Negative view of domaining - discuss

[biggedon]

I was more interested in criti
513
ques and criticisms of the post that I quoted.

I was kind of hoping for some intelligent economic theories. Wrong room? I guess so.

Because I'm a glutton for punishment... and I'm up at this hour.... lets try this a different way:

This guy has a very negative view. Perhaps it comes from him being mad about an auction. Perhaps he is simply insane. Great. That gets you nowhere.

Whether you want to make personal attacks on him or not, it doesn't get to the core issue. The core issue is the excerpt I posted -- which is not the first time I've seen or heard such a statement.

Lets pretend that Olympia Snowe gets a letter that makes his same points. Lets pretend that she starts looking at this as an economic/trade issue.

What do you write in your letter to *your* senator telling him or her what *your* perspective is? Do you throw a tantrum, call the guy names, or intelligently set forth why domaining is not "purely to squeeze profit from consumer confusion, artificial scarcity, and literal extortion. No actual value has been added to the universe, just a redistribution of money from people who have a valid use for a clear domain to people who registered that clear domain first."
f34
;

I guess I'm used to standing at the head of a law school class, where the Socratic method leads to elicitation of occasionally intelligent responses. If you don't think about how to deflect such attacks on your industry, or if you think that simply blaming it on the guy's personal issues will win the argument, you're wrong.

I didn't post it to praise it - nor to simply point at it and say "look at this asshole".

That's not a bad analogy. But, I'm not sure it would completely hold up. There are many differences between real estate and domains. First off, the scarcity of real estate is not artificial -- it is governed by the laws of nature. Even in the days when you could homestead land for free, you had to make use of it.

I've done a little research, and I'm surprised that nobody in the domaining community has actually written anything about how the industry does create value. I suppose a good argument could be made that domains do have a market-driven "value" that is artificially suppressed by ICANN's rules, and the domain aftermarket merely re-injects that natural market state into an unnaturally governed market.

most of your replies seems to suggest that we are not intelligent enough to either understand, comprehend or elaborate, with enough eloquence to satisfy your thirst for an argument which will remind you of being back in school debating with your "homies".

we/i reserve the right to engage and use words to describe how "i/we" feel about the subject on my/our own terms, which in turn describes how "i/we" feel about the rights i/we pay to utilize the domains we have in accordance with the TOS regarding domain registrations set forth by the repective registrars and those entities that govern, administer, and or have jurisdiction over such services.



is that an intellegent enough response for your eyes?


"value of a domain can be exampled in numerous ways, whether it be age or demand for a particular subject, the traffic and revenue it produces and or the amount of time and effort, resources used to acquire it.

for one to have to explain the value of a domain, one could just show the value of the internet...which uses domain names as a means of direction and navigation to get to a specific or general topic, product or service."

quote by me!

[marcorandazza]

No, it isn't really. Just because it has big words in it, it doesn't mean it has an iota of thought behind it. I give up.

[biggedon]

No, it isn't really. Just because it has big words in it, it doesn't mean it has an iota of thought behind it. I give up.

i think you were "up" before you "gave"...

and what you're trying to give...we/i ain't just swallowing.

[hugegrowth]

I think he has a good sense of humour and agree with most of what he says about the introduction of proposed new extensions (which hopefully won't happen). But he is wrong when he says nothing of value is created by a domain name. Also, he assumes there is only one legitimate user for a domain name, when really there could be unlimited legitimate users. Although, many people/businesses out there probably assume they are the only legitimate user of a given domain - lol.

[fab]

This is the funniest legal post I've found yet. I thought lawyers have a worse name then Domainers.

[Focus]

We are all sinners.

[denny007]

I'm surprised that nobody in the domaining community has actually written anything about how the industry does create value.

When I have some idea, some project, I check for domains and I am usually glad when a domainer owns it, because that means I can usually buy some. So that's the value I see - there is inventory of domains available immediately for someone who seriously need it.

Example ireport.com - CNN really needed it, becuase it perfectly suits the project. They pay huge for it, true. But if it would not be kept for future sale by a domainer, there would be there some much worse project than there is now.

the scarcity of real estate is not artificial -- it is governed by the laws of nature

There is not "scarcity" per se - there is lot of land for building but in locations unsuitable. Or rather tgere is same "scarcity" in domains caused by limited number of words. Now supply of domains is endless, but same as nobody will build housing in North pole, so will nobody build a project on sdfhg76sdfhg.com, so the number of suitable domains is also limited

Even in the days when you could homestead land for free, you had to make use of it.

