The The Coalition Against Domain Name Abuse (CADNA) served up another ridiculous figure to the press today in discussing the new $.20 per domain, non-refundable fee imposed by ICANN to eliminate domain tasting.
CADNA in said that ICANN move was only a “partial success” and it “is unlikely that the proposed solution will adequately address domain name tasting”.
Here CADNA’s math:
“””””””””””””A registrant that registers 100,000 domain names would keep 6,600 of them on average. At $6.20 each, the cost of these domain names would be $40,920. Paired with the 20 cent Icann fee for each of the 93,400 domains that were not kept, the total cost of the domains would be $59,600.
In other words, the taster would have spent $9 per profitable domain name that was identified via tasting and kept beyond the Add Grace Period.””””
“”””Since each click is worth 73 cents on average to a ‘traffic-squatter’ each domain name would need to receive just an additional 3.8 clicks in year one in order to make up the difference from the “inconvenient” Icann fee”””
So CADNA is saying that each click is worth $.73 to the “traffic-squatter and that a domain taster will keep 6.6% of the domains tasted.
Ridiculous.
Interesting that most domainers and domainer media outets think ICANN’s action will kill domain tasting.
The DomainNameNews.com went through the numbers last night and came to a completely different conclusion than CADNA.
The DomainNameNews.com used a more realistic keep rate of .5%.
We have never done domain tasting but we have talked to people who have, and a keep rate of .5% up to 2%, at the very top end, is what the real world is.
Using a .5% keep rate as the DomainNameNews.com points out gets you to an average cost of $46.42 per kept domain.
CADNA wants you to believe the cost is only $9.
Next CADNA wants you to believe that they average click is worth $.73 to the domain owner.
$.73 per click net to the domain owner for a typo domain?
6.6% keep rate.
Ridiculous
CADNA is a problem.
They get press.
Anytime they put a press release out it gets picked up in short order by mainstream media outlets.
They keep putting out numbers that have no relationship to reality and no one is around to refute the numbers in the mainstream press.
Perception is reality and if these number do not get refuted they will grow to be accepted as fact by the media down the line.
Last month you may remember that CADNA at the “Online Brand Abuses and Internet Governance education Forum” in London put out a press release stating that:
“””””With the high margins posted by online criminals—MANY cybersquatted domains that are simply used to post sponsored advertisements produce $10,000 per year and cost just $10 to maintain”””
We blogged about it at the time and commented on what a ridiculous allegation that was.
Another troubling trend with CADNA is that they seem to come up with an ever expanding universe of what domains are including as abusive and an ever expanding vocabulary of what they call these people
Now we have the term traffic-Sqatter.
Back last month they introduced the term, “Brand Infringement” and “Harmful Diversion” and then again tried to equate domain owners with people involved in phishing scams and the sale of counterfeit goods.
As CADNA gets more press, makes up more numbers, calls domainers more names, put more and more labels on domain owners, the harder time we are going to have when the next Snowe bill get introduced in Congress.
Don’t forget the release on “brandjacking”
Would the Domain Journal be willing to put out a press release about CADNA.org’s own act of cybersquatting on CADNA.com’s website? I mean for G-ds sake let’s fight back with the basics!!!
Owen
Hard to keep up with all of them.
Kelly
Why don’t you write to Ron and ask him???
I will. You know, I had a lengthy discussion with Dan Clevenger about Cadna.org’s infringement of his CADNA.com trademark…. I am wondering if he ever followed up with Philip Corwin….
Kelly
I do not believe he did, but write to Ron anyway
Would be interesting to see DN Journal take CADNA to task with an investigative journalism piece. For starters, there is the hypocrisy of CADNA’s law firm with promoting selling pharmacy.com which previously displayed trademarked products like Viagra on a PPC page–artful combination of “traffic squatting”, “cyber squatting”, trademark infringement, and”brand infringement”.
Just wait until the vTLDs are swarming all over them like locusts.
I wrote to Ron. I bet he will put something together.. maybe we can get Kesmodel to connect him with The Wall Street journal…..
Mr. Black
As I told Kelly write to Ron and let him know what you do and ask him to write about it.
We need a team effort.
CADNA has a HUGE team behind them
They don’t know what they’re doing. Their math also says that domains cost $6.00. Someone should tell them VeriSign has increased the prices.
Andrew
Maybe they get a discount.
Seriously that’s the whole point, they clearly have no clue, but they put numbers out in the media every month.
If we allow these numbers to stick in the media, unchallenged, they will be accepted as fact sometime down the line.
I want .73 cent average clicks on my parked domains! absurd!
the industry HIGH at the highest rev share parking company is probably hovering around 30 cents a click at the moment, maybe even less. This would be at the top tier google feed parking company giving out the highest rev share possible.
Jerzz
The whole thing was absurd
The cost of the domains was wrong, the average click was silly and the keep rate was a joke.
Last month’s $10K a year for a $10 domain was ridiculous too
Interetsing article and response – let’s see what Ron J. will post on his site – need to see the whole “picture”
Ron fron DN Journal just replied. Unfortunately he has months of editorial in the hopper backed up.
Does anybody know David Kesmodel personally? He wrote the Domain Game and might be intrigued enough to write an investigative piece.
Ok.
I know everyone is going to think that I have lost my marbles… but I just wrote Cadna.org asking them if they could have a representative call me about becoming an affiliate for AmorMark, one of CADNA.com’s products!
Let confusion reign!!!
I don’t know what the heck this will accomplish-unless ALL of us start calling, e-mailing, writing CADNA.org with requests for automotive products.
Isn’t that the whole premise of their organization? That someone’s legitimate TM be confused by someone else’s illegal use of their domain?
Kelly
Exactly right.
If anyone of us registered dell.org we we have bloody hell to pay. They would make another 25 words up to call us, more phony stats and calls to congress, yet there whole organization is built around a trademark name.
Perfect
Kelly
I know David (He said I was the inspiration for his book).
Anyway I will drop him an e-mail and see if he has any interest
MHB
Well this is becoming very interesting… I just received an email from Joshua Bourne, Managing Partner at FairwindsPartners.com responding to my email. He wants me to send him my phone number so we can talk.
Here is a copy of my email:
From: Kelly Lieberman
To: josh@cadna.org
Sent: Fri Jul 04 16:26:14 2008
Subject: ArmorMark
Hello,
I am interested in becoming an affiliate for your AmorMark products. Would you please have a representative contact me?
Best Regards,
Kelly Lieberman
I just noticed that in the message he sent back there is a non-disclosure message about dessimination, and copying etc. is prohibited…so I won’t copy it.
Briefly, the spirit of his message is that he has an idea of what I am am doing and we can discuss it over the phone…
I think that it is a great opening for a dialogue although clearly I am over my head. (Phil Corwin, where are you!)
I will wait till Monday to send Josh my number in case anyone here wants to get a hold of me. My email is in this post.
I see that my email didn’t show up. I will try it again and add a number. kellyl@spidertel.com.
913.744.9588