Roundtable or T.R.A.F.F.I.C. (or neither)?

[GeorgeK]

Daddy and George .. which conference are you going to?

To satiate your curiosity (beware of what happens to curious felines!), I couldn't make it to Domain Roundtable this time (picked option 3 in the poll that started this thread), but will order the DVDs should they make them. Some of the folks going to or speaking at TRAFFIC West appear good too (they're not all painted with the same brush).

Folks would benefit from BOTH conferences, and should be able to sift the "gems" from the crud (you'll note I've resisted attacking the conferences themselves, just some specific BS associated with them; if DomainRoundtable had pulled the same BS, I'd have called them on it too). Just like when I attacked WLS, but continued to use SnapNames. Or criticized Pool's auction changes (which they've since abandoned), but continued to use them.

 

[hiOsilver]

Regardless of how things came about, I would like to see an avoidance of conflicting dates in the future. Rick & Howard put on a fantastic conference last October, and I feel fortunate to have been there. However, I did not appreciate having to choose between Seattle and Vegas. Since I still plan on attending TRAFFIC 2005, I decided to attend Roundtable.

It is sad to see a thread deteriorate into the nasty noise that this one has turned into. Personal attacks should be left out.

Suggestion: For a truly professional event, it should be open to everyone. I don't care if someone was convicted of cybersquatting and spent time in jail, they still should be able to attend a domain conference.

Having a conference during the week, or mostly during the week, and charging enough will separate out the professionals from the non-pros. There is nothing wrong with amateurs attending, but I agree with Rick that the event should not be set up for convenience of amateurs.

 

[namestrands]

I find all this so ironic, and please do not take this the wrong way.. but these conferences are being arranged so as to create some confidence and recognition in the domain and secondary domain marketplace..

yet this whole thread is all about collateral attacks on each other.. I though we were all standing together as one.. from my point of thinking most of the IP community think of us as just cybersquatters, and do not understand what it is we are all really about, and I am sure people reading this thread will believe what they read..

I find this all sad, as I see many friends here turning on each other.

Lets not forgot why we are all here.

Back in the days of Old.. when the Internet was still young, we would of loved to have such professionals organise such an event.. or 2 great events by some of my most respected peers.. people I have been talking to about this are not taking it serious, and thinking that it will be over run by a load of cybersquatting geeks, Yes this was a comment that was made.. and reference to this thread was made...

Look I dont have the answers to why what or who.. lets just all enjoy the events and stand together as the community we are supposed to be. We have a lot of impressionable minds on this board, youngsters, newbies and wanna be DotComGods..

My first 2600 event was the greatest experience of my life, getting to meet all these legends was just a dream come true for me, ok it is not quite on par with these events but the theme is the same.. a meeting of the minds. A place to learn and share our experiences and a place for us to move forward and be heard.

I myself are having second thoughts now due to this thread..

Its all such a shame really.. its really spoiling my fun and excitement.. :-(

 

[Domagon]

I find all this so ironic, and please do not take this the wrong way.. but these conferences are being arranged so as to create some confidence and recognition in the domain and secondary domain marketplace..

The lack of ethics and courtesy by some conference organizers personally gives me *less* confidence in the domain business...

While the adult business has lots of shady characters, it appears the domain name business has more than its fair share of them ... very surprising considering there's more low hanging fruit, so to speak, in the domain name business than in the on-line adult industry, which is far more competitive and controlled/regulated.

yet this whole thread is all about collateral attacks on each other.. I though we were all standing together as one..

Welcome to reality

With that said, things can change and hopefully an open, honest discussion like this one will encourage folks to make better decisions in the future; become more united.

...from my point of thinking most of the IP community think of us as just cybersquatters, and do not understand what it is we are all really about, and I am sure people reading this thread will believe what they read..

I strongly disagree with your assertion about the IP community - most attorneys familiar with domain names understand the business is more akin to land speculation, etc as opposed to outright squatting (a problem at one time, especially back in the late 90s when NSI invoiced registrations). Domain name transactions are done all the time between numerous domain name speculators and companies utilizing their attorneys - I personally have done domain sales in which the attorney(s) I was dealing with was very "green" in regards to the business, and yet they understood that vast majority of folks with domains for sale have no obvious IP issues; they understand purchasing domains is just another cost of business ... big companies paying 5, 6, 7+ figures is common, but rarely ever publicized.

