Be VERY afraid...all domainers READ!

[Gerry]

Is it any wonder some domainers are trimming their portfolios (as I have done), not newly reg'ing many and trying to sell what they have (especially in view of declining ppc income too).

I am right beside you in this matter.

Trimming portfolio by as much as 40% or more, building sites that passes the looks, feels, smells, tastes like test, and considering brokering among other avenues.

And one thing I am going to do as soon as I free up some revenue is become a member of ICA.

Whether I am a domainer or not, one thing I can not discount or get out of is some online businesses I operate.

These new proposals affects every one on the internet and they know nothing about ICANN, ICA, WIPO, URDP...there is another world out there that know nothing about domains.

All they know is you have to own one to be on the internet.

 

[Stian]

You're all aware that such a ruling would shut down the entire internet? Huge websites run privately or by small companies would be shut down as their domain names are taken away from them.

What about acronym, "brandable" and generic domains/keywords with more than 10.. 100.. 1000 potential trademark owners? Which company will get the domain name without a UDRP/WIPO or some sort of court/legal procedure? Is the domain name randomly handed out to the first company who "applies" for it? What happens when the next, bigger company applies for the same domain name because they have a similar trademark?

It will never, ever happen.

 

[acesfull]

The more rights they take from the domain owners and the more bogus rights they give to other entities and the more they raise expenses to own a domain, their irresponsible actions will result in MUCH HIGHER PRICES for people, in the years ahead, wanting to create a new identity on the Internet, when they try to buy a domain on the aftermarket. So a good-quality name today, that could be purchased for about $3,000 may later cost the domain buyer $30,000 and up. So, with all of the bullshi* regulations and controls, some geniuses want to impose, they are going to fu*k over a much wider range of people, that weren't intended to be hurt... which you can think of as UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES.


Also, unfair rules and regulations and higher prices could easily cause domain speculators to drop 50 to 90+ percent of their domains and maintain a much smaller, higher-quality portfolio, resulting in huge losses to the registrars - because even if they triple the registration fees, if speculators are dropping all of their "garbage" domains, and newbies are afraid to even try to speculate in domains, the registrars and ICANN will lose big time.

 

[Gerry]

This is why I say respond to the original piece I linked to and voice opposition to the counsel representing ICANN.

And keep in mind, as the author pointed out to me, these are ICANN's proposals.

If that were not enough to convince you how out of control this is getting, then see the accompanying link here.

Remember, this is why you are here for reading this.

To those saying grandstanding, sensationalism, alarmist, attention getting I say bullshit.

You have New York getting ready to snatch names based on the outcome of the Kentucky ruling.

You have a House Judiciary Committee looking into ICANN and I dare say considering action that may result in a new overseer of the internet.

You have the Congressional Internet Caucus discussing the future of ICANN with reps from all over the globe expressing concern.

And lastly, keep in mind the past efforts of Congress to tax internet usage - perhaps the final frontier.

For those of you in the states, how many of you are paying state taxes for doing internet commerce?

Chances are none of you.

Here in North Carolina it is supposed to be on the honor system.

Each year I am to claim the amount of money I have spent on purchasing something outside of the state of NC in order that state tax may be collected.

Think Amazon.com and eBay...all those purchases that were tax free.

Many of you have an awful lot to learn about the internet, state and federal laws and taxation.

If you don't learn it from here, then find some place to learn it.

And this could affect international members as well.

 

[Compassion]

all anyone needs to know about American taxes is this:

-apportioned taxes are constitutional

-all other taxes are not.


oh and the federal reserve? 0% federal and there is no reserve! just a bunch of international bankers sitting around playing chess with the world - oh and they get to control the money supply - how convenient.



your name in ALL CAPS mean you are a corporation....typing in lower case letters is a way to personify sovereignty

 

[DTalk]

You're all aware that such a ruling would shut down the entire internet? Huge websites run privately or by small companies would be shut down as their domain names are taken away from them.

It will never, ever happen.

How many domains are registered?

How many websites are up on the internet?

How many people use the internet?


The internet - and the hundreds of millions of people, and businesses, that rely upon it - is now hard-wired into the global fabric of the business, social, and economic, structure of the world. The internet is not an 'extra' now - it is central.


NO action that threatens those structures will gain traction, because the consequences would be too destructive.


Domain rights for the internet - like land/property rights in the 'other' economy - are central to economic stability & proper functioning of economies now. They underpin stable society.


