The following is the Final Auction List for TRAFFIC Next Week. There will be NO online bidding. But we tried. I explained the reasons on the comment section of this post by Elliot. Below is a note DIRECT from the Bellagio that illustrates my concerns. Even for the most expensive hotel ever built.
Now for folks that do not believe that connectivity at hotels is a problem, let me share an email from YESTERDAY from the Bellagio and THEN you MAY understand.
'As for the WiFi, we are all set with the SSID and Access Code. I spoke with our IT guys about the importance of delivering a product meeting your expectations, and they gave me a warning that the #1 issue they see are “MiFi” devices and rogue wireless devices generating interference. They suggest using the 5ghz band for MiFi devices if they are needed.'
Let me be clear. Connectivity at the hotels IS an issue. If you don't know a cover your ass note when you see one...........
Therefore there will be NO online bidding. Phone, text or pre-bids only. Sorry to disappoint the shills and pumpers.
So with that information, There will be phone bidding, Text bidding and prebidding. You can register for these services by contacting Ray Neu. ray at 54.ws no later than next Tuesday at noon.
MOST (about 70%) of the domains below come with NO RESERVE and will be sold to the highest bidder!
ICA Charity Auction of Cleanest.com.
No Reserve. 100% proceeds go to ICA
Lot# 101...3DChannel.com (Reserve under $10K)
Lot# 102...3DMovie.com (Reserve under $10K)
Lot# 104...777.me (Reserve under $5K)
Lot# 107...AFQ.com (Reserve under $15K)
Lot# 108...Artist.us and Artists.us
Lot# 113...BulletProofVest.com (Reserve under $20K)
Lot# 115...CashBusiness.com (Reserve under $10K)
Lot# 119...CheckBuy.com (Reserve under $8K)
Lot# 123...CycleClassifieds.com (Reserve under $10K)
Lot# 128...EuropeanAutos.com (Reserve under $12K)
Lot# 131...FreeVehicleRecord.com AND FreeVinHistory.com (As one lot)
Lot# 136...illegals.com (Reserve under $5K)
Lot# 137...iloveCali.com and iloveNevada.com and iloveUtah.com (one lot)
Lot# 142...LasVegasReservations.net (Reserve under $5K)
Lot# 143...LasVegasSigns.com, PureSlots.com, VirtualSlotMachines.com (Reserve under $2K)
Lot# 144...LawnMowing.com (Reserve under $25K)
Lot# 146...MovieTheatre.com AND MovieTheater.com (Reserve under $50K)
Lot# 149...NewHomePlans.com AND NewHousePlans.com (As one lot)
Lot# 153...OnlineClassrooms.com (Reserve under $5K)
Lot# 155...ProBoatRace.com and ProBoatRacing.com (1 lot) (Reserve under $10K)
If you can't handle the truth then stop reading and go buy a comic book. I have stated for years that the bar to entering domaining is very low and when you look at how some look at their business it becomes obvious.
Even domain flippers are selling collectible and unique assets with an income producing potential with a global presence. Except many of them don't know it. They think they are selling a PRODUCT they buy for $100 and sell for $200 or $300. They mark it up like inventory. Inventory??
Well those words are PRICELESS. The #1 challenge the Domain Industry has always faced is being a whore to make a sale and never understanding the TRUE value of a domain name. I have talked about it before. For many years. But Lucius put it in a very succinct sentence.
This week I used the Beep.me domain as an example. A $2000 sale of a domain could EASILY be worth INTO the 6 figures. First of all wtf is anyone or any company selling a domain like that for $2k?? A PREMIUM domain name worthy of much better then a $2000 sale. So sales are going down not because business sucks but because of things like this. All these companies should have QUALIFIED folks on staff to comb thru domains like this and not let them slip thru. Problem is the 50 people on the planet that may be qualified to do that have their own gigs and the last thing they need is a job.
