news Sellers Can't Sell Coronavirus Domain Names on Dan.com

[EJS]

In a pair of tweets this morning, Dan.com announced that sellers can no longer list or sell coronavirus related domain names on its platform. The company is also actively removing related domain names. CEO Reza Sardeha commented to me about the decision:

https://domaininvesting.com/dan-com-prohibits-coronavirus-domain-names/

 

[Bernard Wright]

I really hope someone will explain why this move is a good thing. If anything, I see it as a negative one.

The argument can be made that domain investing is purely rent seeking. Ask yourself, what value do domain investors provide? Some of us have asked that question, and have come up with answers.

Now ask yourself, do those answers hold up with respect to strong Corona names? I think the answer, to some, might be "yes".

So, assuming it is a "yes", then I see DAN's move as a statement to the broader public that the answer is actually "No, domain investors do not provide value". And that being the case, it's a bit odd, since their business is to facilitate domain transactions.

How are Corona domains not adding value to the market? Maybe someone was going to sell CoronaFacts.com for $1,000 but the buyer couldn't buy it through DAN, so he had to settle for CoronaFacts101.com ...and now nobody wins. The website is very informative. The public would have been able to remember CoronaFacts.com but with the 101 after it, they forget the domain, or they think it sounds cheap, and a value is lost.

And to make things worse, all the URL type-ins now go to some CPC lander instead of the informative website that could have saved lives.

Someone tell me why I'm wrong. I'd be happy to be proven wrong.

 

[lock]

We have had this discussion years ago about what should be banned and the conclusion was where would you start and stop it should be up to the owner to take any backlash not marketplaces.

 

[Abdullah Abdullah]

Now where are those who was voting it is ethical and bla bla? I said it before and now, it is terrible idea to even think of profiting from this

 

[Bernard Wright]

Now where are those who was voting it is ethical and bla bla? I said it before and now, it is terrible idea to even think of profiting from this

Why?

Let's say a domainer hands a corona name to a developer for free. That domain becomes ubiquitous. Millions of people visit daily, and they benefit from it. Will the developers not reward themselves financially? Is it immoral for them to put ads on the website, to profit from it? Do you not think they would?

 

[equity78]

Ok, what value do domain investors provide when it comes to registering coronavirus related names? The public does not need CoronaFacts.com the beer company might come a calling for this name via UDRP if it's ever parked and shows ads for their product, but either way CDC.gov WHO.int Coronavirus.com cover what the public "NEEDS" There is not a need for 1,000 different sites giving different and conflicting information.

And we can try to backdoor all these, (oh what if the domainer does good) but no one listing on DAN was looking to make a charitable act.

Whether DAN should have done that? That's their call, it can be a slippery slope.

 

[topdom]

Most charities are corrupt. I wouldn't donate to a charity (I mean well known ones mostly..).
....
Good decision: it is stupid to buy Corona domains for selling purposes. Dan is warning us :P

 

[Abdullah Abdullah]

Why?

Let's say a domainer hands a corona name to a developer for free. That domain becomes ubiquitous. Millions of people visit daily, and they benefit from it. Will the developers not reward themselves financially? Is it immoral for them to put ads on the website, to profit from it? Do you not think they would?

Ok, what value do domain investors provide when it comes to registering coronavirus related names? The public does not need CoronaFacts.com the beer company might come a calling for this name via UDRP if it's ever parked and shows ads for their product, but either way CDC.gov WHO.int Coronavirus.com cover what the public "NEEDS" There is not a need for 1,000 different sites giving different and conflicting information.

And we can try to backdoor all these, (oh what if the domainer does good) but no one listing on DAN was looking to make a charitable act.

Whether DAN should have done that? That's their call, it can be a slippery slope.

Bernard, I will just let you get the answer from Ray's post which I quoted. I hope then you will understand where I am going with this.

 

[Bernard Wright]

Ok, what value do domain investors provide when it comes to registering coronavirus related names?

