Elliot Noss, the President and CEO of Tucows has responded to our post of a few days ago regarding the YummyNames.com, the site Tucows set up to sell some of the domains it acquired from it’s customers after they expired.
The comments from Mr. Noss are unedited.
Our comments will follow but feel free to comment:
“””””I wanted to weigh in here and provide my view very specifically. apologies in advance as I am famously long-winded (stop laughing berryhill)
first. what do we do? we have been very open in what we are doing, what our grace periods are and how we implement them. we have been open about it since we started in 2006. we review names for brandability and revenue potential. we provide, if I am not mistaken, the longest grace periods in the industry and, again I believe, are perhaps the only registrar to honor redemption grace period on names other than as dictated to us by the auction providers. I would note here that in negotiating with the auction providers (and we have spoken to all of them) they are clear that they are not interested in us allowing an auction to be subject to a grace period for the benefit of the original registrant.
after the grace periods we retain names in our discretion. what we do not choose to retain (I believe this to be over 98%) goes to auction. what does not go to auction is dropped.
I would note that our grace periods and our specific practices are clear and available. we do not play hide the peanut. we do not have sister companies that take ownership. we understand many other registrars are a little more opaque in their practices.
second, in my view there are only two differences in what we are doing and what a registrar who has all their names flow into auction is doing. before the differences though, the more important point, as many of you have noted, is the similarity, that the registrar is capturing the excess economic value.
the two differences are timing and path. in terms of timing, a registrar who sends to auction sells the name to a wholesaler who will then either keep it in a large portfolio for revenue or wait for the best-use end user to buy it. most often both are true. the registrar gets money immediately at what will usually be a lower level than if sold to an end user directly. the registrar trades money for timing and certainty. by the way, after doing this for three years what we are doing may or may not be better.
the other difference is path. in an auction the domain most often flows through a domainer before reaching an end user and will sit in a domainer portfolio collecting revenue in the interim (or not), just like it sits in our portfolio.
third, I think it is instructive to look at the history of the drop. there have been three clear phases, the wild west, the primacy of the auctions and the last couple years.
in the wild west guys like scott day, gary chernoff and frank schilling flourished and those who knew the secret handshake benefited.
in the primacy of the auctions guys like rob hall, paul stahura and clint page flourished and there was a higher degree of standardization, but not if you were the registry (who got hammered) or ICANN (who were inundated with hundreds of “registrar” applications from the same entities in an orwellian arms race).
the situation of the last few years is a further evolution with the markets becoming more efficient.
the one thing I will guarantee going forward is that the market for secondary domain names will continue to evolve and will continue to evolve towards efficiency. I will also note that in rapidly evolving markets smart entrepreneurs skate to where the puck is going. when the market evolved from stage one to stage two scott, gary and frank did not whine and complain, they figured out how to thrive in the next phase. when it evolved from stage two to stage three, rob, paul and clint did not whine and complain. they figured out how to thrive in the next phase. people who look back on how rapidly evolving markets were and try to legislate or wish them back in to existence are sort of like the music industry looking at the Internet.
an interesting historical note. we were one of the last registrars to get into taking advantage of expiring names. in 2004, before NSI launched their original snap names auction for their expiring names, I tried to get the registry and the large registrars to agree on a framework not unlike some of what was discussed above. in that framework I stressed the rights of the original registrant. I was met with derision from registrars and domainers, greed from the registry and apathy from registrants. it was only long after it was clear to me that I would be unable to effect change in that direction that we went down the path we did.
lastly, I think this whole issue is a sad distraction. registrars and domain owners (and we are both) have common cause in two respects, registrant rights and fighting against overreaching IP interests. Tucows has an unmatched record on these two issues. you did not see our names handed over to the state of kentucky.
we have spent more time, money and effort on transfers, whois and so many other registrant rights issues from the dawn of competition than any other registrar. both the ICA and the ALAC recognize that. we have spent more time and money fighting IP interests inside of ICANN and the courts of two countries (and of course in UDRPs) than any other registrar. we have the most generous grace periods, the fairest and most transparent transfer rules and, by the way, some of the VERY largest domain holders as customers.
I am more than happy to dig into this stuff deeper. I have no doubt many who are here disagree, but at least hopefully this will help us focus on what it is we disagree on.””””
FYI, it’s “YummyNames” not “YummyDomains”.
LOL Ken
thanks for clarifying the worst name in the history of domains. i only wish the correction was an improvement on the original.
P.S. you beat both BigJumbo and YesDirect tied for 2nd place.
ParkingDots is a close, close 3rd.
@dch – I think I’d put GoDaddy and Enom a higher on that list. 🙂
Elliot
I give you credit for facing the fire.
As to the three different stages of the drop process, I will agree that there were three stages, but I will disagree with you over the categorization of the three stages.
The first stage you say was the wild, wild west.
I would say the first stage could be labeled simply, first come first served.
The second stage, I would agree was the drop auction system, where all the “good domains” wound up being auctioned off to the highest bidder; however please note that during this process 100% of the dropped domains were made available to the general public. If someone was the only bidder they would get the domain for the minimum or if there was no bidder during the “drop auction” the domain would simply drop and be available to be registered by the first person to register it.
The current system which you wouldn’t even give a name to, I would categorize as the wild, wild west, as the drop process is determined by the whim of the each particular registrar without any rhyme or reason.
Currently if a registrar wants to simply drop a domain back into the pool of available domains they can; if they want to drop a domain into an “in- house auction” they can; and if they want to keep the domain for their own use they can.
So basically under the current “system” they can do whatever they want and I don’t think it gets much “wilder” or more unregulated than what we have now.
Now as to the “personal attack” regarding all those people making money during the three stages, and that you call me a whiner and complainer, and said basically that I missed out on making money during all the “systems”, I have to say you missed another possibility.
Although I did not do as well as Frank, Scott Day and others you mention, we participated in all the three stages that you described, and did just fine.
No, we were not as successful as some of the others, but I feel comfortable to say we did as well or better than 95% of the all other domainers in business at that time.
Frank is a genius and Scott and the others you mention are some of the smartest guys I know.
So I have no problem being the 7th smartest guy or the 20th.
But be certain that we “played the game” every step of the way and did not sit back and simply “whine” as to the hand we were dealt and we continue to be active in the domain community today.
Your basic argument that those who will stand up and say no to unethical practices are somehow complaining because they missed the boat, holds no water.
The argument is similar to the old story, love the USA or leave it.
That is if you criticize the USA you’re not a “real” American and you don’t’ love the country.
If you object to a war then your un-American.
Love it or leave it.
It’s laughable.
Yes Elliot you can object to certain actions, try to make things better, try to get a system that is fair to all, while still playing the game.
You can object to a situation when you see those with “power” use it to their sole benefit, call them out and try to change things for the better, without being classified as a quitter or a whiner.
Those tricks have been overplayed and have failed.
What I’m saying, is that the current system, which is unregulated , needs regulation.
I’m asking ICANN to do is regulate the “drop business” because some in the business won’t do it on their own.
As Spike Lee said, “Do the Right Thing”.
What I’m saying is that your company, a public one, is the only company I see taking the domains of its own customers, for its own and exclusive benefit.
I also see Tucows as the only registrar that has its own platform to sell the domains of its former customers for its sole benefit, proudly announcing there new “service” yummynames.com.
When my associate contacted YummyNames.com about divorced.com, one of the domains highlighted by the press release he got a response that you would only consider an offer in the ”six figures or higher” for this domain.
So Tucows is the only registrar on earth that I have seen take a domain that expired from its own customer and try to resell it for “six figures or higher”.
You ask “what should we do”.
The answer is simple.
You do the right thing.
You don’ t take advantage of your customers.
You don’t screw domainers.
You walk the right path, do your best and build your reputation and credibility throughout the domainer community.
Easy call.
Unfortunately you went the other way.
You didn’t hold your client in high regard.
You have no problem taking your customer’s property, sell it for the most you can, and keep all the proceeds for yourself.
Good for the bottom line, but terrible in the long run for your company.
Terrible for its repuatation.
My opinion.
Others may see it differently and they can feel free to express their opinions right here, whether they agree or disagree with me.
As a former customer, who spent a lot of money with you, I made a promise to myself that I would no longer do business with you.
I have kept my promise.
Other’s can do as they want.
However, the actions of Tucows continue to solidify my opinion, that I made the right choice.
You did not.
Expired domain names are a PUBLIC resource.
EVERY expired domain should either drop (and be re-registered on a first come first served basis like it was during phase 1) or go to auction (phase 2) so that everyone including domainers, registrars or end users have an equal chance to acquire a dropping name.
What Elliot calls phase 3 without giving it a name is just a registrar screwing its own customers, taking a public resource for its own profit and by the way screwing everyone else in the domaining chain (previous customers, domainers, end-users…)
It sucks, it lasted for too long and ICANN has to enforce it asap.
“whine and complain”
How insulting and condescending.
Tucows should pay for THAT comment. They continually put their customers down while screwing them or at least put in the position to WANT to screw their customers. In all my life, I have never seen a company with such disdain for their own customers.