But now you do not, right ? Only smaller part of portfolios are clean new registrations. The best portfolios except few has been acquired and paid market price for.

Analogy "domains -> land" works for me very well all the time...

[Honan]

I was more interested in critiques and criticisms of the post that I quoted.

I was kind of hoping for some intelligent economic theories. Wrong room? I guess so.

It was probably a bit optimistic of you to expect DNFers to actually read the dreamhost posts before commenting here

The blogger shows his sense of humour with this
"we earn our money fair and square: through over-selling, over-charging, and, every once in a long while, even over-blogging."

[nam2000]

most of your replies seems to suggest that we are not intelligent enough to either understand, comprehend or elaborate, with enough eloquence to satisfy your thirst for an argument which will remind you of being back in school debating with your "homies".

we/i reserve the right to engage and use words to describe how "i/we" feel about the subject on my/our own terms, which in turn describes how "i/we" feel about the rights i/we pay to utilize the domains we have in accordance with the TOS regarding domain registrations set forth by the repective registrars and those entities that govern, administer, and or have jurisdiction over such services.



is that an intellegent enough response for your eyes?


"value of a domain can be exampled in numerous ways, whether it be age or demand for a particular subject, the traffic and revenue it produces and or the amount of time and effort, resources used to acquire it.

for one to have to explain the value of a domain, one could just show the value of the internet...which uses domain names as a means of direction and navigation to get to a specific or general topic, product or service."

quote by me!

perfectly said!

Perhaps if the OP had wanted to discuss this issue within certain pre-defined parameters with suitably qualified intellectuals it may have been an idea to state that in the original post.

Defining the parameters and the necessary qualification or degree of intellect required to involve ones-self in the discussion would have saved us all some time.

But maybe that would have led to a short thread, maybe not, maybe there are several members of sufficient qualification and/or intellect waiting on the side lines for just such a post

Of course in the "real world" free speech is of the essence, this inevitably means that even us common folk can speak our minds.

[gafadi]

someone send him a picture book , looks like he is fond of pictures,look at his blog post so many fancy pictures

[marcorandazza]

Denny007: Example ireport.com - CNN really needed it, becuase it perfectly suits the project. They pay huge for it, true. But if it would not be kept for future sale by a domainer, there would be there some much worse project than there is now.

Finally, someone posted something that makes sense. This isn't a bad argument. If xyzpdq.com were merely sitting in the ether, unregistered, that's one thing. On the other hand, a marginal website might be there, but for the domainer who stockpiles the domains and re-prices them at a true market value, thus ensuring that the "best domains" wind up becoming websites with significant resources poured into them.

THAT is the kind of thinking I was looking for.

[jberryhill]

Finally, someone posted something that makes sense. This isn't a bad argument. If xyzpdq.com were merely sitting in the ether, unregistered, that's one thing. On the other hand, a marginal website might be there, but for the domainer who stockpiles the domains and re-prices them at a true market value, thus ensuring that the "best domains" wind up becoming websites with significant resources poured into them.

The function of speculation in any market is to allocate resources to their highest valued use, btw. That's not unique to domains.

It is the reason why, for example, lawyers.com is run by Martindale Hubbell, and not the homepage of some podunk law firm somewhere.

Some greedy bastard was willing to hold out for big bucks to sell MH the lawyers.com domain name, and hence it is a valuable internet resource for lawyers and persons seeking lawyers, instead of belonging to some jackass personal injury attorney.

The example I like to use is this:

On the global internet, which site is of more utility to persons seeking legal help:

(a) www.legalhelp.com

(b) www.legal-help.com

IMHO, the answer is clearly (a). I don't live in Hillsboro, Oregon, and I am exceedingly unlikely to have any legal need for which a solo practitioner in that town is going to be useful. However, by typing "domain dispute" into the search bar at legalhelp.com, I was immediately provided with a list of eager lawyers who apparently pay for advertising in that area.

[anatoly]

They jealous of the money we make

exactly !

[jberryhill]

I forgot to add that while speculation is a market efficiency mechanism present in many markets, it is also the case that speculators are derided as bloodsucking leeches in just as many markets.

It is a situation as old as capitalism, and the idea that domainers engaged in speculation (for those domainers engaged in speculation) are going to wave a magic PR wand and make everyone love them is just silly. People hate speculators in every market, but they obviously provide an economically efficient allocation mechanism.

