A curious thought (About not developing your names)

[randyhenson]

I was reading a post recently, Were someone posted they hated when people registered a domain and hold on to it for years with out ever doing anything with it. Everybody jump on him, saying it's the domain owner's right to do what ever he wants with his/her domain and they said the domain owner is not hurting anyone.

I disagree with this when it comes to every extensions but .com's. Lets use .us as an example. There are a lot np members holding on to lots of great .us names and the majority of them parked. Now think about how many developed .us names you know of that have active sites and don't redirect to a .com name. Not many right maybe a handful.

Now thank about this way. We know what .us is because we all keep up with the domain stuff but The end user the majority of internet users might not know or know very little about the .us extension. If more people would put a website on there .us names more .us name would show up in search results and more people would become familiar with it. And that would increase the value of everybody's .us domain names

So in short, If some is holding onto a lot of good domain (not .coms) and you don't think they're not hurting any one. Just look at your .us's and wonder why the resell price are so low.

-Randy

p.s. I not a writer so sorry about any misspellings and/or bad grammer

 

[Seabass]

They are not hurting anyone, maybe not "helping" you make your property more profitable, but no action is no issue.

It's would be like you saying that I need to build a skyscraper on my property adjacent to your property so your property becomes worth more. Of course your property will be worth more if I did this, but I am not "hurting" you by not building on my empty lot.

Nobody is a victim from a lack of development - IMHO.

 

[DotUSDomains]

I have to agree,

I have over 500 .us names, some great, some good and some bad

MAybee 5 are developed with 1 more on the way. dont park any of my names (that i know of )

Plus the fact that domainers may well hold 90% of the "premium" names doesn't help,But i'll keep buying .us name regardless.

All the big players know the prices are going to go up and will wait til they do before they sell, after that happens, thats when you want to be holding 100's if not 1000's of good names,

and start selling at reasonable prices.

It's going to happen i'm sure, just happy to be in it.

Nice post.

 

[randyhenson]

They are not hurting anyone, maybe not "helping" you make your property more profitable, but no action is no issue.

They're not hurting me because I don't invest in domains. but they are hurting themselves and anyone investing in that extension.

All the big players know the prices are going to go up and will wait til they do before they sell, after that happens, thats when you want to be holding 100's if not 1000's of good names,

The "big players" may know the prices are going to go up (a little bit over the next 4-5 years) but If they were smart they would help along.

 

[DotUSDomains]

The "big players" may know the prices are going to go up (a little bite over the next 4-5 years) but If they were smart they would help along.

It's only costing them $7-$10 per name per year,

so the cost involved in keeping 100's of names for 4-5 years is not that big compared to 1 good sale in the years to come.

I'd like to see a few good sales next year which would help things along.

Anything to make .us more appealing to end users i'm all for that

 

[equity78]

That is not the reason why .us values are low, and secondly no one has the right to tell anyone what to do with their lease rights (technically no one "owns" a domain). Thirdly your arguement is completely off by exempting the extension most people care about the most. Lastly because someone holds .us domains they do not owe anyone else who owns .us domains anything.


Because when you open that door (THIS IS WHAT SHOULD BE DONE WITH CERTAIN DOMAINS) that would have to apply to a lot of things much more important in this world than .us domains. You cannot have a parking lot you must develop the land into an animal shelter, or you cannot own a bar, alcohol is wrong make it a goodwill shop, or your house is not as nice as everyone elses on the block make it look nicer or the town will take it from you. See once this door is opened it is open for everything. You can't unscramble the egg.

 

[randyhenson]

I most not have been in my OP. I don't think anybody should be forced to do anything with there names. If they what to they can hold on to them forever!

I'm leaving out .coms because When people started registering them must of them were put use. website, dns, news group... There were just a small handful of people thought I'll buy this and hang on to it for a couple years then sell it.

Just think if people had done the .com's like there doing .us's. There would only be a handful of sites and the internet would die!

I'm just saying, If there were a push to try and make another extension as popular as .coms (Probably never happen but you could try to get one close) There would be a lot of money to be made. Instead of one good sell in 4-5 years. You could make 3-4 good sells every year starting in a couple years.

P.S. In many states there are laws that let people sue their neighbors. If the neighbors (property/house) lowers the (property/house) value of person suing. In most case the person is forced to clean up or fix up their (property/house)

The first goal of any good entrepreneur is to maximize their return on any investment.

 

[Seabass]

They're not hurting me because I don't invest in domains. but they are hurting themselves and anyone investing in that extension.

It depends on the angle of investment.