What is particularly appalling about Tucows, they have a history of taking advantage of their own customer in favor of their “Stockholders.”
Meanwhile their stock is down nearly 50% since their first “episode” earlier this summer.
IMO, Tucows as a company, Tucows as a registrar and Tucows as a stock can not be trusted to do the right thing. They continue to defend the indefensible. Tucows is a company that just does not understand what conflict of interest is.
Tucows is a like part of the “Good old boys network” I will urge the WADND board of advisors to strip Tucows of their “Seal of Approval.” These guys have no clue and don’t deserve to be recognized as a trusted registrar. I don’t trust them to make ANY right decisions.
No domainer should support the CRAP that Tucows has been pulling this year. They will throw you under the bus in a heartbeat to get your domains! Why do I say this? Because they continually abuse their customers and I think it STINKS!
This industry and domainers in particular need to stop supporting companies that don’t treat them well and could give a shit about what is good for them, the industry or anything else.
The next we will hear…..Oh we must have goofed and not sent a renewal for your domains and sold it for $500k. Tucows, you got some damn nerve and I hope this comes back to bite you bad.
Folks, wake up, these guys are not to be trusted, NOW or EVER!
I agree with Rick Schwartz – You are SPOT on
Do not go where the path may lead, go instead where there is no path and leave a trail.- Ralph Waldo Emerson
Tucows and any other registrar that “cherry picks” expired domains and leave no chance for the general public to obtain a domain in a fair matter is flat out NOT doing the right thing!
I thought Tucows was going to do the right thing when partnering with Afternic and send ALL it’s expired domains to auction, but it’s clear this was not the case. (I’d love to read the contract between the two). Tucows must of included some wording that would sound like this…
We (Tucows) keep the good, you (Afternic) get to auction the not so good.
Tucows, do the right thing! Stop cherry picking the good expired domains for yourself and put them in public auction so everybody has a chance to bid. It’s that easy really!
I was educated by others in the industry early on to never use Tucows for anything…
I”ve never had any involvement with the… but the people that advised me are people in the industry that I wholeheartedly trust — so I’ve not had to endure any mistreatment from Tucows…
~DomainBELL (Patricia)
Rick – You are truely for the domainers, I’d like to see you open your own register. I think you would have many transfers over to you.
Everyone here seems to have nailed it with clarity except Elliot. Names are a public domain resource. Not a private, undisclosed transaction. Nothing should be kept, nothing should have a final price, and nothing should be expected. You as the registrar, should be thankful you received your markup on the reg fee, 100% of the parked revenue for 30 days, plus a percentage of what an auction house earned. This seems like plenty of money to me considering your role in the original registration was nil. If you think that you should own divorce.com, go back 15 years and register it yourself. But you didn’t, so you don’t own it. Clearly.
Open and public displays of expired product are the only way to gain any credibility in our industry. Not everyone may feel that this is the way to handle expiring names, but everyone agrees it’s much better than how Tucows is handling them.
mike, my “whine and complain” comment was not personal at all. to be clearer, I direct that to anyone lamenting for “the way things used to be”. I am sorry if you heard it personally. I stand by the general comment as I find this specific argument made in ICANN circles, and broader Internet policy circles, all the time but by people that, I assure you, you do not like and are opposed to in interest and that ironically, I fight for your interests against.
specifically in terms of changing the current system, I believe you would find that if we had a substantive discussion, not one filled with demands and insults, that we agree on virtually all positions.
there is a point where I fundamentally disagree with most of the posters and that is in viewing the small number of people who participate in expiry auctions as the “general public”. the facts are that this is a relatively small group of people who have the knowledge and the inclination to do so. let me also be clear that they (you) deserve credit for that. it is hustling entrepreneurship. it is not, however, the general public. it is not a response to say “well anyone could do it if they wanted to” anymore than me saying “anyone could be a registrar if they wanted to” makes Tucows position that of the general public.
one thing I am disappointed I did not hear comment on is my position that auctioning is no different than taking into inventory. I guess to some extent the “general public” comments touch on this but only in a vague way. no one touched the point that the only difference in the two is that one cuts domainers in on the action the other doesn’t.
sid, you came back again to the business model issues (in a comment on the original thread). I can only speak for Tucows. our customers are overwhelmingly hosting companies and ISPs. in order to get and keep their business we need to provide them with a great set of renewal management tools and what I would call domain-protection tools and policies. our few large domain holder customers know who they can call and know what they can do in the event that a mistake happens. our tools minimize (I think pretty much eliminate) them and our policies provide protection in any event.
your point about making it business policy for a domainer customer to have an option automatically exercised is an interesting one and could indeed make sense as part of a domainer offering.
lastly, rick, while I have tried to ignore your insults, I need to make two comments. first, everything you say is simply ad hominem attack. you do not comment on specific issues. if you think “whine and complain” is insulting and condescending when directed to a behavior, not an individual, try “whore”, “unethical”, “scumbag” and a whole bunch more that you are comfortable with in more private settings directed to Tucows and me.
and then there is the innuendo and baseless allegations. conflicts of interest are inherent in so many business situations. every single parking offering is predicated upon conflict. it is a conflict to have a financial interest in an auction and bid in it. your defense of that is basically “I am a good guy, trust me and here are the business reasons why it does not make sense for me to run a dirty shop”. me too. I participated in your auctions, despite the clear conflict of interest, because of that.
I truly believe that your heart is in the right place and that you want fair outcomes. I assure you that Tucows and I are not the enemy here. if you can stop the accusations, demands and insults and instead engage in dialog I think you would find us to be allies. as evidence for this, please speak to the people that you like and admire in the industry who are fighting for registrant interests outside of the echo chamber that blogs and comment threads can often be.
the namespace IS a public resource. I have spoken about this publicly for years and inside of ICANN am probably the greatest proponent of this concept. this is true in current situations like new gTLDs and single-letter coms. I am leading the charge for unmitigated auctions with the funds going for public benefit. I was and am the one out on front of this issue in all of the com contract renewals and fought tirelessly for this (and lost). once a domain is registered it is gone as a public resource. it is now governed by its contract. believe whatever you want about what Tucows is doing relative to what other registrars are doing (and those who know will assure you that we are just being honest about it while others are simply sneakier and given how I am spending my saturday morning, perhaps smarter than we are) but I can promise you that if what you want is for ICANN to take any steps that unduly limit a registrars ability to contract with its customers, your battle will not be with me as there are many other registrars who will be way more opposed to that than I will.
Tucows has Two Faces, and I don’t trust either one of them anymore.
As I have said before there is clearly a HUGE conflict of interest when a registrar is also wharehousing/keeping domains for their own profit.
It raises too many doubts for me as a customer, will they send my renewal reminders out, will they remove/keep my domain if the whois is not 100% correct, will they make the redemption costs so high to try and put people off renewing late ?
This is obviously a very dumb move for a registrar and I am voting with my feet – I no longer trust Tucows to look after MY DOMAINS. As far as I can see it would be like leaving an alcoholic in charge of your pub !
All my names are being transfered elsewhere.
As a company you show No Taste, No Morals and No common sense.
On your own Two Heads be it !
ps – YummyNames ! , why on earth did you keep so many crappy names ??
Elliot,
Don’t expect to make decisions that are not domainer friendly and expect us to stay silent and get away with it. When you make a bad decision, there is a price to pay. When you make a good decision, you get rewarded. That’s “Business.”
There is an obvious and SERIOUS conflict of interest here and sometimes you have to do the RIGHT thing as opposed to the profitable thing. Lots of ways to reap opportunity without taking advantage or setting up for a very grave mistake or something falling thru the cracks that affect one of your customers adversely.
Until this summer I always thought Tucows was a stand up company. The decisions you guys make imo are really lousy to put it bluntly. There is a substantial conflict of interest. Add that to a company known for erring on the side of stockholders and not customers is not reassuring.
You guys have a history of goof ups. How will you explain this one when it happens? I mean the motive to renew a $7 item in lieu of a $500,000 sale, can lead to all kinds of other bad or wrong decisions not to mention outright abuse. Maybe thru the motive of a bad employeee. Who knows? But what will your story be then?? Don’t you think a grave mistake like that could put a company out of business overnight? Is THAT worth the risk?
When you lose the TRUST, you lose everything. The relationship with a registrar is 100% TRUST. I have watched that trust erode. If that was your intention, then your decisions have been very good. Look at the posts. Folks no longer trust Tucows. You should ask yourself why that is?
I am not speaking out just for the sake of it. But you make bad decisions that favor your stockholders over customers it is okay to realize a bad decision and rethink things. But you guys are just as stubborn as the Governor of Kentucky when it comes to bad decisions. No flexibility whatsoever.
As for using the word “Whore”…..First I believe that to be the case given the circumstances and second if you don’t like the label don’t make policy that shows your company in such a light.
Whore as a noun according to webster’s: “a venal or unscrupulous person”
In this case company.
In an age where the entire society just got hosed by whores on Wall Street and in the banking system, I think a company needs to be much more sensitive to these things than Tucows has displayed. Whatever words or thoughts I use is only an effort to make you understand just how this stuff is playing out there.