...I find this all sad, as I see many friends here turning on each other...

People are being honest in this thread - doesn't automatically mean the end to friendships, etc. I, for one, simply have strong opinions on various things as do some others here - being open and honest about how one feels about things, while occasionally disruptive, can often bring about real, meaningful change in the longrun.

Ron

Addendum...

Here's a possible solution (I think some others have suggested something similar) ...

TRAFFIC and Domain RoundTable should agree on dates for upcoming shows for the next year or so ... and publish that info, prior to the upcoming May conferences, NOW!

That action alone would show signs of cooperation and give folks more confidence.

As of now TRAFFIC has scheduled future conferences after the May one, in October 2005 and October 2006.

* Does TRAFFIC intend to schedule a conference in May-2006? -how about any other months outside of October?

* Does Domain RoundTable intend to schedule any more conferences in 2005?

* Does Domain RoundTable intend to schedule a conference in May-2006? -and/or other months?

In a nutshell, both TRAFFIC and Domain RoundTable should consult with each other and publish dates for upcoming conferences in the next week or so - such actions would show much good will and help the whole community be more united - and further would help both conferences coming up in a couple of weeks be more productive.

Ron

 

[bocajohnh]

I think these two statements sum up where this thread has plummetted to:

you'll note I've resisted attacking the conferences themselves...

"resisted attacking the conference themselves". Sheesh, on behalf of the concert promoters, I thank you for the personal restraint. Sounds like the kind of bitter combative crap I go out of my way to avoid, especially at a three day conference, Seattle or Vegas, Domain name, real estate investing or a town hall meeting. I'd hate to have you sit and stew next to me while you "resist attacking my clothes selection" or "resist attacking me about my hairstyle" or "resist attacking me about the evils of the saccharin I just added to my @*@& iced tea" or whatever.

DNF is a DISCUSSION FORUM, and is open to all members/ participants. I can't see why anyone should be silenced because they can't attend a particular meeting.

Fine, start a "RickS sucks and georgeK is and was perfect" thread and take the friggin posse over there and post the same old RickS bashing there. Jeepers, on this board if someone accidently posts a "domain wanted" post in the "for sale" section, a mod or another member will either chastise the person within seconds or move the thread. The "shut up" message here is one of "shut up and post your opinions in the correct frigging place", so that those interested IN THIS INTENDED TOPIC don't have to hear the same old crap every time something associated with RickS comes up. Keep it on topic.

If you are a member of DNF and will be at the one show I chose to attend this May, lets make sure we meet. I'll write my friggin DNF name on my badge, and if you do also, hey, we can say "Hello, fellow DNF member. I bought/sold example.com from/to you and I appreciate the time you spent on that deal."

 

[GeorgeK]

The "shut up" message here is one of "shut up and post your opinions in the correct frigging place", so that those interested IN THIS INTENDED TOPIC don't have to hear the same old crap every time something associated with RickS comes up. Keep it on topic.

Go back and read the thread in its entirety. It's clear you did not. I kept on topic, refuting Rick's assertions that Roundtable was a copycat event. He posted that BS (and hasn't posted in days to apologize), even after it was shown that 1) there was a conference in 2002 that he wasn't involved in, showing the concept did not originate from him, and 2) declarations by Roundtable organizers (in DNJournal) that it was based on ICANN-style multi-track meetings (which was pretty obvious to anyone who has seen ICANN meeting agendas posted on their website for years now). Period.

All you're doing, by the way, is continuing to bump the thread, making statements that are easily disproved ("oops, yeah, George was on topic, as anyone who read the thread can see"). If you want to keep publicizing a thread wherein Rick obviously doesn't want to retract his "copycat" statement, for whatever reason, that's fine.

