.tv Got off the phone with Enom and Verisign

[equity78]

First I called Enom and asked about why Tea.tv was $250 and the new premium are non premium pricing.

Spoke to a customer service rep, who said "Its not us, its Verisign."

So then I called Verisign HQ and finally got a customer service rep for domains. Henry. He said absolutely old premiums would keep the premium renewal and he said that was coming from Verisign, not ENOM.

So Verisign is where to put your effort in getting things done.

 

[freedom30]

I haven't seen any backlash against Verisign. People are giving them more money than ever. The people who want change are annoyed because they've signed up for a very bad deal and lost money, that was due to *their decision*. Why would any media outlet take up an issue like this? It is investors making bad mistakes and hoping for a bailout, that is all it is.

---------- Post added at 10:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:03 PM ----------



Most people see "fair" as whats works best of them. In reality though nothing in life is "fair". People need to take full responsibility for their own actions rather than blaming others. No domain registry wants what is best for you. If people understood that instead of hoping for highly unlikely changes they'd be far better off.

Till those premium renewal names back into the ground and start afresh. Verisign is not your friend. They owe you nothing.

Your replies seem to ignore the fact that no company wants to be put in a bad light. Had you read any books on marketing, you would find that public relations play a big role in the reputation of a company, and there is no company that makes too much money to concern itself with it, which was my point in the post.

Bring the issue outside of the community and into the public eye. these investors, people if you will, bought these names in good faith and the least that Verisign can do is accomodate them so the playing field would be level. Both "sides" can take advantage of this opportunity. You seem content to punish the investors for their loyalty to the company they purchased the names from. That is not the way it works, however.

This can be done in a variety of ways, but it would ultimately be to Verisigns/Enoms advantage to do that. Good publicity always enhances the stature of a company no matter how big or small. The arrogant attitude that you think Verisign should possess may be persuaded to change with the right amount of pressure from the outside.

...and you would be surprised indeed at what issues the "media" covers nowadays. Actually, if some media concern decided to cover the situation, it would be of absolutely no surprise to me at all.

 

[DU]

This is deliberately written from the point of view of Joe TV who wanted to register "My Small Business.tv" but found it parked on Sedo with a blank "make me an offer box" and just received a counteroffer to his "$60" bid of "the realities of the market dictate that you should pay at least $x,xxx. I hate low-ballers"

Here's the two stages of Legacy Premium Ownership.

1.Denial
2.Acceptance

People are stuck on 1. We need a 12 step to move them on and forward...

Your replies seem to ignore the fact that no company wants to be put in a bad light. Had you read any books on marketing, you would find that public relations play a big role in the reputation of a company, and there is no company that makes too much money to concern itself with it, which was my point in the post.

This ignores the fact that real life business is not like it is in books. Same for romance novels.

Bring the issue outside of the community and into the public eye.

What public? The one that views domainers as parasites?
Perhaps if I owned a business and wanted one of these old premiums I'd want to register it without having to pay a premium ON the premium to support a parasite.

these investors, people if you will, bought these names in good faith

Investors. Your word. I think some would say parasite.
RBS/Goldman Sachs/Citi are just investors you know.

the least that Verisign can do is accomodate them so the playing field would be level. Both "sides" can take advantage of this opportunity.

Goldman Sachs should pay back everyone they ripped off. Comcast should stop traffic shaping. Google should do more for copyright protection. Facebook should care about privacy. Companies should stop offshoring and domainers should stop squatting. Your point?

I fail to see the benefit to Verisign. Give up revenue to make a few people happy. Fail to see it.

You seem content to punish the investors for their loyalty to the company they purchased the names from. That is not the way it works, however.

Loyalty is holding domains undeveloped away from end users who may want them unless they pay extra. Correct?

This can be done in a variety of ways, but it would ultimately be to Verisigns/Enoms advantage to do that. Good publicity always enhances the stature of a company

Does doing thing make more money than keeping renewal fees? $20 domains still available. I don't see this hurting anyone other than "investors". Some people with real businesses on the site - those people have a right to feel aggrieved. Nothing more.

The arrogant attitude that you think Verisign should possess may be persuaded to change with the right amount of pressure from the outside.

Generally companies perceived as arrogant are successful and make money. Why? Because what people perceive as arrogance is actually a company with enough of a power position to not care about "you". What matters is that they care about "the others" which are 90% of people.

...and you would be surprised indeed at what issues the "media" covers nowadays. Actually, if some media concern decided to cover the situation, it would be of absolutely no surprise to me at all.

Yes and they are always so nice to the parasitic squatter domainers who provide such value add to the world.

---------- Post added at 09:31 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:17 AM ----------

I challenge anyone to come up with a solution that satisfies everyone
impossible.