Elliot,
Following a dropped domain auction, it should be no more difficult to execute a script that pays the domainer (whose payment information was captured at the time of initial registration) than it is to deposit the proceeds in a registrar’s account.
This appears to be more of a policy decision.
I think most people would agree that for every incredible eye-catching domain that appears on a dropped auction list, there is usually a domainer who is (or will soon be) sick to his stomach over the opportunity that slipped away. Not only have I heard the stories, I’ve also been the one with the stomach ache.
How it came to pass that the very person who registered the domain name – who had the insight and intuition, who paid the money and took the risk – should be denied all right to participate in the benefits of his or her labor is difficult to understand.
It seems to me that any business model that relies on a continuing stream of foreseeable anticipated customer losses, as a means of adding to the company bottom line, probably needs to be reworked a little bit.
When I first read this, I registered BoycottTucows.com
I then deleted it – so if anyone has the resources to defend it – it may still be available.
I only assume you would have to defend it, because (in my opinion) it stands to reason that a company using such tactics has No regard for what is right, wrong or ethical.
I always wondered why registrars didn’t just keep any expiring domains they wanted.
It circumvents the drop process that was intended to make the domain available to the public.
Seems anti-competitive.
Seems like it should be illegal.
If ICANN allows this practice to stand, it is an open invitation for all registrars to adopt the practice.
The registrars then become the domainers.
I have noticed some of my dropped domains are now in the accounts of “holding companies” that also own/run the registrar where I had them (not Tucows).
But, I have No idea whether they circumvented the drop process the way Tucows is doing.
But, it looks like they can if they want to.
One other interesting thing I learned concerning all this…Tucows is a member of ICA.
rick, thanks for not name-calling and making a substantive comment that I can respond to.
I think the most important point here is that the exact same conflict exists when registrars put names to auction. as a registrar the difference is do I get $1000 now or might I get $5000 sometime over the next five years. in both cases my incentive to treat the original registrant inappropriately is the same.
please either disagree with that or agree that Tucows has the same conflict as every other major registrar.
and if we get there then lets get to the substance of practice. I will publicly tell you EVERYTHING that we do with expiry, transfers, grace periods, renewals. will they? I think down that road leads the truth in who is what.
lastly, I am not sure how to take the last point around “whore”. I do not think we have been unscrupulous in anything we have done. we have, and will continue to do right by customers.
Elliot
You say:
“””our customers are overwhelmingly hosting companies and ISPs.”””
I can’t tell you the number of people I have heard from that lost their domain name because there hosting company or ISP went under and they couldn’t access the domain because the domain’s contact info was going to the hosting company.
You say:
“””it is not a response to say “well anyone could do it if they wanted to” anymore than me saying “anyone could be a registrar if they wanted to””
Actual anyone can become a registrar.
For reasons like this and other issues related to domains, we actually started our own registrar and have transferred all our domains to it. The registrar is located in the Bahamas and is ICANN accredited.
We will NOT keep the expired domains of our customers.
All expired domains, including our’s, will drop if they are not renewed.
We considered using your registrar services for our registrar, but due to this issue we went with LogicBoxes.
Regarding some of your other comments, I think I have commented on several occasions on your position that auctioning is no different than taking into inventory.
If all registrars engaged in this practice there would never had been a domain industry. All domainers built their portfolio, in large part from catching drop domains, or through drop auctions.
The difference is huge.
The difference between keeping domains for your own and exclusive benefit and allowing the general public to acquire them, is self explanatory.
We are not talking about the difference between $1K or $5K, when you are asking for offers in the six figures or higher for the domains you got from your customers.
What if a county, held back whatever pieces of real estate they wanted to from tax auctions for their own benefit? There would be public outrage.
Well there is public outrage in the domain community.
Since we first started discussing this issue on the blog there have been well over 4,000 people who have read an article on this issue (and this number grows by the hour) and hundreds of people have commented.
That is A LOT of people for a small industry.
Almost unanimously, commentators have attacked this policy of Tucows which you continue to defend.
As I have said all along its your company’s reputation that is at stake.
It is the appearance of impropriety that you have to avoid.
You are defending the undefendable.
That is the clear verdict from the domainer community.
Greed will be punished, we can see it now in the financial/banking sector. You screw the domainers, do you honestly think any domainer will be on your side?
Warehousing is wrong and it should be forbidden, I’m amazed it isn’t already.
Greed kills, there will be a victim, the victim will be Tucows.
What troubles me the most is that nobody seems very concerned about the original registrant domainer who has lost a valuable asset. Instead, the argument seems to be centered around who is entitled to the spoils, while the original registrant is left licking his wounds.
Does anyone actually believe that the most valuable domain drops are the result of intention?
So is the attitude one of, “You missed the deadline. You blew it. So now face the consequences”? Or as an industry, should we look for ways to protect domainers from inadvertently losing assets worth thousands of dollars because an $8 renewal was not timely paid. Most other industries offer safeguards to protect equity holders from outright forfeiture.
Isn’t it a bit ironic that nobody complains about the original registrant who loses everything, but deny other domainers the ability to acquire that forfeited asset through the dropped auction process and they cry foul? I don’t get it.
Kudos to Elliot for responding. His position is indefensible, but at least he is letting us know where he stands.
Having said that, if Tucows wanted to be a domain holding company and legitimately acquire domains, then they should have done that. If they want to be a registrar, then they should do that. But doing both, particularly at the expense of their customers’ interests, is clearly a conflict of interest and is wrong. It doesn’t matter if other registrars are doing it. It is wrong. It doesn’t matter if Tucows is being more transparent. It is wrong.
In my mind, it would be preferable for registrars to do the right thing and discontinue this practice. However, as Elliot’s comments indicate, this is unlikely to happen. The only alternative then is closer regulation of registrars and more customer-friendly rules from ICANN.
I have read the different perspectives regarding this issue for months. I am a domain investor who participates in drops.
I think domain investors need to channel thier frustration with the process to the correct channels.
Tucows was not the first company to profit off non renewels and they will not be the last. Tucows has the balls to be upfront, honest, and provide total transparency. Does your registar do that?
As Elliott pointed out, what is the real differance between registars selling the names now instead of holding onto them for higher profit later? Tucows was smart and cut out the domain investor. Is it fair? I think the entire process sucks but it doesn’t start or end with Tucows.
Channel this attention to the real decision makers and entities who can change the entire process.
If you think having all the names auctioned off to the high bidder is fair, I would disagree. I can argue it is not fair just like you would argue that it is not fair for Tucows to keep the names themselves.
How come no one is attacking the other companies that engage in this practice?
Alot of domain companies participate in this practice and do alot of other stuff to take money out of your pocket and put it into theirs.
Oh yea…they DO NOT tell you they are screwing you even they we all know they are and just do not want to start with them because they are (insiders). Tucows has been providing transparency on how they do it. It sucks ut at least should be commended and supported for doing so.
I respect the fact they are willing to come to the table and let people know how and what they are doing. Instead of whining and complaining, we should support a company likes this because they at least tell you what’s going on.
I hear words like talk, trust and honesty…Compare your registar (and their shell companies) to Tucows and then compare their practices.
Focus on the bigger picture, work the organizations that can fix the problem and make it more fair and equal for all. Tucows is not the real problem.
Do not isolate Barry Bonds (Tucows) for using Steroids. Go the league (ICann) and work on changing the way ALL players are using steroids
Every company is taking money from you by taking the opportunity to make money off domain names.
Tucows gives you the potential to participate in the company and hopefully future profits. They are a public company. For as little as .33 cents (yikes!) you can own a piece of the company.
If Tucows does well…you should do well.
Does your registar offer that opportunity? Evolve…get on the side of the house and encourage all companies to be as honest and forthcoming as Tucows.
@Sid. Greed never seems like greed when your the one benefitting.
@ Steven….. congrats on posting a nonpersonal, well thought out and intellectual response to a problem that is and has plauged the domain industry for years. You are right, Tucows is far form alone in the practice and at least they were upfront as you have said. Why all the fingers are pointed soley at Tucows is beyond me as there are plenty of pigs at the through. These companys are doing it because they can….The anger is misplaced and you are right….we should not be ragging on the guys who are taking advantage of the rules we should be attacking those that make the rules and ask that they be either enforced or changed. There are WAY worse offenders than Tucows
Steven
We urged people to comment to ICANN on this practice in general, back on June 30th while the review period was opened for the new registrar agreement.
We submitted our thoughts which are on record. About 18 others submitted there thoughts
http://www.thedomains.com/2008/06/30/icann-comment-period-now-opened-for-registrar-contracts/
10 days ago ICANN announced that they due to the comments received were going to look at the issue
http://www.thedomains.com/2008/10/21/icann-registrar-wharehousing-should-be-addressed/
Franklin
Not sure there are worse offenders than Tucows, afterall can you name another registrar that is selling their customers expired domains through their own site for “six figures and above”?
We do agree the solution lies in ICANN hands .
Please see my last comment regarding that.
As per Stevens comments I wanted to say Tucows is still not being fair because they have “an edge” before the domain goes back available for public registration.
And just because any register has “their own edge of control” this should not be used like a power of attorney in the domain business.