I'll tell you a little secret.....90% + of the richest guys are the ones that did not develop. They are the ones that kept their nose to the grindstone and kept acquiring domains for "parking lots". Most that got into development fell flat on their faces or ran their bank accounts dry trying to "succeed".

Okay....I can just hear others saying, " Yea, but I have developed domains and made more than I did in parking". Well, that may be true......but if you had used all those hours developing sites simply looking for more domains I bet you would have made more money, that is.......if you are good at finding great domains. Take it from me.....I started in 1995 buying many domains. By 2000 I was into heavy development.....over 400 sites up and running. Yes.....I made a lot of money. But, I would have made a lot more if I had been buying domains instead. I could have easily been a "Frank Schilling" if I did not take my eye off of domaining. Instead I developed. That was a mistake. When I got back into "domaining" full force my income went through the roof.....AND I don't have to maintain any sites. :D

That is not the reason why .us values are low, and secondly no one has the right to tell anyone what to do with their lease rights (technically no one "owns" a domain). ........

Actually, the courts have already determined domains are not a lease. Network Solutions tried that with Sex.com and the judge about laughed at them. He said that it was property and they could not try to control the lives/businesses in such a magnitude to have a stranglehold on people, or something along those lines. There is probably more to his ruling then I remember, but the lease argument by registrars has no merit.

P.S. In many states there are laws that let people sue their neighbors. If the neighbors (property/house) lowers the (property/house) value of person suing. In most case the person is forced to clean up or fix up their (property/house)

If the neighborhood association or city tried that with me I would tie them up in court so long it would make their head spin and their accounts bleed. They would end up saying "Uncle". I know a bunch of lawyers sitting around smoking cigarettes and playing poker with nothing better to do, they'd love something like that. That's how you handle associations/ordinances that are out of whack.

In Naples, Florida once I remember they passed a law that any truck, even a Ford 150, could not be parked in a driveway.....it had to be hidden in a garage.

Live and let live.

 

[equity78]

Seabass are you saying that we do "own" domains ? Everything I have read said it is not ownership.

 

[randyhenson]

Yes parking is fine IF you have domains with type traffic or dropped domain with some traffic. but you can't find many .us domaina that dropped w/traffic because nobody takes the time to put something on it.

If you have great .com domain you should set on it and wait for an offer. A small website is not going to increase the value enough to worry about it.

.com, .net, .org, .info's already have some value but .net, .org, .info's could be worth more. I love .info's when there used right. and if more were developed right. More people would type them into the address bar like (loan.info)

.us right now has no value. You may think it does, you may wish I did but It doesn't. Right now most of .us sales are between domain investers(I would say 95%) It's like records and record players. I love listening to records but most of my friends have no idea what a record player looks like more over own one. I tell them I have records that are worth $200-$300 dollars and Their like people pay money for these. Then it hit me there only worth money to people that like records. Right now .us's are like records they're only worth money to people like or investing in .us's. .Us's have one big advantage over records. One of these day now or later they will by a wider range of people. Now if every one just sits on there domain it may take 5,10 years to be worth anything to the average joe-internet user.

 

[Seabass]

Seabass are you saying that we do "own" domains ? Everything I have read said it is not ownership.

Yes.....we own the domains. The courts determined that.

When Gary Kremmen lost Sex.com and he sued NetSol for, I forget....was it 90 million?, NetSol said the domain was a lease not owned....so therefore he did not lose "owned property", and therefore they did not owe him anything, for "a loss". That defense was struck down.

Where are you reading that domains are not owned? It may read as such in some registrar contracts, but it would not hold up in court......at least based on past court precedence.

If you have great .com domain you should set on it and wait for an offer. A small website is not going to increase the value enough to worry about it.

I just sit on domains. I don't sell them and I don't answer the emails and phone calls I get about them. I just want the passive income. I don't want to sell my cash cows b/c they just keep making milk, which is more powerful than selling the whole cow.

You watch....the small, niche domains in .com will go through the roof one day b/c of the targeting ability. As surfers get more experienced, which they already are, they will stop going to the big category killer domains as much and more to the niche domains. Take Orlando.com, OrlandoHotels.com, and CheapOrlandoHotels.com. The latter two are going to have growing direct navigation traffic in the future b/c really Orlando.com is too broad.....it probably won't match spot-on what the surfer is looking for, whereas the other two will if they are typed in. There is basically several steps to get what you want at Orlando.com but only one or two, probably, at the other two domains.

 

[equity78]

I remember that, I always read others like you say on some registrar websites saying not property.