This was just easy pickins for me because I think it was a good illustration. And if Beep.me has no value then the 1900 .whatevers don't either. But a 'Natural' is a 'Natural' and THAT is the key to any .whatever. If it is just a word with a .crap extension it will always be limited in value and business if any at all. But the top .whatevers will have some 'Natural' sounding things that have a chance. But that is the extent of it.
Half of you will jump on .crap and put a crappier name in front of it. Shitty.Crap. Which at least has MEANING! If you put Shitty.Crap out there I guarantee it is self explanatory. May not work as well with unrelatedwordsstucktogether.crap
Don't even get me started. I just see some companies undervaluing their assets in a way that is unfathomable to me. But that is their business and not for me to say this or that. So I don't want these companies to take offense. I can list many. Maybe all. Not that bad for a domain investor. But I have the ability to look at it from their side of the table and the least these companies need to do is isolate 6 and 7 figure domain names.
MOST domainers would flip that domain for $5k in 24 hours. BAD MOVE!!! At LEAST know the difference between a $5 domain and a $250,000 one. $100,000 on a rainy day. Fine, don't agree. But then you are no domain investor either. Maybe it is $25,000 or $50,000. Doesn't matter.
The point is even if you are a domain flipper this business is MUCH MORE than doubling or tripling the price against your cost. It is understanding you are in the diamond business whether you want to be or not and all diamonds are not the same. Beep.me is a diamond to somebody.
If I had the time I would open my own appraisal service and charge folks $250 each for a no bullshit Rick Schwartz valuation. Of course the ones I certify as 'Pigeon Shit' would make the owners very unhappy. lol But I would have to focus on domains with a minimum value of $25,000. But who has the time?
I have said for years that the only difference between a $3000 call girl and a $50 corner whore is the asking price and the value they put on themselves. I have seen beautiful $50 street whores and some homely $3000 call girls. (Seen, not used lol)
But domains can be truly measured for value in a number of ways. The automated ones are silly. They don't work. They factor in many pieces of the equation but fail to factor in the key pieces. TheDomains.com did a piece where they valued the domains at the TRAFFIC Auction at $1.85MM.
Well I like to mental masturbate as much as the next guy but the TRAFFIC Auction list is not worth $1.85MM and if it is, some folks are going to get some incredible bargains.
Just to be clear…
Flipping is just short term investing. Nothing wrong with that at all. It’s a great way to make a lot of money. I just prefer the long term outlook because it is less work and I have the luxury of waiting and that was my approach from the get go so that’s how I roll.
But even that does not always work out as I lose money on domains sometimes too. lol
99% of the domains I see have very limited value. 1% have value. 1% of those have great value. So when you are in a diamond mine only morons talk about the glass. The pros are busy looking for the diamonds in all that crap pile of glass. They only talk diamonds. And hopefully the biggest and best diamonds they can find.
Point is to STUDY first and then decide to sell or hold. Do you know how many emails I get from people that got a domain 5 SECONDS ago?? Flip less and make more!! Work smarter, not harder. Good luck!
Office of Medical & Scientific Justice, Inc. represented by Matthew H. Swyers of The Trademark Company, LLC, Virginia, USA. was just found guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH) in attempted theft of the domain names hivinnocencegrouptruth.com and hivinnocenceprojecttruth.com by a one member National Arbitration Forum UDRP decision.
So Office of Medical & Scientific Justice, Inc. joins the other GUILTY PARTIES below. Matthew H. Swyers of The Trademark Company, LLC, Virginia, USA should have known better. So as time goes on BOTH the company and the attorney are tagged in this. I BELIEVE that by virtue of these decisions they are CO-CONSPIRATORS. They BOTH engaged in activity that was deemed as hijacking.
So from now on we must ROAST these Reverse Domain Name Hijackers (RDNH). Ah you say but Rick what have you been doing if you are not already roasting them? Well there are some innovative ways we will begin to get the attention of these companies. But we will leave that for another day because this CONTENT is right here and not going away anytime soon.