They are simply not playing the domain game fair and this is also a BREACH of the DNS global availability system.
Any registrar that participates in holding a dropped name for their own profits as hostage on a public registrar should be outlawed.
While I am fairly new to domaining, I have been a web developer for over 12 years now and along the way have been fortunate enough to acquire a modest portfolio that I have been actively adding to mainly by focusing on drops, so I am reading this with great interest.
There is some very eye opening information here concerning this topic, I wish it was more positive but unfortunately (or fortunately) as it may be, it is an educating wake up call none the less.
I am going to stay out of the specifics because quite honestly it is beyond my level of expertise, however it is glaringly obvious that a conflict of interest exists. I don’t need to be an expert to see that, its plain old common sense.
I will leave you with a quote I think applies here:
“You cannot justify your bad behavior by pointing to the bad behavior of others or you immediately lose the argument.”
@MHB…Not sure there are worse offenders than Tucows, afterall can you name another registrar that is selling their customers expired domains through their own site
Choosing to sell them for x is not the problem Micheal….its the practice of taking them in the first place that is at issue here. Tucows is no worse than a registrar who takes the names and chooses not to sell them, instead employing them for their own purposes and benefit. This is not really about the money, its about control and abuse of that control. That is the real issue here.
@RLS – Good comments. Specifically …
glaringly obvious that a conflict of interest exists. I don’t need to be an expert to see that, its plain old common sense.
I will leave you with a quote I think applies here:
“You cannot justify your bad behavior by pointing to the bad behavior of others or you immediately lose the argument.”
————————————–
Indeed, it is common sense. There is language in the ICANN registrar agreement that states: registrars will comply with any policy that prohibits warehousing and speculation in domain names. However, ICANN have FAILED to adopt and enact the prohibition against “registrar warehousing” … which is an obvious conflict of interest.
So the culpability lies not only with registrars who are eager to exploit a loophole, but also with ICANN who perpetuate the problem by looking the other way when the community has clearly announced this problem for years.
Without regulation, prohibition, and mandates, registrars will put their self-interest above their customers … just like Wall Street insiders who screwed the country.
No doubt, registrar management are well aware of their customers’ valuable domain names coming due for renewal. And we’re supposed to believe there’s no conflict of interest for the registrar when they stand to make many thousands? The registrar’s # 1 responsibility is to their customer.
Mr. Menius
Well said
“MHB // Nov 1, 2008 at 1:05 pm
Not sure there are worse offenders than Tucows, afterall can you name another registrar that is selling their customers expired domains through their own site for “six figures and above”
Register.com is just as bad. So they sell the 98% bottom barrel names via snapnames and keep the cream. It is no different if they do it via their own site or via snapnames/namejet.
Also the arguement from Elliott Noss is basically that everyone else is doing it so it must be ok.
Cmon gimme a break. The conflict of interests is egregious. I hope some US state attorney generals get involved in US and whateevr you have up in Canada takes action against this anti-competitive behavior.
Perfect analogy!
“What if a county, held back whatever pieces of real estate they wanted to from tax auctions for their own benefit? There would be public outrage.”
Now imagine you (the end user) want to purchase the property and the county states, “That property is in our premium portfolio and we will only entertain a RIDICULOUS offer!”.
In my area, tax auctions are open to the “general public”, but there are only a few bidders in attendance.
I would like to know where the ICA is on this issue? One of my problems with the ICA was that Tucows with a $1000 donation has more influence than folks like Howard and myself that ponied up $100k and a lot of extra support.
So in this new PUBLIC role, I have just as much or more influence without giving them $$$. So I hope folks understand where I am coming from now.
The ICA should come out and strongly condemn this decision by Tucows. Not doing so will illustrate why I withdrew my support. They need to be in FRONT of this not sitting on the sidelines.
So, ICA, where are you on this? On the side of domainers or on the side of registrars?
You will tell me this post is “Not helpful.” Well remaining silent on major issues like this is “Not helpful” either.
That explanation for Tucows’ activity reads like all the excuses that people use to justify their actions when caught. Perhaps I am being too cynical but I just don’t buy the “everyone was doing it” defence. It is definitely an abuse of position by Tucows (and other registrars acting similarly).
As for the evolution of the drop market, the last few years have been the equivalent of the robber barons period. What normally follows such a period is increased regulation and legislation. And ICANN’s incompetent handling of the domain tasting issue has shown that it is not capable of timely and efficient action to solve problems. It would not surprise me to see ICANN’s position greatly diminished in the next few years. The markets are not becoming more efficient. They are almost stagnating. What was once a relatively free market has been restrained by the predatory actions of abusive registrars. There is still growth but the gTLDs are coming under increasing pressure from the ccTLDs.
The long term effect of this kind of registrar abuse on a TLD is not good – just look at what happened to .eu ccTLD. An incompetent registry (Eurid) allowed abject large-scale cybersquatting and cyberwarehousing despite cyberwarehousing being specifically being against the rules of the ccTLD. The result is that .eu is a joke of a ccTLD and is not taken seriously in any of the EU countries and there has been no major pureplay .eu site launched since the .eu was created. ICANN has to sort out this problem of registrar abuse in the gTLDs. However I have even less confidence in ICANN than I do in Tucows’ defence of its activities – at least Elliot’s defence has some logic to it.
a number of points to comments on. the most important is I am no longer clear as to what the perceived “wrong” is so let me tell you all how I am digesting this.
quick note to michael. in addition to the facts being wrong (happy to share offlist) divorced.com is from the portfolio we bought, not the drop.
first, we didn’t “hide” anything, we didn’t “get caught” doing anything and I am not trying to justify a wrong by saying “everyone else is doing it”. we have been open about what we are doing since we started doing it. I believe we are the ONLY major registrar that can say that. we have talked about this publicly for years. the only change here is that we are trying to help the market by bringing new buyers, specifically marketing professionals, into the market by educating them and helping them. that will help all domain holders.
on to what is “wrong”. this thread clearly shows that the problem is not registrars owning names. we know that most large registrars own names, many parking companies (who also own portfolios and tend to be the primary source of liquidity for domainers selling) also own registrars, even micheal, the guy whose blog this is, is both a domain owner and has a registrar! by the way this historical rule was in place to stop registrars from mining the unregistered space in the VERY early days of competition. it was a rule in place to force domainers to pay a tithe to registrars. so it is clearly not this.
then there is the issue of conflict. first, I have been clear that our primary business is registration and that our portfolio is secondary and that our tools, history, compliance department and renewal rates factually demonstrate the highest regard for registrants. none of this has been refuted other than a vague “I wonder how many renewal notices blah blah blah”. the facts are that our renewal tools are the best, our renewal rates are strong and there has never even been one specific suggestion in nearly three years that we did something fishy with a renewing name speak volumes.
I have also said that the conflict between registrar and registrant is identical whether the name is owned or whether the name is sent to auction. some have agreed with this point, most have either ignored it or simply not heard it. my point in raising this is not to defend our actions by saying “everyone else is doing it” but to point out that our owning names does not create a different conflict than auctioning. the conflict issue exists to a FAR greater extent in running a parking business or in GOOGLE ADSENSE and exists for every major registrar!
to summarize on this point, it is not a registrar owning names and it is not owning versus auction. I am left with what we are doing is somehow worse than other registrars because the names are not offered to people in auctions, but no real reason is given as to why this is “wrong” or not “allowed” or is in any way bad at a policy level.
a smart guy once said to me there are three levels of taking in a point. understand/don’t understand. agree/disagree. like/don’t like. I think we are at the last one.
we have not “circumvented the drop”. the drop was circumvented many years ago by the original drop catchers. that was when the original intent of the drop, to allow businesses or individuals who wanted to use a domain name to be able to do so, was altered forever. that proceeded competition and the existence of registrars! everything from that point forward was just the market becoming more efficient.
all of this stems from two bits of religion in the early design of the system, flat pricing and first-come-first served. at a pure economics level these two bits of orthodoxy created a TON of excess economic rent. for the last ten years there has simply been a scramble to capture it and whenever there is evolution in that there are people who are unhappy. in each case, and I watched all of them, some people were branded and others moved on to where the market was going.
lastly, I will reiterate, because I mean it, that this is all a distraction from the more important issues of registrant rights and fighting against IP interests. believe me any of the evil IP folks reading this thread will be loving it in the way any enemy loves when parties whose interests are aligned are fighting amongst themselves.
Elliot
Just to be clear from my side, I invested in a domain registrar within the past months, to protect my portfolio from abusive situations I have seen registrars take and from certain actions taken by governmental bodies in the US.
I have already pledged that this registrar will not engage in the practice of keeping expired domains if its customers.
I agree with your point of where we stand.
Domainer’s do not like this policy of Tucows.
Personally I hate it.
Many here expressed similar opinions.
The discussion now needs to move to the ICANN level.
Maybe the only good to come out of all these discussions is that the issue is now on ICANN’s radar and will be addressed at some point in the near future.
Rick is correct once again.
Where the F#@! is the ICA on this issue?
More importantly, where is ICANN?
I said Tucows is circumventing the drop Process.
Mr. Noss has said they are not.