 

[freedom30]

This is deliberately written from the point of view of Joe TV who wanted to register "My Small Business.tv" but found it parked on Sedo with a blank "make me an offer box" and just received a counteroffer to his "$60" bid of "the realities of the market dictate that you should pay at least $x,xxx. I hate low-ballers"

Here's the two stages of Legacy Premium Ownership.

1.Denial
2.Acceptance

People are stuck on 1. We need a 12 step to move them on and forward...


This ignores the fact that real life business is not like it is in books. Same for romance novels.



What public? The one that views domainers as parasites?
Perhaps if I owned a business and wanted one of these old premiums I'd want to register it without having to pay a premium ON the premium to support a parasite.



Investors. Your word. I think some would say parasite.
RBS/Goldman Sachs/Citi are just investors you know.


Goldman Sachs should pay back everyone they ripped off. Comcast should stop traffic shaping. Google should do more for copyright protection. Facebook should care about privacy. Companies should stop offshoring and domainers should stop squatting. Your point?

I fail to see the benefit to Verisign. Give up revenue to make a few people happy. Fail to see it.


Loyalty is holding domains undeveloped away from end users who may want them unless they pay extra. Correct?


Does doing thing make more money than keeping renewal fees? $20 domains still available. I don't see this hurting anyone other than "investors". Some people with real businesses on the site - those people have a right to feel aggrieved. Nothing more.


Generally companies perceived as arrogant are successful and make money. Why? Because what people perceive as arrogance is actually a company with enough of a power position to not care about "you". What matters is that they care about "the others" which are 90% of people.


Yes and they are always so nice to the parasitic squatter domainers who provide such value add to the world.

---------- Post added at 09:31 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:17 AM ----------

I challenge anyone to come up with a solution that satisfies everyone
impossible.

...and I thank you for your sincere rebuttal to my opinions. You seem to be obsessed with the word "parasite" so I'll just let you keep the word for yourself and not respond to it.

At any rate, the opinion I gave is as valid as yours, I guess. As ol' Benzy would proclaim "that's my opinion and I'm stickin' with it" is appropriate here.

Many "arrogant" companies, by the way, have changed their policies because of public pressure...that's just a fact. Whatever you want to concern yourself with is fine. I'm glad to have given you the impetus to respond so emotionally about the topic but your logic wasn't sound enough to alter my opinion of it...

But I do thank you for giving it, at any rate.

PS - Why "hate" lowballers? All I do is respond and thank them...

 

[DU]

...and I thank you for your sincere rebuttal to my opinions. You seem to be obsessed with the word "parasite" so I'll just let you keep the word for yourself and not respond to it.

At any rate, the opinion I gave is as valid as yours, I guess. As ol' Benzy would proclaim "that's my opinion and I'm stickin' with it" is appropriate here.

Many "arrogant" companies, by the way, have changed their policies because of public pressure...that's just a fact. Whatever you want to concern yourself with is fine. I'm glad to have given you the impetus to respond so emotionally about the topic but your logic wasn't sound enough to alter my opinion of it...

But I do thank you for giving it, at any rate.

PS - Why "hate" lowballers? All I do is respond and thank them...

Many have. Verisign hasn't.

I personally agree with you.
I think a negotiated buy out is fair and would likely benefit everyone.

My point was once again that you need to move on and perhaps gamble with future motions by verisign. More my point was that perception is everything. This is not mother theresa vs Jeffrey dahmer.

I used the word parasite because it was used (if I recall correctly) where someone posted a response from a potential end user.

You have a right to do business.

Perhaps domainers need to have better PR?

My point was once again to make you step outside your shoes and be in someone elses because it's not as obvious a solution as you seem to think.

I apologize if I offended. It was my intent - but not to really offend. If I did so i apologize.

There is no right answer but there are equally wrong ones.

---------- Post added at 10:21 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:16 AM ----------

As far sound logic goes. It's irrelevant. The only logic that matters is VRSN.

And we can debate if there's any logic there at all for a while.

 

[freedom30]

Many have. Verisign hasn't.

I personally agree with you.
I think a negotiated buy out is fair and would likely benefit everyone.

My point was once again that you need to move on and perhaps gamble with future motions by verisign. More my point was that perception is everything. This is not mother theresa vs Jeffrey dahmer.

I used the word parasite because it was used (if I recall correctly) where someone posted a response from a potential end user.

You have a right to do business.

Perhaps domainers need to have better PR?

My point was once again to make you step outside your shoes and be in someone elses because it's not as obvious a solution as you seem to think.

I apologize if I offended. It was my intent - but not to really offend. If I did so i apologize.

There is no right answer but there are equally wrong ones.