This was interesting on DomainNameNews.com

I was up late last night cruising through the 44 page docket from the case involving the 141 gambling domain names seized by the state of Kentucky. This is a landmark case in my opinion and I wanted to read some of the fine print. It’s pretty clear that this case will be setting some major precedent regarding jurisdiction and domain name use, but there was something else that caught my eye in the document. The groups involved in the case made several points in their efforts to have the case dismissed, but a discussion on domain names being considered property is the one that made me look twice.

The court discusses the issue of domains as property on about page 12 of the docket.

“The Opposing Groups and Lawyers . . . collectively assert that domain names are akin to a telephone number or a business or residential address only; that domain names are but a combination of letters and numbers, which serves as a mnemonic aid, nothing more. They argue that domains are not property, but are rights in a service contract.”

The docket continues for 3 pages discussing this argument and the court reaches the final conclusion

“the Defendants 141 Domain Names are property, and therefore subject to this Court’s in rem jurisdiction or to possible civil forfeiture”

It’s no surprise that the court ruled that domains are property. What is surprising is who was among this “Opposing Groups and Lawyers”. According to page 4 of the docket Network Solutions (NSI) and the Internet Commerce Association (ICA) were lumped in to this group. The ICA, a group consisting of mostly domainers and domain companies, and NSI, a domain name registrar have joined with other gambling industry groups such as PPA, IGC, and IMEGA to present arguments in this case. Recognizing these entities are not actually plaintiffs defendants, the court grouped them all together and classified them as “Opposing Groups and Lawyers” and did provide for their views to be considered. These views are expressed in this case as “domains are not property”.

It isn’t 100% clear that every member of the “Opposing Groups and Lawyers” view things this way but the phrase “collectively assert” certainly makes it sound like all of the groups had agreed on this argument.

Does the ICA and NSI think domains aren’t property now ? That argument can be made but it doesn’t seem like one that would come from either group. In a previous incarnation of the ICA website, the organization states that one of ICA’s issues is that “Domains be recognized as private property and domain owners have the rights of private property owners”. This exact text was not to be found on the latest version of the ICA site, so it is possible they have completely changed their views on this issue.

Is NSI now claiming domains aren’t property as well ? In the very case that is referenced in the Kentucky docket, Network Solutions all but concedes that domains are property. In page 10 of the Sex.com case the court points out that Network Solutions recognizes and acknowledges domains are property

The preliminary question, then, is whether registrants have property rights in their domain names. Network Solutions all but concedes that they do.This is no surprise, given its positions in prior litigation. See Network Solutions, Inc. v. Umbro Int’l, Inc., 529 S.E.2d 80, 86 (Va. 2000) (“[Network Solutions] acknowledged during oral argument before this Court that the right to use a domain name is a form of intangible personal property.”); Network Solutions, Inc. v. Clue Computing, Inc., 946 F. Supp. 858, 860 (D. Colo. 1996) (same).

There’s nothing to point to other than convenience or a missed opportunity as a reason NSI and ICA are linked to this poor argument. Whether they conveniently switched their stances isn’t clear, but they also didn’t stop the argument from being made. Both NSI and ICA should know that the courts have previously recognized domains as property. The gambling groups can be excused from ignorance on this matter as it may not be their strong suit, but one would think that this is where the ICA and NSI cold have helped the collective effort.

Joining with this group to argue a point that has been clarified and/or not preventing the argument from being presented could be considered negligent. Arguing against something that you are on record for supporting also seems foolish. Hopefully, at a minimum they both can clarify why this was argued or why the change of stance was taken here.

ICA and NSI should still be commended for their efforts to fight a case that has the potential to change domain ownership responsibilities as we know it. Few outside of the gambling companies and those involved in the domain space realize the importance of this case and how it has the potential to impact their business. Let’s hope they can make a stronger case.

 

[randyhenson]

Seabass are you saying that we do "own" domains ? Everything I have read said it is not ownership.

I always look at it like owning a timeshare, You pay a set price and you legally own it but you don't pay your annual fees for maintenance, utilities and taxes you lose it.

 

[Ray]

There is nothing wrong with holding on to domains.. I "used" to own serveral domains that I just let sit around until i finially got the chance to wipe the dust of off em.. Im a developer in a nutshell.. i look for domains that I can use myself to develope and resale as a site..

I would have to agree on the .us market tho.. every one seems to hold on to the domains. It is because of this that i really dont find and interest in anything other than the original tlds.

It has been proven that the majority of americans do not know anything other than original tlds. I wouldnt waste my money or luck with them. I believe all in all i only ever owned 3 .us domains. The other 300 plus domains that I have had been .coms / .nets

 

[weblord]

i think this is the thread you're referring to
http://www.namepros.com/domain-newb...dont-do-anything-their.html?highlight=holding

i think if someone's holding on to a tm domain that's gonna hurt the tm holder aside from that, the domain holder is the one paying for renewals and development, so it's only hurting the owner's pocket and not someone else.