Perhaps I do not understand how that process is suppose to work. I always thought a domain was suppose to be made available to the general public once the Grace Period ended.
I thought that was suppose to give many different people and/or companies a shot at acquiring (competing for) that domain. Once that Competition ended, whoever caught the domain could decide what they wanted to do with it.
If a registrar is simply keeping domains after the grace period ends, that circumvents the “open competition part” of the drop process.
However, if ICANN allows this, why would a registrar Not do it?
If ICANN allows one registrar to do it, why would all other registrars Not start doing it?
ICANN is the controlling authority.
It is up to them to decide this issue.
Now, lets all collectively hold our breath and wait for ICANN to act! I think we may need some pretty big lungs.
” always thought a domain was suppose to be made available to the general public once the Grace Period ended.”
this stopped being the case when the original drop catchers figured out the process of, and the value in, expired names which would be ’98 or ’99.
the auction process is NOT making names available to the general public.
to the vast majority of ICANN participants what the above sentence means is aboloshing auctions, any sort of drop catching AND by the way the right to own names other than for “using them” whatever that means (and be assured it does mean the same thing to them as it does to you). to them you are the enemy. I am just playing in your game.
where is the ICA? they are working with us to protect you guys from what I talk about above.
I wish you could all be with me there, as I have been for the last ten years. believe me when I say I am not the enemy.
Anyone know where we can find the Rome ICANN transcripts ? I remember Elliot being quite voal about WLS and the whole drop “game” at that time. Back then Tucows actually seemed to have a conscience . . . What happened ?
Rick,
ICA does not favor Tucows over domainers because of its $1000 membership. ICA has not taken an active role in addressing Expired Domain Deletion Policy because the board has not asked it to. I am disappointed that you criticize the association for its lack of action on this issue, yet when you were on the Board, you never asked ICA to address it.
You did ask us to single Tucows out for criticism for doing what virtually all registrars are doing and for an operational error that did not appear to involve any malice. There wasn’t any evidence of wrongdoing in the case except that Tucows was abiding by ICANN policy that many domainers do not like. ICANN permits this behavior and all registrars are doing it, even Fabulous, truly one of the last registrars to take up this practice, has recently partnered with Snapnames. Tucows is not more or less guilty. If you do not like the practice, lobby to get it changed.
I personally think that the current policy needs to be changed, though there were problems with the previous dropping name systems, it didn’t put registrars in such a critical conflict of interest with registrants. However, I do not act on what I like. I need the Board to decide what ICA should do. If ICA does address this policy issue at ICANN, I think that we will have a lot of allies outside of the domainer community.
Sid. .. .good points on the asset protection thing but as someone who has participated in drops and tried to get in touch with many former owners, I’d say a lot of domains are dropped because of bad whois info or owners that don’t care.
Steven, you said “How come no one is attacking the other companies that engage in this practice?Alot of domain companies participate in this practice and do alot of other stuff to take money out of your pocket and put it into theirs.”
How come you aren’t pointing out these companies. . . do you have something specific you can show. You seem to indicate that. Tucows is public and open about their mistakes/policies so they’re going to be the first to be criticized. I know of a company up in the northwest doing this same thing but they are very discreet about it.
Elliott how do you not see the conflict?
You have private information (traffic stats, etc) on which names are worth keeping and which are sent to auction. This is an unfair competitive advantage.
Your only argument was “this is not our primary business”. So i guess if I sell cocaine on the side it is OK as long as its not my primary business.
All expired domains should be auctioned off in a fair manner. You should not be allowed to keep the 2% on the top.
I truly wish you get sued and are forced to release these ill-gotten domains back to the public.
“I was met with derision from registrars and domainers, greed from the registry and apathy from registrants.”
All Registrants with direct ICANN Board representation raise their hands.
Woo. No hands are up.
Taxation without representation breeds apathy.
General Obligations of Registrar.
1. During the Term of this Agreement:
a. Registrar agrees that it will operate as a registrar for TLDs for which it is accredited by ICANN in accordance with this Agreement;
b. Registrar shall comply, in such operations, with all ICANN-adopted Policies insofar as they:
i. relate to one or more of the following: (A) issues for which uniform or coordinated resolution is reasonably necessary to facilitate interoperability, technical reliability and/or stable operation of the Internet or domain-name system, (B) registrar policies reasonably necessary to implement Consensus Policies relating to the Registry, or (C) resolution of disputes regarding the registration of domain names (as opposed to the use of such domain names), and
ii. do not unreasonably restrain competition <<<<<<
………………
I would think that keeping domains rather than let them expire as normal and be available to the general public would more than qualify as “unreasonably restrain competition”.
Its a shame ICANN have no balls, they’re obviously more interested in money more than morals.
Could this be why they were trying to relocate to somewhere else like Switzerland so they’re immune to US Law ?
http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-6172758-7.html
“when you were on the Board, you never asked ICA to address it.”
Michael, when I was on the board I gave up asking for things. I always got some bureaucratic answer just like you posted followed by inaction.
I think the ICA should stop asking domainers for money until they are going to ACTIVELY represent them.
Let me list in order of importance just who the ICA PROTECTS and represents.
1. PPC Companies
2. Registrars
3. Domainers but only when it is acceptable and dovetails with the interests of 1 & 2.
That is the REALITY of things as I see them. And as Howard points out, it may be the lack of financial support that domainers give the ICA. Either way, the result is the same. A real catch 22.
Hasn’t Register.com and NetSol among others been doing this same thing for years? ( I think anyone to deny that most aren’t doing the same are lying to themselves ) Why is all the animosity being directly solely at Tucows now?
I’m not defending Tucows in this but it seems that if the issue is going to be confronted and hopefully dealt with resulting in a way that benefits all domainers that it should include all the “offenders”.
It’s not like this was some unexpected action for the registers … there are auction companies making cash hand over fist on the auctions … how surprising that the registers should want a piece. The “game” hasn’t been the same or “fair” to all domainers since the auctioning of names began. It’s all about who has the deepest pockets these days.
Reading what Mr. Noss has to say, one thing is clear. When it comes to making money, Tucows is out for itself, and not out for anyone else.
Take note, Tucows competitors (and customers!)…when some “excess economic rent” comes up for grabs, it’s every entity for itself.
Sadly, a long time ago, Tucows used to be one of the good guys..
It should be obvious now that they are just one of the rest.
I’d just like to clarify a point Michael Collins made, “ICANN permits this behavior and all registrars are doing it, even Fabulous, truly one of the last registrars to take up this practice, has recently partnered with Snapnames.”
Fabulous has partnered with NameJet, not SnapNames as he stated, see http://www.pr-usa.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=125679&Itemid=34
At this stage only our own expiring domains (Domain Active domains) are being processed through NameJet.
Let me know if there’s any other questions.
Cheers,
Mike Robertson
Business Development Manager
Fabulous.com
digg this article everyone – get some attention to the matter
http://digg.com/tech_news/What_happens_to_your_domain_name_when_it_expires
Mike Robertson
Just to be clear you send all of your expired domains to
NameJet.com
You do not retain any of them for your own account??
@ MHB… only domains that are owned by Dark Blue Sea (Fabulous/DomainActive) are being auctioned through NameJet.
Domains that third party owners choose to drop DO NOT go through the NameJet system.
Also, third party domains not renewed will be deleted, without exception.
Hope this clarifies things.
Mike
Fabulous.com
Elliot, Michael, Rick:
I think “Domainers” in the www industry make up about 90% of revenue/financial support for ICANN or Domain Registrars when they register domain names everyday and pay up annual charges left right and center, but they still dont get prioritized IMPORTANCE from ICA or ICANN or Registrars regarding these issues and ammendments of some sort.. I fail to understand why not??
Elliot: I think you mentioned that Divorced.com was acquired by paying up premium for your personal portfolio, correct?
Much Conflict of Interest cuz we are not sure what you gonna do to build up that personal portfolio and Suspicion arises here from your statement “regarding building up a PERSONAL PORTFOLIO” cuz you are also the President and CEO of Tucows where alot of people hold their names. Who knows you will practice fair trade policies and in right manner with ’em domainers holding some valuable virtual real estate at tucows.com, will they ever receive that renewal reminder in time for a Gem??
And the worst part, taking a toll on the matter is you’ve also started a company under YummyNames.com where you are selling Expired/dropped generic premium names.. Did they really expire? Have you really paid up Premium for your personal portfolio?? I doubt it Sir!!
I smell the presence of Satan.. Tucows!! IMHO
Mike Robertson,
Thank you for the clarification. I apologize for my error.
I would also like to point out that not ALL registrars send their expired domains to auction or cherry pick them. Rebel.com also deletes all domains without exception.
YummyNames “catch” dates and pricing update:
I requested prices for a few domains from yummy names and did a little homework.
No need to reveal the names publicly but here’s what I found with help from DomainTools.com whois history feature.
Note ContactPrivacy.com is owned by Tucows.com. I am not sure that a change from whois information showing registrant to contactprivacy.com whois necessarily means that tucows took ownership of the name but one would be led to assume that this is the case.
