateur domainers are content to let “the other guy” do it and he doesn’t need our support because all the fat cats like Schilling and Schwartz and Ham have vested interests in protecting their assets.
I can only hope that the Parking Companies and others who have funding can see their way clear to continuing to support a relatively thankless undertaking. thank you Phil for all your efforts on our behalf.
Hi MHB,
Yes, I agree and you are correct, it would be expensive now as it was then. In the long run, the example given proved a solution. Once the large expense was mounted, and the fight was won, further fights ceased.
Holding the registrar culpable, with warning and specificity, would work. The registrars would need to be informed by the trademark holder to not sell those domain names to begin with, and have them specifically listed by the trademark holder.
Foreign typosquatters are hard to find, but not impossible. And once a few are found and crushed, the rest of the cockroaches will find some other kind of offal to fill their bellies.
Phil,
Great comment and thanks for explaining more about the ICA’s involvement with ICAAN. I speak very highly of your efforts and those of people like George and Michael and can truly say our industry is waiting to be slowly destroyed withour your efforts.
However one thing distrubs me and its quite possible that domainers are just a bunch of people who simply dont care about ICAAN – a fact somewhat reasonable based on comments, the popularity of any ICAAN posts, the lack of any substainal financial support across the board to ICA (or another similar organization) and on and on – but I do believe there is enough of the population around here to somewhat give a hoot.
You state that “I would just say that ICA tried but the average domainer does not seem to want to participate or to care about the impact of the policy process on their livelihoods – a situation for which I leave the explanation to others”
This quote reminds me when a partner and I designed a really great marketing campain around 20 years which was praised by a few key people in the ad industry at the time. After thinking we had a sure-fire access we could not sell an ad for love nor money. Now, I was in my teens and did not understand much about sales but someone said to me bluntly at the time – it has nothing to do with your project, its the sales team.
Thats where I think ICA or another group has to step up and actively have a presence – create a need for membership rather than an obligatory feeling to have to donate. Most good things people dont need – they want — and ever domainer should want to be part of ICA but the marketing efforts for creating this desire have clearly failed.
The issues George stated above are more important than just to domainers and they seem to have an effect on the entire world wide web as we know it. The ICA – in my opinion and those of many others I speak of – is considered more or less an orginzation for domainers when thats really not true is it? Your interest is in internet commerce which relates to much more than domain owners but even small business, students, consumers and more.
Again, I highly value your contributions in this space but there is a failure to communicate, brand or even relay the simplest idea of what ICA does to the people who need it most. The success of any organization and its impact to society will usually always be based on its membership growth.
The more wins an organization has the more people want to be part of it and more people see value in paying dues. The ICA badge should be something proud to wear but unfornately in the domainer circles I feel like its more of like “oh, hey those guys” instead of “great group, those people, you have to join”
We all have roles to play and I’m no accountant and you may be the best lawyer around but none of us can do it all. I would suggest (as I’ve said before in the past) some kind of second look in to how the ICA is promoted to gain the traction you need.
Even if thats a “death to the internet” campaign or website showing how such decisions as presented by Tim Lee-Webers could come true. Change is inevitable with passive participation however the desire to create change usually has to start with either education, fear or the threat of removal to things we cherish. Right now, domainers are not likely ever to lose thier domains just pay a little more and quite honestly a 5 or 10% increase is moot at the cost levels domains are anyway.
This is not criticism of your efforts at all. Again, you are an incredible part of the people who strive to make these issues known and fight them but if you want a blunt opinion about how to band more people together towards the efforts of the ICA there it is.
I also understand and respect your comments about how other parties (ie trademark holders) are full of professionals whereas domainers are not. Its a challenge to reach this group but when the policy effects also hurt the population in general there can be a case made for attracting support outside of the domaining community.
I do not envy your challenges the least bit and the progress you have made is certainly admirable and beneficial to all domain holders.
Alan — and Howard, Michael, and others – I am of course hugely appreciative of your kind words regarding my efforts on behalf of domainers and the companies that serve them. That is of course what I get paid for, and I take my work seriously.
I am no marketing expert (other than being pretty good at marketing public policy positions to the powers that be, wherever they be) and, given the time I have devoted to ICA work and the fact that they are just one of several clients, I mostly left the attempted marketing of the ICA to the the domainer community to others — other than posting copiously on the ICA website (internetcommerce.org) over the past year so that anyone who cared to could see what we were saying and doing and understand why it mattered.