I was reading a post recently, Were someone posted they hated when people registered a domain and hold on to it for years with out ever doing anything with it. Everybody jump on him, saying it's the domain owner's right to do what ever he wants with his/her domain and they said the domain owner is not hurting anyone.

p.s. I not a writer so sorry about any misspellings and/or bad grammer

 

[Seabass]

I remember that, I always read others like you say on some registrar websites saying not property.

This was interesting on DomainNameNews.com

I was up late last night cruising through the 44 page docket from the case involving the 141 gambling domain names seized by the state of Kentucky. This is a landmark case in my opinion and I wanted to read some of the fine print. It’s pretty clear that this case will be setting some major precedent regarding jurisdiction and domain name use, but there was something else that caught my eye in the document. The groups involved in the case made several points in their efforts to have the case dismissed, but a discussion on domain names being considered property is the one that made me look twice.

The court discusses the issue of domains as property on about page 12 of the docket.

“The Opposing Groups and Lawyers . . . collectively assert that domain names are akin to a telephone number or a business or residential address only; that domain names are but a combination of letters and numbers, which serves as a mnemonic aid, nothing more. They argue that domains are not property, but are rights in a service contract.”

The docket continues for 3 pages discussing this argument and the court reaches the final conclusion

“the Defendants 141 Domain Names are property, and therefore subject to this Court’s in rem jurisdiction or to possible civil forfeiture”...................................

Wow.....that is some research. Well written too. You just piqued my curiosity on the Kentucky case some more. I realized it is important, but maybe I did not realize just how much. I'm going to read up on that.

Rep added for such a thorough post that added some clarity.

 

[equity78]

I thank you Seabass for the rep, I just want to be clear I got that from DomainNameNews.com

 

[npcomplete]

I read this and my first impression was that the OP makes a good point wrt markets. I believe he is indicating that the other extensions are being harmed by speculation and non-development. Being both a speculator and developer I found this observation to be most interesting. Again, we are *not* talking about .com here, but about the minor extensions. It would be interesting to see some stats on total and relative percentage development of .com vs. .net/us/org/info/mobi/...

Over the years I have seen a number of internet speculative ventures with similar problems. For example, in our thread over in the industry news section there was a discussion of .web, a tld which has been proposed for many years. This tld (.web) was running for many years in the "alternate root", which is a domain root system running in a parallel universe to ICANN. You could actually go to other domain extensions like "nic.web" and "the.earth" and register domains under these extensions, and have other users get to the domains you register, like "yourname.web" and "yourname.earth". The problem was that it was pure speculation with very few websites. There was never any reason for users to adjust their PC settings to see domains in these extensions, since nothing was there - just more domainer/parked pages, but in the alternate root. Compare this to the thinly populated .me or .us sites, or perhaps even some of the .net sites (although many real businesses use and advertise the .nets), and you understand the low natural traffic compared to .com.

Fast forward a few years and look at the IDN situation and you see a similar thing - little development, with most names purchased by domainers. Same result. Fast forward a few years more and you get to .mobi and .biz etc. Same result. In some sense the domainers, by cornering the market in some of the lesser extensions, have created a situation that limits the value of these extensions based on lack of "critical mass" in development. Just like the old alternate root - you can go there, even now, but why? There is nothing there to see... which impacts value.

I was reading a post recently, Were someone posted they hated when people registered a domain and hold on to it for years with out ever doing anything with it. Everybody jump on him, saying it's the domain owner's right to do what ever he wants with his/her domain and they said the domain owner is not hurting anyone.

I disagree with this when it comes to every extensions but .com's. Lets use .us as an example. There are a lot np members holding on to lots of great .us names and the majority of them parked. Now think about how many developed .us names you know of that have active sites and don't redirect to a .com name. Not many right maybe a handful.

Now thank about this way. We know what .us is because we all keep up with the domain stuff but The end user the majority of internet users might not know or know very little about the .us extension. If more people would put a website on there .us names more .us name would show up in search results and more people would become familiar with it. And that would increase the value of everybody's .us domain names

So in short, If some is holding onto a lot of good domain (not .coms) and you don't think they're not hurting any one. Just look at your .us's and wonder why the resell price are so low.

-Randy

p.s. I not a writer so sorry about any misspellings and/or bad grammer

 

[Seabass]

I thank you Seabass for the rep, I just want to be clear I got that from DomainNameNews.com

LMAO....I totally missed that line of your post. :lol:

Anyways.....it was a good post.