Domain A: expiration date of October 15, 2006, nameservers changed to NS2.RENEWYOURNAME.NET reported on November 7, 2006. Next available entry shows Whois owner of record reported as Contactprivacy.com on March 2, 2007 and no other public whois entries available, all are privacy protected.
So, nameserver change about three weeks after expiration and ownership change about four and a half months later.
Asking price for Domain A $900. This is a crappy .net name.
Domain B: expiration date of December 28, 2006. Next entry in domaintools is February 4, 2007 to Contactprivacy.com. That’s only about five weeks. No other public whois entries available, all are privacy protected.
Asking price for Domain B $1200. This is a business related .com name but not worth a hand reg to most people.
Domain C: expiration date of March 11, 2008. nameservers changed to NS2.RENEWYOURNAME.NET reported on March 16, 2008. Next available entry shows Whois owner of record reported as Contactprivacy.com on April 22, 2008 and no other public whois entries available, all are privacy protected.
So, that’s about four weeks from expiration to contactprivacy.com change over. Pretty quick if you ask me.
Asking price for Domain C $20,000. This is a dictionary .com one word domain.
Tucows must be praying that their customers don’t renew if they are going to mark up domains to these ridiculous prices.
All I have to say, is way to go Fabulous.com and Rebel.com. That’s the way the system is supposed to operate and kudos to you for following the rules the way they were/are intended.
PS. I learned a long time ago that the only people with my best interests in mind…is myself.
Shaun,
Great way to put it. I also commend Fabulous and Rebel for their behavior to avoid the potential conflict of interest with customers associated with retaining customers’ domains after expiration.
@ Shaun
Fabulous has acknowledged that they are sending names to namejet for auction. I’m sorry Shaun, while you may have preferred the auction model over the Tucows one…..sending domain names to auction houses WAS NOT the way the system was intended to operate. Auctions were merely one of the satges leading to the overall corruption of the domain name system. In truth the way the system was intended to operate was that expiring names would drop into the pool of domain names available for anyone to register using any registrar they so chose. In fact, the auction system perverted that
Franklin,
That was me that incorrectly stated that Fabulous was sending domains to auction. Mike Robertson corrected me and said that only Dark Blue Sea owned domains – NOT customers’ domains – are sent to auction.
Jason
Thank you for that Information.
All domainer should take note of Rebel.com policy
UPDATE
Over 2,000 people have read the two posts on Tucows in the last few days
Tucows President Responds to Our Post: 1,332
Tucows Now Selling The Expired Domains: 786
Man, I vote this post and comments thread as the best ever for 2008. Everybody’s testosterone is blazing and the subject matter’s representative is slinging the cow manure like a fertilizer pump!!!!
First of all, I know for a fact that many top registrars do what Tucows does: Cherry pick through their customer’s expiring domains and select them for resale. BUT MOST OF THEM ALLOW THE CUSTOMER A LONGER PERIOD OF RECOVERY TIME, EVEN BEYOND THE EXPIRY AND RGP. And the registrar will honor the previous owner’s request because they know it looks bad for the registrar to claim a domain to resell it at a profit. However, TUCOWS didn’t follow this “crook’s code of honor” and now we have Elliot typing away so fast he can’t start his sentences with a capital letter.
The only registrars I know that DON’T pick off expiring domains of their customers are:
Fabulous.com
Moniker.com
Rebel.com
The rest are seeing dollar signs in a business where small margins are their standard (domain registration/renewals).
The only straight-shooting honest registrar you can’t even find a “conflict of interest” with is Rebel.com. Not that Fabulous and Moniker aren’t “honest”, but they have a vested interest in aftermarket domains. That’s not bad, but if you want to use a registrar based solely on “domainer trust” and want to avoid those possible conflicts, then use Rebel.com. They are dedicated to being JUST A REGISTRAR.
As far as the ICA, I agree with Michael that Rick never brought up any of these issues when he was on the board. However, Rick makes solid arguments here against Tucows, but attacking the ICA for “not acting” against slimeballs like Tucows is just plain wrong.
As far as Elliot’s sweet-talking, I received the same bullsh*t response from Bill Sweetman six months ago, and POSTED it on my blog, unfortunately giving him and Tucows the benefit of the doubt, but I blame that on Adam for making a comment on my blog that backed Sweetman up. (In fact, I blame everything bad that ever happened to me on my cousin Adam). 😉
Seriously, many of you don’t realize that most of the domains Tucows is selling came from ITSYOURDOMAINS.COM registrar they bought last year. I’ve stated this fact with evidence on my blog in January.
What I call “registrar cherrypicking” is a great concern to all domainers. It’s important because the direct connection of the domainer to their total source of revenue is the registrar they use. The registrar is the domainer’s “doorway”. If domainers can’t get to the domains that are expiring because the registrar is cherrypicking them, or at least be fairly notified when their domains are expiring (and their whois info updated upon registration from a drop service), then the registrar is clearly using unfair business practices that should be, and I think can be, considered a tort.
Berryhill? Sturgeon? What say you?
stephen, I have been very clear about our grace periods AND said above that I believe we have the most generous of all large registrars and the most transparent.
if you think I am wrong please be specific. I have said what mine are. have others?
“The only registrars I know that DON’T pick off expiring domains of their customers are:
Fabulous.com
Moniker.com
Rebel.com”
Moniker has an “unpaid domain names department”. They priced a domain to me for $6000.
Moniker absolutely holds their customers domains and offers them for resale.
So, now I guess we are down to Fabulous and Rebel?
Elliot, if you really want to take the high road, cut the “generous” and “transparent” condescending platitudes and just let the damn domains drop like they are supposed to. What a concept, do what ICANN originally intended. But hey, just because Registrars like Fabulous.com and Rebel.com are doing it, what should you?
Stephen, if you “now for a fact that many top registrars do what Tucows does: Cherry pick through their customer’s expiring domains and select them for resale” name names! Show the facts you know.
Call them all out. Like Shaun says : What a concept, do what ICANN originally intended.
Stephen
I agree with Donna.
In Tucows case we know they engage in this practice with 100% certainty.
We had representatives of Fabulous and Rebel come here to say they do NOT engage in this practice.
Regarding your claim that all other registrars do what Tucows does, you are implicating HUNDREDS of other registrars, without giving any proof.
This is certainly not fair to these registrars.
How about shoppers.com which NSI dropped to NameJet.com and which sold for $170K I believe early last year.
I see some very good NSI domain drop all the time that I would certainly keep if I was cherry picking.
Plus point me to another registrar’s site where they are selling their retained expired domains, like yummynames.com
sadly, what you all are missing is that “what ICANN originally intended” was that names went back into the pool for registration by end users, not for portfolio holders. this is the circa 1998-9 view. please do not hear me espousing that view. I think it is as idyllic and unrealistic as much of what is is asked for above.
I said above, and I will say again, be careful what you ask for. what you will find is an environment EXTREMELY hostile to domain portfolio holders.
again, believe me or don’t, we are your friends not your enemies.
Elliot, please explain how what you do is an act of friendship? I am not against warehousing, auctions or free enterprise. I am for a level playing field.
If we want to discuss this as an ICANN policy issue, we must ignore what registrars choose to do with expired domains once they have assumed ownership of them from their customers. From a policy perspective, it does not matter whether they keep the names or auction off 100% of them. Either registrars allow domains to drop when they expire or they keep them for their own benefit. All the talk about cherry picking may be good motivation to ask ICANN to enforce the intent of its Expired Domain Deletion Policy. http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/eddp.htm However, the practice cannot be distinguished from the use of “exclusive” auction services such as NameJet, SnapNames and others that benefit registrars that sell customers’ expired domains.
Elliot, you may be right about the time frame of the original drop policy, but this Expired Domain Deletion Policy was passed in December 2004 and I am sure that you will agree that regardless of whether registrars have found ways to legally ignore the intent, it is clear that the intent of this policy in was for expired domains to be deleted. The parties involved in writing this policy in 2004, were certainly aware of SnapNames, Pool and some portfolio owners’ use of the daily drop to acquire deleting expired domains.
There were problems with the drop model for reallocation of expired domains as well. Many domains never made it to a marketplace where everyone had a “fair” chance to acquire them. I am not sure if there is a perfect system. Elliot is right; there are some that do not like what domainers are doing any more than domainers like what registrars are doing. A movement to change policy may cause change to an expired name policy that we have not anticipated.
Maybe if registrars voluntarily chose to auction 100% of the expired domains instead of “cherry picking”, domainers would not be motivated to see a change back to the old days. Elliot, do you think that there is any chance of voluntary change to avoid opening this issue at ICANN? Other than cherry-picking, I do not see much motivation from domainers to end registrars’ benefit from current policy of lack of enforcement of policy intent.
Michael, your points are valid with one big IF! If domainers are willing to choose the lesser of the two evils. Many of us are not willing to do that.
Donna,
Ok, so you do not like the current policy or the previous policy. What do you propose happens to expired domains? I am sure that there may be a better system/method for reallocating expired domains. I just haven’t heard of one that is perfect.
Michael
Michael, I will repeat..Shaun said it best:
What a concept, do what ICANN originally intended.