That said, one general observation I have Marc is that the pervasive notion that all domainers are speculators is incorrect. There are quite a few who are quite content with traffic revenue, and uniformly toss all purchase inquiries into the round file. Across significantly large portfolios, the return on time spent bothering with "do you want to sell that domain name" messages is simply not worth it.

[Acquisition]

The only negative aspect is when you encounter a total deadbeat buyer or a deadbeat seller.

Currently, we have a name in escrow at $XX,XXX. The thing is, the name is not for me but a friend who is new when it comes to domains.

The bottomline is the seller has not transferred over the name and it has been 7 days since funds have been received at escrow. The seller has sent over a dozen emails (since the funds have been received) asking ridiculous questions that have nothing to do with the transfer.. Questions like, how much are you making off this ? Who is your friend ? etc etc. He's acting as if this is some sort of joke.

Little does this guy know that if the name isn't transferred shortly, I will go all out and expose him by posting his unethical business practices all over the net (with proof via screenshots). And expose his domain name and personal name. I'm ruthless when someone conducts unethical business practices with me or someone I know who's involved (as in this case). When archived in search engines, it's forever.

[Gerry]

I can't believe I read that whole thing.

Basically it boils down to a lot of back patting, as in attaboy.

As in self gloating and patting himself on the back saying, Nope, it was solely due to my irreproachable morals and incredible dignity.

Give me a break.

This guy kicking himself in the ass for not getting in the domain name biz in 1994.

He can not understand the perceived value of a domain name?

Someone ask him if he'll take reg fee for dreamhost.com.

I am sure we'll hear something to the effect,

no way, it is not just a domain. It is a business and a blog. I can't sell it for that little.

There really is no discussion necessary.

[thevirtual]

I think this has more to do with sniping bidders and sedo's low bid increments.

Sometimes it is domain speculators who are more aware of the value of domains before others and also reach out to end users who never even thought of using a relevant domain name.

If these people think that domainers are bad, they would really hate corporate domain companies, who are actually becoming even more determined to hoard every single good domain to maximize their profits.

[marcorandazza]

John,

"The function of speculation in any market is to allocate resources to their highest valued use."

That is an argument that, while I can see holes in it and I could punch holes in it too, is highly persuasive. In fact, that's the philosophical card to play.

I suppose that in the absence of a speculative market, we then merely wind up with allocation based on "first to register." Or perhaps even worse. I guess that another alternative could be to adjudicate who is giving the domain the "best" use. But, that would likely become an absolute nightmare.

[jberryhill]

John,



That is an argument that, while I can see holes in it and I could punch holes in it too, is highly persuasive. In fact, that's the philosophical card to play.

I suppose that in the absence of a speculative market, we then merely wind up with allocation based on "first to register." Or perhaps even worse. I guess that another alternative could be to adjudicate who is giving the domain the "best" use. But, that would likely become an absolute nightmare.

Well, that's the rub. Everything has "holes in it", but some of the things that have been proposed over the years have been awful.

Back in the day, all you had to do was to send an email template to NSI and it would be checked for having two valid nameservers on two different networks, and you were fine. You'd get a confirmation email, and the domain would be entered into the .com zone.

When NSI started charging for domain names, the policy arguments began, and ranged from the ridiculous to the sublime. My favorite was "you should only get one" domain name - whether an organization or an individual.

If you want to get a handle on "the alternatives", all one need do is consider the gyrations in which the ICANN community is engaging relative to new TLDs. The DNS functions identically at every level, and there is nothing magic about a TLD relative to any other level. So, given a choice among first-come-first-served, beauty pageants, auctions, and arbitrations, the latest version of the applicant guidebook, in a nutshell, says "all of the above".

I still come back to the same thing I've been saying since the mid-1990's - "It's just an addressing system for a computer network" - yet you'd think the fate of civilization rested on the outcome of moronic and endless debates about it.

[marcorandazza]

Yeah, I didn't mean to suggest that it wasn't a good theory.

I can see how people might have thought "you only get one" was a good idea -- at the time. However, I think that the way the market has reacted to the web clearly demonstrates the lack of foresight in that idea.

I don't agree that "it is just an addressing system for a computer network." Obviously, due to the endless, and perhaps moronic, debates about it -- this shows that it is more. The debates over domain names are setting the ground for new technologies we don't even know about yet, that haven't even been conceived of yet.

Anyhow, I'm glad you finally chimed in on this. I'm putting together a proposal for a seminar class at my law school on domain name law, and the one hole in the syllabus was the "positive theories in support of domaining." I think you've really hit it on the head (at least as squarely as it can be done) with the speculation - allocation idea. Thanks!