---------- Post added at 10:21 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:16 AM ----------

As far sound logic goes. It's irrelevant. The only logic that matters is VRSN.

And we can debate if there's any logic there at all for a while.

Hey, thanks, default, for your response...

Let me preface first by saying I didn't say your logic wasn't sound, it just wasn't sound enough for me. That is not to say it didn't make sense for anyone else, OK?

I appreciate the opportunity to bat this problem around in an intelligent manner on this forum with people of like mind but differing opinions. It's just healthy to do so.

That being said, I have NEVER purchased a premium name before this reduction by Verisign because I felt it an unfair policy. Right OR wrong, that was my belief then as it is now. The yearly fee was, in my opinion, grossly unfair. However, I respect those that did invest in the names and I do see the need for Verisign to address the situation to mutual satisfaction.

I see this happening as this policy of theirs is a negative one, and all companies, regardless of business, desire a good reputation. It's just the way things are done. I am sure that Verisign doesn't appreciate being perceived as arrogant in their treatment of loyal customers.

Thank you again, default, for bearing with me in my opinions. I DO appreciate yours...

 

[DU]

Hey, thanks, default, for your response...
...

I appreciate the opportunity to bat this problem around in an intelligent manner on this forum with people of like mind but differing opinions. It's just healthy to do so.
...

Thank you again, default, for bearing with me in my opinions. I DO appreciate yours...

I may have got a little bit excited in my response before. The problem is that the market isn't fair.

A one time negotiated buyout sounds good but do you refund people that prepaid? How do you compensate someone who "cut their losses" and dropped it last year after being a holder ? Don't they deserve the opportunity to have an auction with the "new owner"?

The bottom line is that there is no right answer. Is it fair that some people registered great names at regfee on the 19th? Is it fair that some people were given options to buy at great new prices.

No. But when you bought the domain you bought the contract. It was signed sealed and delivered.

As time goes on I actually believe that the right thing to do is to leave things alone. If they "change" the rules on domains under ownership, in my mind it frees them to do the reverse in the future. Sure you can renew your regfee domain... for $3k!

The people that will drop the domains are the ones that didn't have any real development plans anyway. The only reason that I swayed on this is because some of the people in this forum are affected and they seem like nice folks But this shouldn't really change my view. (Yeah I'm cold)

 

[freedom30]

I may have got a little bit excited in my response before. The problem is that the market isn't fair.

A one time negotiated buyout sounds good but do you refund people that prepaid? How do you compensate someone who "cut their losses" and dropped it last year after being a holder ? Don't they deserve the opportunity to have an auction with the "new owner"?

The bottom line is that there is no right answer. Is it fair that some people registered great names at regfee on the 19th? Is it fair that some people were given options to buy at great new prices.

No. But when you bought the domain you bought the contract. It was signed sealed and delivered.

As time goes on I actually believe that the right thing to do is to leave things alone. If they "change" the rules on domains under ownership, in my mind it frees them to do the reverse in the future. Sure you can renew your regfee domain... for $3k!

The people that will drop the domains are the ones that didn't have any real development plans anyway. The only reason that I swayed on this is because some of the people in this forum are affected and they seem like nice folks But this shouldn't really change my view. (Yeah I'm cold)

My first impulse was to respond to your statement that there was no right answer with "yeah, maybe", but "no answer" is no answer, either. Then, when I noticed in a subsequent paragraph that things should be left alone, you more than likely expressed the biggest reason why that should be the policy when you saved the best for last,

ergo: "If they "change" the rules on domains under ownership, in my mind it frees them to do the reverse in the future. Sure you can renew your regfee domain... for $3k!". Something to seriouly consider. A precedent set with one issue to lower can in turn justify a reverse course.

The reality is, of course, that may be able to take place regardless of any first action. So in my way of thinking, it does not pose a serious threat and is not a valid reason not to level the playing field for all domainers.

Suffice it to say that my conviction is that Verisign and those holding premium yearly fees would benefit by negotiations to maintain stability in the extension to peak performance.

...and yeah, it's a mess, but it needs to be cleaned up anyway.

 

[discovernow]

People/companies either have morals or they don't. I believe in "carma", what comes around goes around.

I now own DM.tv (maybe a Demand Media site and will raise hell)

Maybe it's wishful thinking, but I believe public pressure is going to heat up here and eventually we will make positive changes with Verisign.
Time will tell.

Thanks, JIm

 

[SKG]

People/companies either have morals or they don't. I believe in "carma", what comes around goes around.

I now own DM.tv (maybe a Demand Media site and will raise hell)

Maybe it's wishful thinking, but I believe public pressure is going to heat up here and eventually we will make positive changes with Verisign.
Time will tell.