Donna,
Forgive me I do not understand. Thre seems to be a conflict between your two statements. Isn’t the previous deletion practice, one of the “two evils” that you said domainers are not willing to accept.
I do not oppose reverting to the old policy, just trying to understand “If domainers are willing to choose the lesser of the two evils. Many of us are not willing to do that.”
The two evils are registrars “keeping” domains and selling them on thier own site (and being open about it doesn’t mean a thing or make it any different), and names being funneled to auction.
To be more clear Michael, I was responding to this statement in your post:
Maybe if registrars voluntarily chose to auction 100% of the expired domains instead of “cherry picking”, domainers would not be motivated to see a change back to the old days.
Got it. I understand now. Thank you.
I personally would like to go to the WLS idea.
No auctions, no keeping domains.
Backorder the domain your interested in and if it drops you get it for like $69.
If a domain that is expired get renewed you can move your reservation to a new name.
Rob – The unpaid names in our Moniker registrar are not expired names that we take from customers. They are from domain financing accounts that did not pay for their domains. We do not cherry pick domains from customers expired domains and keep them for our selves and never have.
We do however offer a great service to help customer recover their domains and get names that others have let go….and that is called SnapNames.com !
Monte
Thanks for the clarification
Hmm, a lot to address here:
For David: I said “many of the TOP REGISTRARS”, not “all registrars”, so I’m not lumping in “hundreds of innocent registrars” like you stated. Besides that, we only have about 75 truly standalone registrars, the rest are shells not open to the public or they are resellers (which can be used in many ways). I would say that at least 5-8 or more TOP registrars use this practice of cherrypicking. Why wouldn’t they? If you took the time to research my background, you’d know I have knowledge of how registrars work, even at a limited level. (I don’t list all the registrars I’ve worked with, but naming them as clients doesn’t mean they have used this practice)
David, you said “How about shoppers.com which NSI dropped to NameJet.com and which sold for $170K I believe early last year?” Huh? NSI (which I think you mean to be NetSol) OWNS NAMEJET. We can safely assume that NetSol is making a profit selling expired domains through their own auction site, NameJet.
A registrar gets a piece of the profits when their expired domains are pushed to auction houses and are sold. I don’t have inside facts on Netsol’s sale agreement on domains sold through their own auction house, NameJet, but I can confidently “surmise” that they are receiving a healthy profit. They’re welcome to prove my assumptions wrong.
For Donna: I’m not here to “post it and boast it”. I’m stating what I know from my experience as a domain consultant who has worked at some level with many different registrars. You can believe me, or not. However, I’ll be happy to communicate with you on a private level. I’ve always wanted to speak to you anyway, so I look forward to hearing from you and I can answer your questions.
I think Monte answered Rob’s statement about Moniker quite succinctly. However, I should have made it ultimately more clear in my original comment:
There are top registrars who “watch” expiring domains, check their quality, and hone in on them immediately upon 28 days expiry completion. This is something that isn’t “policed” regardless of what you think the ICANN rules are. However, most of the registrars I know go out of their way to return the domains if the previous owner complains, even after the RGP is up.
My comments about Tucows wasn’t based on the general complaint of registrars cherrypicking domains. To me, that’s just a registrar’s “opportunism” and the fact that this practice has greatly helped their bottom line. I understand it, I don’t complain about it because I’m a different type of domain investor who has “thought around” this tactic I can’t control. Maybe ICANN will, but I doubt it. My complaint about Tucows was based on their purchase of an “unfairly operated registrar”, ItsYourDomains.com, and the fact they let this registrar run without “fixing” blatant unfair policies.
One way or another, someone at a registrar who knows a domain’s traffic and revenue while it’s expiring for 28 days will somehow get that domain before an outside domainer does. The days of killer drops has been over since 2004, in an overall sense. Of course, you could get lucky.
My complaint was about Tucows and their ownership of Itsyourdomains and its blatant cheating of their customers.
If you want to get facts on whether your registrar is cherrypicking through expiring domains, contact the executives at the registrar you buy from and ask them directly about their policies on what they do with their customers’ expiring domains. Maybe they’ll be upfront with you. Or not.
Peace to all. Congrats to Obama. Maybe we’ll get a real President this time.
Oops! Sorry Michael. I was posting on two other sites and mixed up your name with someone elses. Just look at it as you being “Michael-angelo” and my mistake as being your work on “David”. I apologize for the mistake.
I have an online store, hawaiian-shirt.net I went to YummyNames.com and lo and behold! hawaiian-shirtS.net!
I have been after the plural version of this domain for years, and the url is so obscure (a hyphenated dot net, for pete’s sake) that any traffic it gets MUST come off my site’s customer base.
But when I went to purchase it, suddenly it was “unavailable”.
I think Tucows is about as sleazy a company as they get.
So how about it, Mr Noss, “Mr Clarity”… how about selling the domain I built the traffic for that you said you would sell in your listings?
Or are you as sleazy as I think you are?
– – –
Hi John,
I’ve spoken to the General Manager and unfortunately he’s confirmed that we can’t sell this. I do apologize.
Regards,
Alex Fenemore
Domain Name Specialist
YummyNames
http://www.yummynames.com
Why settle for a lousy domain name?
John Bottomley wrote:
Hi Alex,
I own hawaiian-shirt.net. Any traffic you get is on my back.
I would really appreciate it!
John
—– Original Message —–
From: Alex Fenemore
To: John Bottomley
Sent: Friday, October 31, 2008 11:23 AM
Subject: [Fwd: hawaiian-shirts.net – yn site inquiry]
Hi John,
I do have to apologize. This domain was showing up in the yummynames search when it should not have. We do apologize for wasting your time, but would like to say thank you for helping us identify this bug.
Regards,
Alex Fenemore
Domain Name Specialist
YummyNames
http://www.yummynames.com
Why settle for a lousy domain name?
——– Original Message ——– Subject: hawaiian-shirts.net – yn site inquiry
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 06:17:03 -0700
From: YummyNames System
To: yummynames@tucows.com, bill@yummynames.com
Domain:
hawaiian-shirts.net
Name:
John Bottomley
Email:
(omitted)@earthlink.net
Phone:
704-omitted
Message:
Interested in this url only if the price is reasonable. Please advise.
no response from Tucows & Elliot ever since last post on Nov 6, 2008 at 8:50 pm..
put ur side of the story !!
jay, I think I have bored people silly at this point in the thread with my side of the story. I feel like I have presented my position on everything but global warming (I am against it!).
was there something specific you are referring to?
Elliot, If your company follows everything as per ICANN or the book.. why you trying to benefit from someone else’s brand??
Thats bit specific, I reckon.. and on top of that, How in the world did the name which was on sale all this while end up being “Not Available For Sale” right after you had received an inquiry from the person who holds very much similar name for his business..
The situation has “BAD FAITH” argument written all over it from WIPO’s point of view.. IMO
Tucows, are we making money of others hard work, established businesses &/or brand names??
@Jay @89,
We contacted John directly to clear up the confusion. I was kind of hoping he’d post a follow-up here to indicate that we’d done so. Maybe he still will.
YummyNames occasionally does bulk sales of domain names to other domainers. When we do so we put together a portfolio for them to consider and during that time the names are considered not available for sale to others. If the buyer does not purchase a particular name we change the status back and allow sales to others.
In this case we simply forgot to omit those special case names from the search tool on YummyNames. We’ve since corrected that and have thanked John for pointing out the error.
oh so CONFUSION or ERROR is to be blamed now..?? Ok and why are we still selling a domain name which is almost similar to someones brand/business & creates confusion in the mind of general public..
I see you have it loaded with PARKED ads and making money from the traffic which lands up on it thinking its JOHNs online store..
JOHN I think you should file case wit WIPO and raise “BAD FAITH” argument and produce all this as evidence along wit inquiry emails.
Let Tucows learn it hard way!!
@Jay @91,
Like I said, we’ve been in contact with John. I don’t think it’s for me to make any details of our communication public.
I understand that you question our intentions which I’m sorry about but at this point (as post number 91 in this thread) I’m not sure there is much I can say that will sway you from that opinion.
I was able to find the Tucows letter in my email filter, or I would have responded sooner. I only just now saw these postings too.
Jay, I do not own a trademark on that url. I don’t know if I am entitled to a copyright either. Therefore, I cannot issue a complaint to the authorities. I could only ask for the owners to do what I felt to be the right thing, which was to sell me the domain’s plural. I was not asking for a gift, I would have purchased and gone away happy.
To everyone: my apologies for name calling. I was angry, and no matter the case, it was wrong for me to do that. I hate losing my cool, I am uncomfortable about it, and it is not my custom to do so.
Tucows has been generous. They are giving the plural url to me free of charge. They did not have to do this, and my anger was not a postive motivation; it is a gesture of goodwill. Please someone, do give them at least a kudo for doing this on this board.
There is one point that I want to be make.
I am addressing the part of the letter that expressed disapproval that I had brought this to the fore on a public posting.
This is understandable, however….
I have been writing for several years to purchase this domain, and been stonewalled. If I had I not posted here in a public venue, the stonewalling would have continued.
Even as recently as Halloween weekend, it was for sale and then not. That was a really big thing for me.