The current global crisis was provoked because land values (and property ownership) became unstable.....If the values of internet properties/businesses were to be threatened (and, threatening the stable ownership system of domains would do that), then, it would provoke exactly the same sort of crisis. There would be uncontrollable negative forces unleashed, globally, in exactly the same way.


Whatever is being proposed that undermines widespread domain ownership stability doesn't have a prayer.

.

 

[Gerry]

Whatever is being proposed that undermines widespread domain ownership stability doesn't have a prayer.

I don't disagree with anything you mentioned.

But can it be the money alone motivating ICANN to come up with these proposals?

all of this is so bizarre.

 

[DTalk]

But, I do agree, Doc....Vigilance is the key....And, you are helping us do that....

...I, for one, appreciate your efforts very much.

But can it be the money alone motivating ICANN to come up with these proposals?

all of this is so bizarre.

Totally agree. Bizarre.


I think its about both ICANN money - and, ICANN politics.

I can only think that ICANN are so focused on trying to get their daft multiple 'keyword' extension idea up (which is about money) - and, which is running into all kinds of resistance - that they are attempting to gain the support of the Corporates (and Govt) by flying this kite about a TM 'protection' strategy - thus, offering some kind of reassurance to the big end of town (and Govt) on the subject (Btw - the keyword extension plan, itself, threatens total mayhem in the area of TM language usage rights). That's the money angle.


I also suspect, its a 'political' smokescreen by ICANN. They are presently in serious danger of being sidelined eventually, imo, as the global governing body for overseeing the conduct of the internet. They risk being the victim of an international 'reorganisation'. So, with this proposal, they are saying: ' Hey, look at us. We're the good guys. We protect intellectual property rights!'. ie good global 'citizenship. That's the 'politics' angle.


Problem is, I don't think they understand the broader ramifications. What they are suggesting would have the opposite effect - ie so infringe upon personal (internet) property rights (making domain ownership unstable), as to make the internet, itself, unworkable - and, place billions of dollars invested in internet eCommerce at risk...


...And, when that becomes apparent, this stupidity by ICANN, dressed up as 'good citizenship', will be dead in the water, imo.


.

 

[newvista]

[QUOTE

Problem is, I don't think they understand the broader ramifications. What they are suggesting would have the opposite effect - ie so infringe upon personal (internet) property rights (making domain ownership unstable), as to make the internet, itself, unworkable - and, place billions of dollars invested in internet eCommerce at risk...

[/QUOTE]


Well said, any overarching attempt to devalue and dilute the contractual rights of domain holders will unlease a tsunami of litigation [tm and udrp issues excluded] and question the very fabric of our capitalist society.
It is a total non starter IMO as a blanket legislation.

 

[kengreenwood]

Everything DTalk stated is exactly what anyone with any common sense would understand and agree with.

Let's just hope common sense prevails in this case.

 

[Vision]

Doc, thank you for sharing this valuable intel -- sadly, some act like ostriches implanting theirs heads into the sand.

You, George, Adam, and Acro are our Paul Reveres -- please continue to shine the spotlight on pending threats.

Lets take a collective intellectual pre-emptive strike and knock out this cancerous/onerous proposal before it metathesizes.

-Michael

 

[Gerry]

I can only think that ICANN are so focused on trying to get their daft multiple 'keyword' extension idea up (which is about money) - and, which is running into all kinds of resistance - that they are attempting to gain the support of the Corporates (and Govt) by flying this kite about a TM 'protection' strategy - thus, offering some kind of reassurance to the big end of town (and Govt) on the subject (Btw - the keyword extension plan, itself, threatens total mayhem in the area of TM language usage rights). That's the money angle.


I also suspect, its a 'political' smokescreen by ICANN. They are presently in serious danger of being sidelined eventually, imo, as the global governing body for overseeing the conduct of the internet. They risk being the victim of an international 'reorganisation'. So, with this proposal, they are saying: ' Hey, look at us. We're the good guys. We protect intellectual property rights!'. ie good global 'citizenship. That's the 'politics' angle.

As usual, DT, eloquently put.

Yes, Politics and Money.

I think the good internet citizen analogy is what is happening with all this presented.

With the published statements from the Department of Commerce recommended ICANN reconsider or slow down one can only think that if the recommendation are not considered, at some point the DoC is going to step in and take the reins.

ICANN must be in a very uncomfortable position at the moment feeling the breath of someone breathing down their back.

I do not think that all the proposed new URL's are entirely bad. I think it is time to move forward into a new internet where the brand is the name. There are some decent generics that represent what the internet is all about as well. As for the city/country codes - They have an uphill battle with these as it stands.