Try to hijack a domain name and you will be shamed publicly because public opinion is the way to stop bad behavior when the laws out there are not adequate enough to do the job. Each of these companies will receive an increasingly HARSHER post from me because they are not ignorant of what they are doing. In almost every case they KNEW what they were doing and their INTENT was to STEAL using a governing body as their pawns!
Well there have been more findings of Reverse Domain Hijacking in the last 12 months that any preceding 12 month period. So the cat is out of the bag and they can no longer fool panels into being their unknowing accomplice.
I have 39 such cases so far of RDNH and this resource has 129. Each win will discourage the next would-be hijacker. A tip of the hat to all owners below that fought and a big congrats to the attorney that represented them! I will list any and all cases as I learn of them. In time we hope decisions like these will will make the next IDIOT think twice before they attempt to STEAL something they have no legal or moral rights to. We now OWN YOUR REPUTATION and we will circulate!
And a special tip of the hat to John Berryhill who is the leading RDNH attorney in the world. I am counting and will post how many wins he has recorded on behalf of his clients. I would guess about 1/3 of all decisions. So if you are up against Berryhill or Neu or Goldberger, or Keating or a few others, good luck! You'll need it. Save yourself a great loss and embarrassment and WITHDRAW your case and send the other party their expense money and then get down to this thing we call 'Capitalism' and NEGOTIATE!!
Otherwise you get to be labeled what 'I' want to label you as and you will be tagged with that DESERVED recognition each and every time a new client does a search to find the good, the bad and the ugly. Want to know which group 'Fuckers' will end up in.
The PUBLIC now OWNS the reputation of each of these companies. They are now BRANDED in the most despicable way and so all the $$$ they spent to familiarize us with their products just got a mighty damaging blow.
And with each conviction I will be a bigger PRICK than the post before UNTIL this crap stops and will begin the tedious job of making REVERSE DOMAIN HIJACKING a CRIMINAL offense as we move forward.
If you are on thin ice, and found out to be GUILTY, you and your company will be listed right here and in all future blog posts and interviews relating to this and I reserve my right to use your attempted theft at every chance I get. Let the PUBLIC decide who is the THIEF! Who is the party found GUILTY of REVERSE DOMAIN NAME HIJACKING! Each case will be included in the book I am writing as well.
Case #3 CinemaCity.com The Complainant is Prime Pictures LLC of Dubai, United Arab Emirates (“UAE”), represented by Law offices of Vince Ravine, PC, United States of America (“USA”). Reverse Domain Name Hijacker
Case #4 CollectiveMedia.com The Complainant is Collective Media, Inc., New York, United States of America, represented by Lowenstein Sandler PC, United States of America is a Reverse Domain Name Hijacker
Case #7 Mess.com Kiwi Shoe Polish Company, The Complainant is Mess Enterprises, San Francisco, California, of United States of America, represented by Steve Clinton, United States of America is a Reverse Domain Name Hijacker
Case #8 Goldline.com The Complainant is Goldline International, Inc., represented by Spataro & Associates is a Reverse Domain Name Hijacker
Case #12 TrailBlazer.com The Complainant is Trailblazer Learning, Inc. dba Trailblazer, Caledonia, Michigan, United States of America, Self-represented by Brett W. Company COO, Caledonia, Michigan, United States of America is a Reverse Domain Name Hijacker.
Case #13 DreamGirls.com The Complainant is Dreamgirls, Inc., Tampa, Florida, United States of America, represented by Christensen, Miller, Fink, Jacobs, Glaser, Weil & Shapiro, LLP, Los Angeles, California, United States of America and have been labeled a 'Reverse Domain Name Hijacker'.
Case #15 Windsor.com Complainant in this administrative proceeding is Windsor Fashions, Inc., a California corporation with a principal place of business in Los Angeles, California, United States of America. Complainant is represented in this proceeding by Abraham M. Rudy, Esq. and Julie Waldman, Esq., Weisman, Wolff, Bergman, Coleman, Grodin & Evall LLP, Beverly Hills, California, United States of America. They have been labeled a 'Reverse Domain Name Hijacker'.