At least when you bump it, attack the argument (e.g. if you agree that Roundtable is a copycat event, or not, and how you came to that conclusion), instead of the messengers. No one has "bashed" Rick -- they've simply presented a series of facts, to counter some bald assertions. Let me repeat that -- BALD ASSERTIONS. Rick said he could "prove" things, but chooses not to, instead hoping that his statement alone that he "has the proof" is compelling. It is not. Who is he protecting by not sharing his "proof"? Think about that....perhaps he's protecting himself, if his "proof" isn't as strong as he thinks. If a lawyer told a jury in a court that he "had the proof", but couldn't or wouldn't show it, what would that jury think and do?

If that person is unaccustomed to having bald assertions challenged, then perhaps he is unaware of what message forums have as one of their purpose. They are not a "safe haven" for folks to make unsubstantiated accusations (e.g. that Roundtable is a copycat event), but a place where those kinds of accusations CAN and WILL be challenged, by anyone who can do so with facts and logic, and through the strength of their arguments.

Take a moment to think of what this message board would look like if unsubstantiated accusations did go unchallenged. It would end up filled with spam and propaganda. Some places don't allow debate...one such place is a cult. When you see cult-like devotion to certain people, you know that the followers are simply sheep. (bah)

There's a famous quote "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." Adapting that notion, the only thing separating a good board and one that is filled with propaganda is a few good men and women who'll challenge unsubstantiated assertions, and through vigorous debate, facts, and logic allow openminded participants to separate fact from fiction, arriving at Truth.

 

[MediaHound]

OK, GK - I'll tell you one way.
Explain why the sponsorship levels were the exact same - and even with the exact same pricing. That was COPIED.

 

[GeorgeK]

Hi MediaHound,

Who are you asserting came up with the sponsorship levels and pricing first?? (and on which websites, or going by email quotes?)

Sincerely,

George

 

[MediaHound]

I can take a horse to the water but I cannot force him to drink it.


TRAFFIC

 

[GeorgeK]

lol You need to lead us a bit closer to the water.

I found:

http://www.domainroundtable.com/sponsorship/Sponsorship Overview.pdf

for Roundtable. Where's the TRAFFIC version, for comparison??

 

[MediaHound]

It's not publicly available atm.
Take my word for it they were ^COPIED^ to the penny.

Rick or Howard can confirm this for you if they care to take the time to entertain here any longer (so could JW, Jothan, or MoeSuffixes, etc.).

The rabbit is out of the hat. Time to drop it.

Goodbye!

 

[GeorgeK]

hehe You've never heard of "price points" before, I guess? Or monitoring competition, and adjusting to meet their prices, or create a better value proposition??

It must be a mystery to some why gasoline is priced around the same at every location, or soft drinks, etc. That's competition in operation. I guess Pepsi is a copycat of Coke, or a Honda Accord is a copycat of some other car, if they both have price points of $19,999. I guess they both do have 4-wheels....

 

[Cash Is King]

Does GeorgeK have a personal Axe to grind against Rick Schwartz??? You be the judge...



http://www.dnforum.com/showthread.php?t=77980&page=1&pp=40&highlight=rick+schwartz

hehehe Rick. Go back to October 2003 in your archives, and see what you did when Olive Branches were made to you. You summarily banned and damned them.

I hope T.R.A.F.F.I.C. 2005 is a repeat of last year. While you were all busy bidding on banker.com and its minor traffic, I was buying math.com.

http://www.dnforum.com/showthread.php?t=92097&highlight=rick+schwartz

http://www.dnforum.com/showthread.php?t=69843&highlight=rick+schwartz

 

[GeorgeK]

Read the post directly above the one you quote, ClassicNames:

Domain King: The only way THEY can be invited is to clean up their act. As of yet, there has been ZERO EVIDENCE of that happening and the only thing the "Olive branch" has been used for is to try and stick it up my BUTT.

The 2nd link refers to the voyuer.com UDRP decision. He's free to refute anything about that. Unclear to me if you are suggesting it's right for Rick to have filed that UDRP, or if you're just upset that the decision didn't go his way, or was brought to light.

The last link demonstrated factual errors in public media statements. They speak for themselves. Perhaps you want those statements to go unrefuted? You prefer falsehoods over truths?