I don't see any difference in added value as compared to non-corona names, tbh. I think there might even be more at stake with corona, and perhaps more value to add, for the domainer. For instance, if some rich idiot just wants the domain for something frivolous (who knows) and is willing to pay $20k, but some notable doctor offers $10k and will develop the site for good, then a domainer with noble intentions serves a very noble cause by opting to sell it to the doctor. Could this scenario play out? Well, who knows. But not if some of the people who have chimed in have anything to say about it. And not DAN, apparently.

DAN's business model is built on the notion that domainers add value. Do you not agree?

 

[lock]

Why should anyone with foresight be seen as despicable if you were the one that registered coronavirus dot com 5 years ago paid renewals why should anothers morals come into effect as some would switch the whole thing off at the power point.

 

[Bernard Wright]

Bernard, I will just let you get the answer from Ray's post which I quoted. I hope then you will understand where I am going with this.

I don't think you can answer my post yourself.

 

[topdom]

I think corona.live is a great domain, registered in 2016 , and not mine. I would develop it.

 

[Abdullah Abdullah]

I don't think you can answer my post yourself.

Oh really? Let me ask you this without making any assumptions. Do you have a domain which is registered by a domainer and which has only information for the public? As you claim? Dont get me started please because you will be the one not being capable of answering the questions I pose. Every single Corona domain that was registered was a registered for profit and to sell it, not to develop it and provide vital information about the virus, but rather to sell and make a quick gain on a issue that is a global epidemic that has costed the lives of many loved ones. As @equity78 already said, for anyone who wants to get accurate and up to date information about the virus, sites like cdc.gov and who.int provide that info.

You can try to come around this fact but the end result will be it will still remain something bad and unethical to do in current circumstances. And I dont even know how you compare it to the other domains domainers register? Are those domains involved in life? Take your profit oriented glasses off and see the bigger picture. This is about human life and human life matters, and anyone who wants to profit from a situation like this is unscrupulous person. They are no different than from those who where stockpiling toilet paper and fighting over it. PERIOD.

 

[Bernard Wright]

Oh really? Let me ask you this without making any assumptions. Do you have a domain which is registered by a domainer and which has only information for the public? As you claim? Dont get me started please because you will be the one not being capable of answering the questions I pose. Every single Corona domain that was registered was a registered for profit and to sell it, not to develop it and provide vital information about the virus, but rather to sell and make a quick gain on a issue that is a global epidemic that has costed the lives of many loved ones. As @equity78 already said, for anyone who wants to get accurate and up to date information about the virus, sites like cdc.gov and who.int provide that info.

You can try to come around this fact but the end result will be it will still remain something bad and unethical to do in current circumstances. And I dont even know how you compare it to the other domains domainers register? Are those domains involved in life? Take your profit oriented glasses and see the bigger picture. This is about human life and human life matters, and anyone who wants to profit from a situation like this is unscrupulous person. They are no different than from those who where stockpiling toilet paper and fighting over it. PERIOD.

Exactly. You're dodging it. I'll paste it again.

Let's say a domainer hands a corona name to a developer for free. That domain becomes ubiquitous. Millions of people visit daily, and they benefit from it. Will the developers not reward themselves financially? Is it immoral for them to put ads on the website, to profit from it? Do you not think they would?

 

[Abdullah Abdullah]

Exactly. You're dodging it. I'll paste it again.

Let's say a domainer hands a corona name to a developer for free. That domain becomes ubiquitous. Millions of people visit daily, and they benefit from it. Will the developers not reward themselves financially? Is it immoral for them to put ads on the website, to profit from it? Do you not think they would?

Again, you start with lets say it, I say show me such domain, forget about it already being ubiquitous, just show one developed and which is providing information that is not already available to the public and is from the more trusted and reliable sources like who.int and cdc.gov. @DAN.COM already removed many many domains which were listed for sale, I repeat...for SALE, for thousands, hell even @equity78 said "And we can try to backdoor all these, (oh what if the domainer does good) but no one listing on DAN was looking to make a charitable act."

Now please understand that.