Case #16 Mindo.com Complainants are Scandinavian Leadership AB and Mindo AB of Uppsala, Sweden, internally represented. They have been labeled a 'Reverse Domain Name Hijacker'.
Case # 17 and Sha.com he Complainant is Albir Hills Resort, S.A. of Alfaz del Pi Alicante, Spain, represented by PADIMA, Abogados y Agentes de Propiedad Industrial, S.L., Spain. They have been labeled a 'Reverse Domain Name Hijacker'.
Case # 18 etatil.com The Complainants are ÖZALTUN OTELCİLİK TURİZM VE TİCARET LTD. ŞTİ. of Istanbul, Turkey, Allstar Hotels LLC of New York, Unites States of America and Mr. Metin ALTUN of Istanbul, Turkey, represented by Istanbul Patent & Trademark Consultancy Ltd., Turkey. They have been labeled a 'Reverse Domain Name Hijacker'.
Case # 20 WallStreet.com The Complainant is Wall-Street.com, LLC of Florida, United States of America (the “United States” or “US”), represented by Flint IP Law, United States. They have been labeled a 'Reverse Domain Name Hijacker'.
Case # 21 parvi.org found for the complainant in 2009 but in 2012 the courts rules that theCity of Paris, France was guilty of 'Reverse Domain Name Hijacking' in a landmark case that resulted in a $125,000 judgement against the city.
Case #22 Gtms.com The Complainant is Sustainable Forestry Management Limited, a company incorporated under the laws of Bermuda, with its principal place of business in London, United Kingdom. The Complainant is represented by its general counsel, Mr. Eric Bettelheim. They have been labeled a 'Reverse Domain Name Hijacker'.
Case #23 PetExpress.com The Complaintant is Airpet Animal Transport, Inc. represented by Mark W. Good of Terra Law LLP, California, USA. They have been labeled a 'Reverse Domain Name Hijacker'
Case #24 ColdFront.com Complainant isPersonally Cool Inc. (“Complainant”), New York, USA. They have been labeled a 'Reverse Domain Name Hijacker'
Case #25 Unive.com Complainant is Coöperatie Univé U.A. of Arnhem, Netherlands, represented by Novagraaf Nederland B.V., Netherlands. 'Given the circumstances, the Panel finds that the Complaint was brought in bad faith, in an attempt at Reverse Domain Name Hijacking, and constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding'
Case #26 eCase.com AINS, INC. (“Complainant”), represented by Janice W. Housey of Symbus Law Group, LLC, Virginia, USA. The panel concludes that the Complaint was brought in bad faith in an attempt at Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.
Case #27 TinyPrint.com Complainant is Tiny Prints, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by CitizenHawk, Inc., California, USA 'Complaint was brought in bad faith and that, accordingly, Complainant has attempted to engage in Reverse Domain Name Hijacking'
Case #28 Enki.com Complainant is Enki LLC(“Complainant”), represented by Eric A. Novikoff, of California, USA. 'This is a frivolous proceeding which should never have been filed by Complainant. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant is guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking'
Case #29 SFM.com Complainant is State Fund Mutual Insurance Co. represented by Peter G. Nikolai, of Nikolai & Mersereau, P.A., Minnesota, USA The Panel finds 'Complainant has engaged in Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.'
Case #30 Swash.com Complainant Procter and Gamble Represented by Keating Muething & Klekamp PLL. Procter and Gamble is a Reverse Domain Name Hijacker
'It is impossible to believe that the Complainant, who employs ultra-sophisticated marketing methods, was not aware that the disputed domain name, <swash.com>, had been registered and used by other entities for some years when the Complainant introduced its SWASH product line in 2009.
The entire Panel finds it more extraordinary still that in its Complaint the Complainant represented the SWASH brand to be a worldwide brand of longstanding with multi-million dollar sales, stating that over the last 4 years alone the brand had gained sales of over USD 40,000,000. When this was challenged by the Respondent, the Complainant was forced to admit that the brand had only been on the market for 4 years, that sales had been restricted to the USA and that sales over those four years had totaled under USD 60,000.