It would be as if you and I ponied up the money and got .perth initiated without the knowledge of the Perth government. Many domainers forget that most municipalities are a brand and incorporated in themselves. I suspect that many going forward with the gcTLD's (global city) are not acting in the best interest of those cities nor with their seal of approval.

All of these proposals if you will notice, and I am sure you did, are a direct result of a previous history of ICANN's lack of leadership and responsibility. They are a direct result of the unwanted scrutiny not by the domaining community but by governments themselves.

Once more, domaining is front page in many media outlets not because of the benefits but because of the potential damage to the consumer.

And nothing is more heroic than a hallowed Congressperson riding in on shining armor to save the consumer from fraud.

By the way, many Congressional seats are up for re-election in 2010.

Just thought I would throw that tidbit of information out there.

 

[DTalk]

I do not think that all the proposed new URL's are entirely bad. I think it is time to move forward into a new internet where the brand is the name.

In its pure form, I agree, Doc. After all, the purpose of a domain is to reflect the offerings/brand of the product/service/info provider. And, there's a fair argument for saying that extensions that reflect exactly what the provider is all about is only beneficial.


The problem lies in the practice. And, the instability it could cause. The stakes are so high on the internet. Any generic term wholly owned, as an extension, by a single entity, could place every other owner of that domain term (especially, TM holders for use of that term) in potential conflict with it...

Better that ICANN leaves that can of worms alone, imo.

...But, perhaps, this is a debate for another thread...

All of these proposals if you will notice, and I am sure you did, are a direct result of a previous history of ICANN's lack of leadership and responsibility. They are a direct result of the unwanted scrutiny not by the domaining community but by governments themselves.

Completely agree. Vacuums always get filled - and, not always beneficially.


What we've seen from ICANN over the years is typical of monopoly management:

When your revenue is safely derived from managing processes, instead of from managing a competitive service, you don't get leadership - you get sluggish, unresponsive, uncreative, inefficient, and excessively process-driven, management. This always leads to a dumbing down to low common-denominator 'consensus' decision-making - or, just plain in-bred thinking - instead of sharply-tailored, leading-edge thinking....This is what we have with ICANN....Pretty ironic, given the new frontiers - and new thinking - you'd expect in the fast-breaking, new world of the internet.


Poor, slow - or no - decisions - in critical infrastructure areas, like the internet - always causes problems....And, unwelcome attention from another sluggish, unresponsive, uncreative, and excessively process-driven, management system - ie Government.

Lord help us!

.

 

[Gerry]

In its pure form, I agree, Doc. After all, the purpose of a domain is to reflect the offerings/brand of the product/service/info provider. And, there's a fair argument for saying that extensions that reflect exactly what the provider is all about is only beneficial.

I can only imagine that a major product offering like .coke could greatly benefit.

I am only using .coke as an example.

First, every living soul can rest assured that no domainer would ever be allowed to reg anything at all using .coke.

There is no doubt in my mind that this would become so closely and tightly held and controlled by Coca-Cola.

We all know that Coke would never permit sex . coke or xxx . coke.

They will do nothing to risk or tarnish their image.


Most of all, this is the magic of branding.

I have no doubt that everyone in short time would be using diet .coke, new .coke, classic .coke, superbowl .coke.

They are so internationally known and branded that they are indeed a brand to themselves.

Having such an extension would enable them to market current and future offerings in a unique and memorable manner.

Countless studies in marketing and branding have shown that the number of times a brand is mentioned helps etch the brand into the consciousness.

This has the added advantage of ending a conversation, commercial, or video spot with the last word being your brand coke.

See us at cherry dot coke.

BAM!

That is how powerful a tool new TLD's could be.

The impact could be tremendous.

Confusing?

Perhaps. Perhaps not.

What I mean is we are used to doing things a certain way at this very moment.

That is typically why I see so much resistance to any and all tld's outside of .com.

The web does not have to come in just one flavor.

And it doesn't.

And there is certainly no rules that can not be changed or modified to accomodate the web's growth.

And demands!

Again, the consumer wins.

Business and commerce does not tell the consumer what to use.

The consumer dictates to business what does and does not work and what they like and do not like.

So if coke finds it to their advantage to have their own TLD, then more power to them.

Seriously and literally speaking - more power to them.

This will give the the power and flexibility of branding their product and namesake.

We could be looking at a new era of the coke wars and beer wars all played out on the virtual world and reality.

And I can not but help think it will not only be good for commerce and the internet but will be down right fun to watch it.