 

[equity78]

I don't see any difference in added value as compared to non-corona names, tbh. I think there might even be more at stake with corona, and perhaps more value to add, for the domainer. For instance, if some rich idiot just wants the domain for something frivolous (who knows) and is willing to pay $20k, but some notable doctor offers $10k and will develop the site for good, then a domainer with noble intentions serves a very noble cause by opting to sell it to the doctor. Could this scenario play out? Well, who knows. But not if some of the people who have chimed in have anything to say about it. And not DAN, apparently.

DAN's business model is built on the notion that domainers add value. Do you not agree?

That is DAN's position, I am sure it is the position of some domainers, I don't believe there is a real value add, I believe it's legal, it should be allowed but if there is it's some sliver that only those in this industry would agree. If you walked into another industry or walk of life I doubt they would say there is a value add, I think many would see what you said in your first post, it's rent seeking. And I have seen some nasty REDDIT battles over rent seeking.(And I can tell you I have had conversations years ago with domain investors everyone would consider legendary who told me it's business, we don't provide any value, just like a day trader provides value to anyone but themselves and their family).

I don't believe a doctor is going to pay $10,000 for a corona related name, the doctor might use their own name, if it's their own individual research. Just my opinion.

 

[frank-germany]

Ok, what value do domain investors provide when it comes to registering coronavirus related names? ...
Whether DAN should have done that? That's their call, it can be a slippery slope.

1) that may be different for domain and for each domain investor

2) since when is that a criterium to list a domain on a resellers platform?

3) they argue that most names have ridiculous prices
- they could have forced those names to "Make Offer" only instead of banning

4) they are benefitting as a company by that move which was announced publically
- who is now the beneficiary of the corona virus?

 

[Bernard Wright]

That is DAN's position, I am sure it is the position of some domainers, I don't believe there is a real value add, I believe it's legal, it should be allowed but if there is it's some sliver that only those in this industry would agree. If you walked into another industry or walk of life I doubt they would say there is a value add, I think many would see what you said in your first post, it's rent seeking. And I have seen some nasty REDDIT battles over rent seeking.

I don't believe a doctor is going to pay $10,000 for a corona related name, the doctor might use their own name, if it's their own individual research. Just my opinion.

The $10k is just a hypothetical.

Agreed that domaining is mostly rent-seeking. But I do think there's a case to be made that this corona situation changes the landscape a bit and does afford those with strong corona names perhaps a chance to actually add more value than they otherwise would.

 

[equity78]

1) that may be different for domain and for each domain investor

2) since when is that a criterium to list a domain on a resellers platform?

3) they argue that most names have ridiculous prices
- they could have forced those names to "Make Offer" only instead of banning

4) they are benefitting as a company by that move which was announced publically
- who is now the beneficiary of the corona virus?

Frank I did not write their press release, I don't understand why they mentioned pricing.

 

[equity78]

The $10k is just a hypothetical.

Agreed that domaining is mostly rent-seeking. But I do think there's a case to be made that this corona situation changes the landscape a bit and does afford those with strong corona names perhaps a chance to actually add more value than they otherwise would.

Bernard I did not say outlaw it, because I do believe it's becomes a slippery slope, that's why I wrote the article I did.

I don't believe in a world where people can't get toilet paper, or medical masks that anyone needs to pay any money for Coronavirus domains. That's my opinion not changing, don't want to change yours, to be honest I don't care what anyone else thinks on the topic, they are going to do what they are going to do, same as I am.

Some companies are saying we don't want this business, you can go to our competition and give it to them.

For many years Afternic had a morality clause, (not sure if it still exists) But there was no porn or gambling allowed for example, Sedo got that business.

Free market at work.

 

[Bernard Wright]

Again, you start with lets say it, I say show me such domain, forget about it already being ubiquitous, just show one developed and which is providing information that is not already available to the public and is from the more trusted and reliable sources like who.int and cdc.gov. @DAN.COM already removed many many domains which were listed for sale, I repeat...for SALE, for thousands, hell even @equity78 said "And we can try to backdoor all these, (oh what if the domainer does good) but no one listing on DAN was looking to make a charitable act."