As you may know, ICA had an Executive Director from mid-2007 until the end of 2008 and he failed to gain much traction in building a broad grassroots membership. ICA President Jeremiah Johnston and some of his Sedo staff took up the slack on a voluntary, unpaid basis but they too wound up hitting their heads against the wall of general domainer indifference. Other ICA Board members, including the great Ron Jackson, have tried and failed as well.
You say that ICA membership is something that people should want, not need, but I have worked at and with multiple industry trade associations, some the most powerful around, and their members don’t pay their dues and participate in their activities in a collective spirit of “kumbaya” — but because they are serious business people who understand that they need to support their industry’s trade group; that if they don’t shape public policy it will misshape them and maybe even put them out of business.
As for ICANN, yes there are lots of problems with that organization but what’s the alternative? ICA has demanded that ICANN live up to its professed ideals and follow its own Bylaws and to some extent that effort has produced positive results. I have gotten to know Rod Beckstrom somewhat and he is a tremendously bright guy who seems to sincerely believe in the ideals that got so many of us involved with the Internet, so let’s give him a chance to shape ICANN for the better. Just throwing bricks at ICANN’s windows without engaging in its processes is not a mature way to go about things. Besides, if ICANN fails then what? You want the technical management of the DNS and associated policy issues run by the nation-state telephone monopolist bureaucrats of the UN-affiliated ITU? Good luck with that!
Now thanks to the tireless efforts of Mike Berkens and others it appears that ICA will go forward with a somewhat altered makeup and focus, and it’s not my place to spell out those forthcoming details. But it makes me a bit crazy to know what could be done if we had the resources we really need. Case in point — while domainers were partying in Las Vegas, Santa Monica, and New Orleans (and I know that serious work goes on at those conferences, and I like a good party as much as anyone) that CADNA-endorsed cybersquatting bill has been zipping through the Utah legislature like grease through a pig. I made some inquiries and, for a relatively modest sum given the danger, it would have been possible to hire a plugged-in lobbyist in Salt Lake City and either killed that sucker or made it better. But there were no funds for that, nor much attention paid to it (Berkens has been one of the few people sounding the alarm) – so now it will likely get on the books and it won’t be a long before someone reading this post has domains threatened under it, and it will surely be cited by CADNA as a model for how they’d like the Federal Anticybersquatting Act to read. That’ll cost many domainers way more than ICA’s basic dues, and it’ll give the industry a headache way bigger than any TRAFFIC hangover.
So that’s my blunt opinion in response to yours. If others want to try again to build grassroots support for ICA then good luck and godspeed, but I’ve got my own work to do on behalf of the people who understand the stakes and are willing to invest in protecting their future. Best regards.
Alan
I have to agree with Phil on this issue of grass roots membership.
God knows Phil’s been at this a lot longer than I have, but just in the 2+ years I have been blogging, its time to call it a day for grass roots support.
First all anyone asked for was $295 a YEAR, as Phil said less than one nights stay at any conference and like I always say equivalent to 4 backorders a year at NameJet.com.
At some point people are going to get it or they are going to close there eyes and not want to deal with it or just keep smoking even they know it kills people.
I use the smoking reference because we ALL know that people die from smoking millions still do it. Some of these people are quite intelligent but they do what they want despite the facts and figures being in front of their face.
So for me on the ICA too much time and money has been spent on telling people what is right in front of them.
The costs to support a $295 member is the same to support a $10K member (actually probably more) yet most people want to give $20 a year and then want voting rights on top of it.
So The ICA will continue in some form, still opened to all to contribute to and try to protect the interests of all domainers with the participation of less than .000001% of the industry,
Mike / Phil
Don’t get me wrong. I agree a grassroots membership drive is probably doomed from the start. As Phil said about the other industries having be comprised of mostly professionals while domainers are not I also agree.
It’s been my words for a long time that most domainers are not businessmen but simply owners of assets. Even some of the larger domain holders (not necessarily the names we all know) fall in this category. Collecting assets and switching domain name servers as the primary source of income does not make a businessman but simply an investor.
Almost everyone is some type of investor but few make the leap to earning the title businessman.
My opinion was not related to how to get domainers together but how the ICA could – could be the key word – look outside of domainers for more funds.
It’s a challenge which I feel no envy in as unless it’s a new parking service most domainers will have little interest anyway.
Keep up the good work. There are people who appreciate this.
Alan
I’m still not willing to let domainers off the hook even if they are just investors and not businessman.
Why?
Because I see plenty of ordinary citizens show up protesting their tax valuation of their home, because they have a financial interest in their home.
I see plenty of people showing up at zoning hearings when someone proposes to stick a strip club or a Walmart down the street from them, because they want to protect the value of their assets.