Thanks, JIm

"carma" is spelled "karma."

 

[discovernow]

"carma" is spelled "karma."

I am a horrible speller. It has caused me to screw-up so many domain registrations throughout the years. I knew I shouldn't of smoked too much weed in college People can't believe I actually have an MBA.

I spell worse than a 3rd grader, but I "kick ass" in Math I guess they call it a left/brain right brain thing.

Thanks, Jim

 

[snoop]

Your replies seem to ignore the fact that no company wants to be put in a bad light. Had you read any books on marketing, you would find that public relations play a big role in the reputation of a company, and there is no company that makes too much money to concern itself with it, which was my point in the post.

Bring the issue outside of the community and into the public eye. these investors, people if you will, bought these names in good faith and the least that Verisign can do is accomodate them so the playing field would be level. Both "sides" can take advantage of this opportunity.

I think you are seeing it from the point of view of a person who has lost money on premium .tv's rather than how someone outside of the industry would see it. There is no protests, no news stories, nobody really cares...aside from the people who want some free money from Verisign to make up for the past losses.

A few angry domainers isn't going to worry Verisign, especially when those same domainers are throwing them more money than ever. Verisign is the company that brought the world sitefinder and the .com price increases. Annoying the entire Internet doesn't worry Verisign that much.....why would they be concerned about a handful of .tv domainers?

You seem content to punish the investors for their loyalty to the company they purchased the names from. That is not the way it works, however.

Those investors made bad decisions and need to accept responsibility and move on to better names. It isn't Verisigns job to help them just like it isn't the casinos problem if someone loses 10k playing craps.

"The way it works" can be seen very cleary, obviously you think it should work another way...good luck with that. Might be better to deal with the situation as it is.

This can be done in a variety of ways, but it would ultimately be to Verisigns/Enoms advantage to do that. Good publicity always enhances the stature of a company no matter how big or small. The arrogant attitude that you think Verisign should possess may be persuaded to change with the right amount of pressure from the outside.

The thing is people are basically asking for a handouts. They want underpriced names because they lost money in the past on those same names. That is what it comes down to.

...and you would be surprised indeed at what issues the "media" covers nowadays. Actually, if some media concern decided to cover the situation, it would be of absolutely no surprise to me at all.

The best you can expect is comments from a few bloggers in my view. Time will tell.

 

[discovernow]

I think we had some influence on Verisign getting rid or premiums renewal. after March 18. We can have the same effect I believe as well, with a combination of public outcry, but most important with our "wallets".

Thanks, jim

 

[snoop]

but most important with our "wallets".

Like I said before the people complaining are giving Verisign money at record levels.

 

[SKG]

record levels.

How much?

 

[Jeff]

How much?

They will not release any registration numbers or details ... ANYONE considering owning an ccTLD ".TV" should think twice before investing in this very secretive and NON transparent niche / vanity extension - for this fact alone, IMHO.

Regards,
Jeff

 

[freedom30]

They will not release any registration numbers or details ... ANYONE considering owning an ccTLD ".TV" should think twice before investing in this very secretive and NON transparent niche / vanity extension - for this fact alone, IMHO.

Regards,
Jeff

As always, thank you for you opinion, Jeff. Gives me pause to think...I couldn't see you think any other way.

 

[SKG]

They will not release any registration numbers or details ... ANYONE considering owning an ccTLD ".TV" should think twice before investing in this very secretive and NON transparent niche / vanity extension - for this fact alone, IMHO.

Regards,
Jeff

But he said people are giving Verisign monies at "record levels," so it must not be a secret. Are you reading it differently? :o

 

[snoop]

But he said people are giving Verisign monies at "record levels," so it must not be a secret. Are you reading it differently? :o

Don't take as a statement based on actual figures, just how things appear to be right now.

 

[Jeff]

But he said people are giving Verisign monies at "record levels," so it must not be a secret. Are you reading it differently? :o

It's no secret that with all of the RECENT HYPE & designed chatter that folks are sending a good deal of their hard-earned money to Verisign/Enom and the various Registrars (who, truly, are the only "winners" in this whole scheme) ... we're all witnessing it and at higher levels than in preceeding months/years; of course, this too shall pass given proven 10+/+ years of its unproductive 'niche' history! :yell: :imho:

Best,
Jeff

 

[SKG]

It's no secret that with all of the RECENT HYPE & designed chatter that folks are sending a good deal of their hard-earned money to Verisign/Enom and the various Registrars (who, truly, are the only "winners" in this whole scheme) ... we're all witnessing it and at higher levels than in preceeding months/years; of course, this too shall pass given proven 10+/+ years of its unproductive 'niche' history! :yell: :imho:

Best,
Jeff

Show me the numbers.