Oh, and in that last link, there was a suggestion by some that dirtyjokes.com was a "gift", haha. It was proven wrong:

http://www.loffs.com/images/dirtyjokes-bought.gif

"KRL: Because its my domain I bought from Rick (Webfather) when I bought men.com"

 

[MediaHound]

KRL even told YOU outright what that was all about @
go **** yourself
http://www.gfy.com/showthread.php?t=377571

"As we were nearing the final details of our deal, I asked Rick to include that domain in the transaction. And he said sure. It was as simple as that. There wasn't a monetary value assigned to it if that's what you are asking.

I just liked that domain and thought it would be a nice one to develop and then market to a large corporation which is what I'm negotiating right now on it with a major TV network.

So you can look at it however you like.

I don't know why so many people get perplexed by big deals. They are no different than little deals. All they have is more zeros."

man oh man
the only thing "proven" wrong is YOU over and over

I can't believe I've reduced myself to replying here.
Life is too short to dance with ugly women, folks.

 

[DaddyHalbucks]

KRL even told YOU outright what that was all about @
go **** yourself
http://www.gfy.com/showthread.php?t=377571

"As we were nearing the final details of our deal, I asked Rick to include that domain in the transaction. And he said sure. It was as simple as that. There wasn't a monetary value assigned to it if that's what you are asking.

I just liked that domain and thought it would be a nice one to develop and then market to a large corporation which is what I'm negotiating right now on it with a major TV network.

So you can look at it however you like.

I don't know why so many people get perplexed by big deals. They are no different than little deals. All they have is more zeros."

man oh man
the only thing "proven" wrong is YOU over and over

I can't believe I've reduced myself to replying here.
Life is too short to dance with ugly women, folks.

"No monetary value assigned" --does that mean worthless?

And Berryhill I believe previously posted something like "When I bought my new car the dealer gave me a new baseball cap." LOL.

It's more like buying a Bentley and having the dealer throw in a "free" BMW. These things aren't free.

Only in the fantasyland which some folks are trying craft with smoke and mirrors and legions of propaganda workers.

 

[GeorgeK]

MediaHound: You seem to be very attached to the notion that it's impossible for DirtyJokes.com to have been "sold". If it was so obviously a "gift", KRL would not be posting it was "bought":

http://www.loffs.com/images/dirtyjokes-bought.gif

It's true that KRL posted that on GFY, too. Why would he post that? It's not plausible to you that there's an "official story" that they agree upon afterwards, in order for Rick to "save face" that he "never sold dirtyjokes.com", but that in unreserved moments, the obvious truth gets revealed, that it was a package deal and that dirtyjokes.com was "bought" (as per the screenshot I provided).

If it was 100% definitely a "gift", how would it even enter KRL's mind that he "bought" it?

Look up Occam's Razor: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor

"When multiple explanations are available for a phenomenon, the simplest version is preferred."

If you want to believe a convoluted story that a high Overture and high value domain dirtyjokes.com was a gift for "free" (just coincidentally had to be written into the same contract as men.com, was in escrow too, etc.), that's your choice. Most people would believe the simple story, which came out from KRL in an unreserved flash -- the domain was bought.

There's a very simple way to demonstrate that dirtyjokes.com has no value -- give it to me. arty: That would remove all doubt to the public that it was a worthless part of the transaction. I won't hold my breath, though. KRL and Rick are pals, but KRL isn't going to take a $250,000 hit to save face for him, to keep up the "story" that it was a "worthless gift".

 

[ShaunP]

George .. it's now official. You have ridden the horse to death ... all that's left is the saddle. Let it go already.

Shaun

 

[mole]

It was not Mark Twain who said, "The twains shall not meet".

On some boards, to even suggest disagreement or dissent is vilified, mocked and ceremonially booted.

The First Ammendment, is just a joke and insult to some.

There are still those who believe in rights to a chosen few, and that the amateur and common people who do not bow to the lord do not belong.

If this is the kind of business network we glorify, if this is the industry we are trying to shape, it is truly sad.

George .. it's now official. You have ridden the horse to death ... all that's left is the saddle. Let it go already.

George doesn't need a horse, duh. Just facts.

 

[FreddyS]

Hey Guys, something completely different. Do you have already your Las Vegas ".lv" Domain?
las-vegas.lv is still free! ;-)

CU in Vegas!

Freddy