Now please understand that.

Well, there must be motives behind a domain purchase. It would be irrational for anyone to buy a corona name on the aftermarket and not seek to at least cover their costs. Developing sites is not cheap. There would be few instances where a buyer would spend more than reg on a name without plans to develop it into a site that people would want to visit.

And inherently, when people want to visit it, it is a site that must provide value to the user, otherwise they wouldn't be visiting.

But by your rationale, though the developer has spent time and resources, and ongoing time and resources, developing a site and maintaining it, they cannot profit from it if it pertains to the corona virus, correct?

Basically a drawn-out reiteration of my previous post.

 

[equity78]

Another thing is there is a lot of virtue signaling going on, Cadillac is running commercials telling me they have my back, I can't go outside so I can't buy a Cadillac, I yell at the tv screen donate $1million to a food bank, stop virtue signaling.

 

[Bernard Wright]

they are going to do what they are going to do, same as I am.

Some companies are saying we don't want this business, you can go to our competition and give it to them.

For many years Afternic had a morality clause, (not sure if it still exists) But there was no porn or gambling allowed for example, Sedo got that business.

Free market at work.

High five to that. I think we're pretty much on the same page, actually. I'm all for free market capitalism. I don't like people asserting their will on others in the marketplace, limiting others' freedoms to act ...act in a way that might have a beneficial outcome. That's all.

Bowing out. My respect the time and level-headed discussion.

 

[Abdullah Abdullah]

Well, there must be motives behind a domain purchase. It would be irrational for anyone to buy a corona name on the aftermarket and not seek to at least cover their costs. Developing sites is not cheap. There would be few instances where a buyer would spend more than reg on a name without plans to develop it into a site that people would want to visit.

And inherently, when people want to visit it, it is a site that must provide value to the user, otherwise they wouldn't be visiting.

But by your rationale, though the developer has spent time and resources, and ongoing time and resources, developing a site and maintaining it, they cannot profit from it if it pertains to the corona virus, correct?

Basically a drawn-out reiteration of my previous post.

You keep taking the issue to a developer. Here, we are talking about domainers. Lets get that straight. A domainer who just registered these names and slaps prices, regardless of what amount, and is not giving out or developing it. The two are basically different. I asked you a domain that was developed by a domainer and is providing information, even if that information is already available from the more reputable, trusted and more reliable sites like who.int ? You were not able to provide it and you wont; because of all those who registered the names of this fatal and epidemic virus - which has costed the lives of thousands of humans, humans who were the loved ones of humans like us, humans who themselves had loved ones and people they care about - did not register to provide a vital source of information to the public.

 

[frank-germany]

@Dan announced to have blocked those names
as many of these names have a ridiculously high price tag, as they say
and their intention as far as I read it
is to protect the domain industry from receiving a bad reputation.
- simply block the price, @Dan .....

 

[Bernard Wright]

You keep taking the issue to a developer. Here, we are talking about domainers. Lets get that straight. A domainer who just registered these names and slaps prices, regardless of what amount, and is not giving out or developing it.

The two issues are very much related. A domainer cannot sell a domain to a developer for more than the developer thinks it is worth. And, as I stated before, it would be irrational to purchase the domain for more than could at least be recouped by creating a valuable site. So, the domainer is part of the supply chain.

I asked you a domain that was developed by a domainer and is providing information, even if that information is already available from the more reputable, trusted and more reliable sites like who.int ? You were not able to provide it and you wont; because of all those who registered the names of this fatal and epidemic virus - which has costed the lives of thousands of humans, humans who were the loved ones of humans like us, humans who themselves had loved ones and people they care about - did not register to provide a vital source of information to the public.

I haven't spent any time looking at corona domains. You kicked this off by saying that profiting from corona was immoral. Basically, my interest in this interaction with you is the fact that I think by creating something of value that helps people in the face of corona, those in the supply chain of that beneficial product should be allowed to profit from their inputs. That's why I posed the questions I posed, which you haven't really answered directly.