I see people spending money to joint the NRA just to protect their rights to own a gun.
I see people at budget hearings protesting cuts in spending for the schools their kids attend or police budgets because they want the police to protect what they have.
I have never seen a group less motivated to protect the assets they own than domain owners.
This goes beyond being a businessman.
There is not excuse.
If a domainer had someone trying to take their house away would they just stand by with keys in hand waiting to hand them over.
Seems like they would.
You know how many people have commented on the blog to the effect hey if they take my domain away I’ll just get another one.
Who thinks like that?
I will tell you Michael who thinks that way, people who do not own valuable names. Not every name owned is this precious gem that people like to pontificate. If you own a name like Hayward.com and paid $20,000 sure you defend that, take action. If you own XNCV.com and someone comes after that and you paid $10, you let it go.
Bottom line domainers don’t care, they either have no belief in the ICA or they believe people like Godaddy, Sedo, Schilling, Ham, Schwartz should be writing $1,000,000 checks. Its not going to change no matter how many blog posts.
I have never seen a support the ICA 125 x 125 spot on a domain blog, instead of getting $100 or $200 a month for another parking company advertisement. Maybe some could look at that as contributing. It doesn’t matter who is letting anyone off the hook, no one here is anyone’s master to hold them to anything, and the small or average domainer knows that the big guys are going to do something. What group of people is not spending $1,000,000 to protect $100,000,000, $200,000,000 ?
I believe Mr.Corwin has done a great job from the representation standpoint, but to say ICA reached out to the average domainer is not true. The average domainer is on Namepros and DNF, never seen banner ads running there for the ICA. The average domainer reads Domaining.com don’t see banner ads running there. You have done a consistent great job for the ICA, no other publication has maintained a consistent mantra to support the ICA. Where is support the ICA on SEDO and AFTERNIC, No ICA, NO DOMAINING some like to say, so then if there is no domaining, NO SEDO, NO AFTERNIC.
You don’t think people outside the industry look at the fact that while CADNA is pushing through legislation, domainers are in Vegas, The PLayboy Mansion and Mardi Gras ? Doesn’t seem like the focused businessmen Alan is posting about. Nothing wrong with going to those events IMO but you cannot have it both ways. How many domainers show up to an ICANN meeting ? 2,1,0 ?
Here are a few observations and ideas:
If you want more domainer participation you might consider changing the name ICA to something that domainers can identify with more, like something that emphasizes more on the word domains or domainer rather than Internet Commerce.
The divide between the small domainers and the elite and the opposing interest that some people have in different TLDs has caused many people to take sides and by doing so they can no longer represent all domainers without bias. Some of the people who are being glorified here as the defenders of the domain Industry are the same exact people who ridicule the average domainers and ignore their input and thus have alienated a lot of people who otherwise could have contributed a lot to ICA in terms of support and new ideas.
As I had mentioned in another post here, perhaps the directors of ICA could use part of the donations made by the domainers to create a portfolio of domains (good domains that could be monetized without any issues) on behalf of the organization in order to create a source of revenue and thus make ICA more self-supportive.
ICA might also be able to attract more members by offering exclusive services to domainers and by negotiating discounted rates for them as a group. If domainers can save money on some of the things that they need they might have an easier time convincing themselves to become members and pay their yearly dues.
PS: I think that new TLDs are going to be here eventually and the fact that all discussions about them were discouraged up to now is leaving a lot of room for some unforeseen and unfavorable outcomes such as a few companies taking advantage of unfair trademarks ending up with generic TLDs that in reality should belong to all the people.
.ME did pretty well as the number of UDRP cases was negligibly small: http://dot-me.of-cour.se/2010/01/22/lessons-of-project-me/
On the other hand, that is rather a ccTLD with a very good element of gTLD indeed.
As for .me, porsche.me was a famous case of stupidity indeed.
I also remember that cocacola.me was on sale at namepros – lol. It looks like that name is still in the hands of the individual, unlike the non-hyphenated version.
Everything
You should work for the US government, you seem to be very good at spending everyone else’s money
In response to Everything banner comments, why don’t the forums and blogs display a banner free?
It really boils down to whom is making money from the industry and they should be promoting ICA.
Mike has a small banner at the bottom of this page.
Ron Jackson also has one at the bottom of his front page.
So does Sedo.
No banners on BuyDomains, NameMedia, Enom, GoDaddy, Elliot’s, DNF, DNN or DNW.
Visitor
Even more importantly the companies you mentioned; Buydomains, NameMedia, Enom (Demand Media) and Godaddy have not contributed a dime to the ICA to the best of my knowledge