Had the Respondent failed to respond, there is a very real risk that the Panel, relying upon the 1993 International registration and the substantial sales volumes claimed for the brand, would have found in favor of the Complainant. This Complaint fell very far short of what the Panel was entitled to expect from a Complainant of this stature.
In all of the circumstances present here, the Panel finds that the Complainant has abused the process in an attempt at reverse domain name hijacking in contravention of the UDRP Rules at paragraph 15(e). The Panel majority also finds the Complainant has attempted reverse domain name hijacking because it must have known that the Respondent did not know of (nor had any reason to be aware of) any relevant trade mark rights in the SWASH name when the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in 2004.'
Case #31 3dCafe.com Complainant is 3DCafe, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Danielle I. Mattessich of Merchant & Gould, P.C., Minnesota, USA. The panel finds 'Complainant acted in bad faith. The Panel therefore makes a finding of reverse domain name hijacking.'
Case #32 xPand.com The Complainant is X6D Limited of Limassol, Cyprus, represented by Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, United States of America. 'The Panel therefore accepts the Respondent’s allegation that the Complainant is using the UDRP as an alternative purchase strategy after the acquisition of the disputed domain name failed. Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complaint was brought in bad faith, in an attempt of reverse domain name hijacking: The Complainant knew or should have known at the time it filed the Complaint that it could not prove that the domain name was registered in bad faith.'
Paragraph 1 of the Rules defines Reverse Domain Name Hijacking:
“Reverse Domain Name Hijacking means using the Policy in bad faith to attempt to deprive a registered domain-name holder of a domain name.”
The general conditions for a finding of bad faith on the part of a complainant are well stated in Smart Design LLC v. Carolyn Hughes,WIPO Case No. D2000-0993 (October 18, 2000):
“Clearly, the launching of an unjustifiable Complaint with malice aforethought qualifies, as would the pursuit of a Complaint after the Complainant knew it to be insupportable.”
These conditions are confirmed in Goldline International, Inc. v. Gold Line,WIPO Case No. D2000-1151 (January 4, 2001) and Sydney Opera House Trust v. Trilynx Pty. Limited,WIPO Case No. D2000-1224 (October 31, 2000) (where the condition is stated as “the respondent must show knowledge on the part of the complainant of the respondent’s right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name and evidence of harassment or similar conduct by the complainant in the face of such knowledge”), which in turn cites Plan Express Inc. v. Plan Express, WIPO Case No. D2000-0565 (July 17, 2000).
The Complainant knew when it filed the Complaint that the registration of the disputed domain name preceded by several years any rights that the Complainant may have acquired in the mark WEB PASS. Indeed, the Complainant annexes a printout of the WhoIs registration to the Complaint, and that printout indicates that the domain name was created well before the Complainant’s first use in commerce of its mark. In this Panel’s view, this is sufficient to find reverse domain name hijacking. See NetDeposit, Inc. v. NetDeposit.com, WIPO Case No.D2003-0365 (July 22, 2003) (finding reverse domain name hijacking because “Respondent's domain name registration preceded the Complainant's creation of its trademark rights”).
The Panel finds that the Complainant has attempted Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.
The panel finds that Complainant has failed to present any evidence to support its claimed rights in the disputed domain name. It only provided an application for trademark registration which does not establish any enforceable rights under the UDRP. It did not offer any evidence to support a finding of common law rights in the disputed mark. Also, the Panel finds that Complainant knew or should have known that it was unable to prove that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name or that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Based on the foregoing, the panel finds that reverse domain name hijacking has occurred.
SeeNetDepositVerkaik v. Crownonlinemedia.com, D2001-1502 (WIPO Mar. 19, 2002) (“To establish reverse domain name hijacking, Respondent must show knowledge on the part of the complainant of the Respondent’s right or legitimate interest in the Domain Name and evidence of harassment or similar conduct by the Complainant in the fact of such knowledge.”); see alsoLabrada Bodybuilding Nutrition, Inc. v. Glisson, FA 250232 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 28, 2004) (finding that complainant engaged in reverse domain name hijacking where it used “the Policy as a tool to simply wrest the disputed domain name in spite of its knowledge that the Complainant was not entitled to that name and hence had no colorable claim under the Policy”).
Having failed to establish all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED. The Panel further finds that Complainant engaged in Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.'
Case #35 adjudicate.org.au The Complainant is Adjudicate Today Pty Limited of Mona Vale, New South Wales, Australia represented by Moray & Agnew, Australia. The domain, adjudicate.org.au. Futureworld Consultancy (Pty) Limited v. Online Advice, WIPO Case No. D2003-0297 states that a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking may be made if the Complainant “knew or should have known at the time it filed the Complaint that it could not prove that the domain name was registered or used in bad faith”. Given that the Complainant would have been aware that the Respondent had a more than negligible adjudication business in Australia at the time the Complaint was filed, the Panel is of the opinion that the Complainant knew or should have known that it could not prove that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith. Therefore, the Panel finds that this is an instance of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.
Case #36 Joopa.com Complainant is Edward Smith (“Complainant”), represented by Kuscha Abhyanker of Raj Abhyanker P.C., California, USA. “the Complainant filed its trademark application shortly after it was unable to acquire the Disputed Domain Name from the Respondent on acceptable terms. 'The panel finds that failing in this effort, the Complainant undertook to use the Policy to acquire the Disputed Domain Name.” “The panel finds that the Complaint has attempted reverse domain name hijacking in violation of the Rules.”
Case #37 PoliceAuction.com Complainant is Vortal Group, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Roger N. Behle Jr., of Behle Law Corporation, 575 Anton Boulevard, Suite 710, Costa Mesa, CA 92626. 'Moreover, the Panel finds that filing a UDRP proceeding - which on its face can be qualified as frivolous - without any basis to do so should be construed in the present case as harassing. Here, Complainant admitted it knew that the domain name was registered prior to its using the at-issue mark in commerce. When, as in the present case, Complainant is unable to show trademark rights through use or otherwise which predate registration of the at-issue domain name, then it becomes impossible for it to prevail. In the case before the Panel, there is no way that Complainant could have reasonably expected to prevail and its counsel should have known better.' Vortal Group, Inc. is a convicted Reverse Domain Name Hijacker and 'counsel should have known better'
Case #40hivinnocencegrouptruth.com and hivinnocenceprojecttruth.com. Office of Medical & Scientific Justice, Inc. represented by Matthew H. Swyers of The Trademark Company, LLC, Virginia, USA. was found guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH) in attempted theft of the domain names.
My hope is this is the last RDNH case I will ever have to post. The reality is this post will be re-posted EVERY SINGLE TIME there is a case of RDNH. Every time and now maybe some value based companies will think twice before flirting with this tactic and come to the bargaining table un good faith instead of being labeled forever with bad faith. The net is written in INK!
THOU SHALT NOT STEAL! Stop trying to steal and start doing BUSINESS! Feel free to repost FAR and WIDE!
I wrote this on Saturday when I returned home but wanted to digest a few days before posting it.
I wish you folks could be privy to the 'Training' that is going on. See, we are not just unleashing 12 people to do whatever. We are training them with a certain amount of strategies and how to approach an end user. They are representing precious assets and they need to do it in an effective manner. They can't just be a bunch of wildcats. That won't work for what we are doing here.
Plus we are not DESPERATE for deals. We will only do a GOOD deal where every party wins. We have teamed up with Escrow.com to take the worry out of any leasing transaction for both sides.
I look at this industry as a huge pie. So much success to share why would anyone waste their energy on anything not productive? The part of the domain industry built on success and character and enjoying life and achieving big things and having the PATIENCE to see things thru.
This was a VERY fulfilling week. Besides the birth of a product and strategy that would absolutely have Al and Bob and Frank nodding with approval even in their graves, I can tell you I witnessed something special this week and when you see what I see, you will KNOW why I am doing this and all doubts will be removed.
It's a good thing I have 11 acres and no neighbors up there. We screamed and yelled and hammered things out that few would have the patience or stomach for. Of course Danny has a secret weapon. And we do too! 'T'.
'T' is hard to describe. She is a very special in her own right. Believe me, I was the dummy at the table. But when you put certain ingredients together, EXPLOSIONS happen! Dynamite is just how you put certain ingredients together to cause a reaction. Those ingredients each sitting alone at a table mean much less. Put them together the right way and BOOM!
When Danny says he has been working on this before I even agreed to do it, this is not bullshit. This is almost spooky. I don't even know how he can organize himself like this. I saw a 4 hour, one man presentation the likes I have never seen in my life. Several of them. Covering more things than I could write about in a month. I may just give him his own seminar room at TRAFFIC and let him loose for 8 hours. Anyone that wants to listen and watch can, if not, the regular show will be going on.
Talk about LEVERAGING the POWER of the INTERNET. Harnessing the future and doing it in a given space of time. NEED, WANT, DESIRE, VALUE....will soon be reunited with SENSE OF URGENCY!
Domaining is about to be FUN again because folks are going to have more and more options. Stay tuned!
uninformed rookie reporter has labeled all domainers as “Cybersquatters. ” In the story she boarders on libel as she accuses the owner of fave.com (Reflex
Publishing) of being a “CyberSquatter.” I wrote the following note to Ms.
Miller. I hope other domain owners will also write notes. Keep them factual and
thoughtful. Her email address is email@example.com
Hello Ms. Miller,
I just finished reading
your article 'Does your success hinge on a domain name.'
As President and CEO of
the World Association of Domain Name Developers Inc, that produces the
T.R.A.F.F.I.C. trade shows, (http://www.targetedtraffic.com
thing to call somebody that has done nothing wrong. His domains do not violate
anyone's trademark. He has not stolen the domain. He has not done anything but
purchased the domain in a legal manner. Calling him a 'Cybersquatter'
insinuates he has done something wrong. He has not and you should correct your
story to reflect that.
Thanks for your time!
Btw, Elliot Silver on his blog today shows an interesting angle. Seems the REAL
cybersquatter is the company that wants the Fave.com domain name. Time to push
back folks. Time to set the record straight. Write Miller. Write the editor.
Don't let them slide.
Have a GREAT day!
UPDATE 3PM: Businessweek and Ms. Miller have CHANGED 'Cybersquatter' to 'Speculator.' Way to go!!
In 1999 I started a blog. It wasn't called a blog then. It was/is called a "Chatboard" and I started posting about domain names in 1999 on my own chatboard. As early as 1996 on other chatboards. Then one day blogs came along and what I had been doing for 9 or 10 years became all the rage. So I think I will enjoy this updated format and my wish is for me to say something that changes your life. Changes your life in a profound way.
In a few days I will start a blog. It won't be updated everyday. Only when I have something I think is useful to say. So stay tuned and in the next few days I'll see what I can build and how I can present it to you in an exciting manner! Plus I'll ruffle a few feathers and mix it up a little bit. We'll expose the cons and let you know the real skinny on payouts. Pissing folks off is my specialty. It's easy to do when you stick to the numbers and the numbers don't jive with what they say or what they promise.
I am a "Numbers guy." One quote I am famous for is "Numbers I trust, people I don't." A 9 is a 9 forever. There is nothing we can do to change a 9. It is not my 9 or your 9, it is just 9. So we pay attention to the numbers and eliminate the bullshit.
So stay tuned . This blog will launch on Monday April 9th and maybe even sooner! I will share what little I know. It may be what you already know, but you also may find one little tidbit that can change your life. I am out to have life changing things happen here for those that take the time to THINK, READ and STOP.