Now granted, this may have been due to not reaching the right people. But I do not have the ability to pick up the phone and call the executive branch of Tucows. It’s not that my phone is broken, I have no idea who to ask for or where to look up such numbers.
It is understandable that executives need not be bothered with issues that can be handled by other people paid to handle customer contacts. Executives of any company have other bigger fish to fry and need to be insulated from the public if they are to do their job.
To the best of my ability to discern, this insulation, admittedly necessary, worked.
To his credit, the rep Alex did the right thing, and asked his general manager about selling the url. It did go up the food chain, but apparently not far enough.
Perhaps executive contact info is obvious public information. Had I known of it, I would have called long ago. If so, my lack.
I would like to offer an idea. It may be good, it may be inapplicable, but here goes.
Take a good employee, (actually, an outstanding employee) and make him/her an onbudsman with access to all levels of Tucows AND grant them some select executive authority. Allow the public acces to your ombudsman if first filtered through existing customer service.
It would relieve the executive branch of one more thing, give lower management an alternative to contacting higher management, and gives the buying public higher trust through interaction and special issue resolution.
I am on first name basis with my rep at GoDaddy, and for all sakes and purposes, he could be given the title Ombudsman.
@John @93,
Thanks for the kind words John.
The idea of an ombudsman is an interesting one. We have a Compliance department that plays that role for the millions of registrants whose names we manage and generally they’re the ones who are the first step in dealing with non-registrants having an issue with any domain registered through us as well. So while we don’t use that title, I think we have a similar role in place. I’ll talk to Bill about making the Compliance department’s contact information visible on YummyNames as well as in our Domain Help are where it has been public since we went live at the turn of the century.
In this case your request was seen by Elliot and me before compliance heard about it because we’re engaged in this thread so we skipped a step. 🙂
Good on your part @ Ken @ TuCows, atleast we did something right 🙂
Congrats John!!
All the people who’ve been criticizing Tucows here should be concerned about what registry operators might do should the draft new gTLD draft contracts go through unmodified.
As was already discussed in this blog:
http://www.thedomains.com/2008/10/24/will-verisign-be-able-to-charge-preimum-prices-for-com/
the new registry draft contracts propose eliminating price controls. Existing registries would be able to copy those into existing contracts, raising the possibility of tiered pricing again.
And what was the “compromise” that was proposed by some last time this battle was fought?
http://www.circleid.com/posts/tiered_variable_pricing_compromise/
Michael Palage, a consultant to Afilias, proposed that the registry operators be able to engage in tiered pricing after a domain expires and gets deleted.
So far, though, few people have even taken the time to comment. The registry operators might not even have to “compromise”, but could do whatever they want! So, take a moment and voice your concerns at:
http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtld-comments-en.htm
Don’t expect all of the registrars to voice opposition, as many of them appear to be positioning themselves to own new gTLDs themselves, and would love to have tiered pricing powers to maximize their profits at the expense of registrants. Only the ones who have large existing .com holdings might have mixed feelings about this — for the rest of them, they’d not have much to lose.
@ Rick Schwartz who says that “This industry and domainers in particular need to stop supporting companies that don’t treat them well and could give a shit about what is good for them, the industry or anything else”
Mr. Shwartz, once again your actions are not commensurate with your words. You cry foul at Tucows for warehousing and ask people not to support them while at the same time you patronize companies like directnic who self admittedly are involved in domain warehousing.
You patronize directnic by parking domain names that you own such as divorcee and faking.com with Parked, a subsiduary of directnic which leaves one with the impression that you don’t truly care what businesses are up to, as long as you can make some money off of them.
As Parked is a sponsor of TRAFFIC and as you are able to make $ wth their domain parking platform you are apparently somewhat less inclined to label them as whores and scumbags the way you did Tucows, despite the fact that they are engaged in the same practices.
At the very least Mr. Schwartz this makes you a man of selective vision and at worst a hypocrit whose words can not be trusted.
monte, no cherry picking domains??? You let the sleeze bags, oversee.net acquire you guys…
CHESTER DOMAINS ring a bell? 🙂
Thats right – I guess Oversee cherry picked Moniker.com and what a sweet cherry it is 🙂
Oversee has not used moniker and we have not participated in cherry picking domains out from our customers.
@ Monte
Truthfully, this is a historic moment, when normally disengaged Monte makes an emotional comment on a blog regarding Moniker. What I will personally stand behind is that his comments are true. I’m a moniker client, with over 1000 domains with them.. and Monte stands true to his word.
!
I know this thread is rather old, but I had to weigh in.
I just received a response from Yummy on a domain inquiry:
– It only took 6 days to get back to me.
– They sent a canned response
– It’s a fairly obscure dictionary name thats worth about $2-4k and they said they want high 5 figures SHYEA RIGHT!
– To avoid sticker shock they want me to send them my finacial to make sure (they can hammer me) I can afford what they’ll ask. Again SHYEA RIGHT!
What an arrogant copmpany. With this kind of treatment to an initial inquiry I wouldn’t trust them to do anything legally or otherwise.
@ StevenH, lol some companies make me laff..
I play “” hide the peanut”” with my wife all the time.
I am sorry if he doesn’t.
Cheers
Hi Steven,
I’m the General Manager of YummyNames, and I would like to address your comments:
* “It only took 6 days to get back to me.”
I checked and you emailed us on Friday at 6:38 PM our time. We replied the following Monday at 10:59 AM. Our goal is to reply within one or two business days, which we did. The reply did have to wait over the weekend and maybe that’s why it seemed longer to you.
* “They sent a canned response.”
Yes, our initial responses are ‘canned’. Given the number of inquiries we deal with daily that is the only way we can manage.
* “It’s a fairly obscure dictionary name thats worth about $2-4k and they said they want high 5 figures SHYEA RIGHT!
It’s a six-letter, one-word, highly-brandable .com domain similar to Rattle.com or Jumble.com. If you shop around, I think you will find that domains like that are hard to find for less than five figures.
* “To avoid sticker shock they want me to send them my finacial to make sure (they can hammer me) I can afford what they’ll ask. Again SHYEA RIGHT!”
We did NOT ask you for your financials. We asked you if your domain name acquisition budget would support a five-figure domain purchase like this because we value our customers’ time and don’t want to waste it by entering into negotiations that will never go anywhere. This is a reasonably standard and time-honoured negotiation response.
Feel free to contact me directly at bill [at] yummynames.com if you’d like to discuss any of this further.
Bill if you valued your customers domain names as much as you claim to value their time yummy names would not own the 3, 4, 5, and 6 letter highly brandable domain names that you sell at yummy names. Remember you scooped them off of your clients!!! Maybe you should concentrate on valuing your clients and their names and businesses as opposed to their time. Scummy names YUK
Don’t
We may not like it but perfectly legal and within ICANN Rules
I’ll retract the 6 day snurk. You see, I also get hundreds of emails on a daily basis myself, yet somehow I manage to answer them, myself. I will say that you did get back to me in 3 days. The rest stands. If you think think gobble.com is in the same class as rattle.com and jumble.com by virtue of having an “le” at the end then please, by all means, shoot for the moon on it. I’m sure someone out there, who may be flush with cash from a recent lotto payoff, will gladly pay 5 figures based on your assertion of the value for such a name.
You might want to update appraisers that gobble.com somehow bucks the trends unbeknownst to them as well. Oh and let Google know that Gobble is in fact searched as many times per month (3 days before Thanksgiving)
As for a registrar building up a portfolio of high value names: Somehow I think that a registrar has an unfair advantage and is highly suspect of shady dealings. In fact if this is perfectly legal according to ICANN, it might be worth pointing the AG toward. As you know, regardless of what ICANN might claim as “perfectly legal”, it may not actually be legal in the real world. You know, Unfair Practice Act and all that legal nonsense.
But I digress, as this is just one mans opinion for what little it’s worth.
I don’t think domainers understand that EVERY REGISTRAR sucks up the “good” domains as fast as they can when you forget to renew them. I had one snatched from a company I’ve worked with for five years just this month, they sent it to auction with 35 days of it expiring and sold it. I was then contacted by my own rep at that registrar who gleefully told me she contacted the “buyer” of my domain, who would sell it back to me for only $1,450. Isn’t that how we domainers with over 1000 domains at a registrar want to be treated? My experience in 11 years of domain buying is most registrars would return it to you in this time for a price. That is, if they didn’t have a built-in auction site connected to it.
Most ethical registrars will wait 45 days after expiry to steal your domain and make a profit from it.
Most registrars aren’t ethical — except Fabulous so far.
@monte
A few thoughts:
Why not give registrants the option to participate in the proceeds from drop auctions? If I could opt to pay an extra dollar per domain name at the time of registration to share 50/50 in the SnapNames’ auction proceeds for names I might later choose to let drop, I would not hesitate. Selling as an owner on SnapNames (in advance of the expiration date) is far different than drop auctions where the domain owner is no longer in control.
Market makers promote liquidity. So what is the point of any party offering a domain name appraisal unless that party is willing to back it up with hard dollars? Even if Moniker offered (for a limited period of time following the appraisal date) to purchase a domain name for 50% of the value Moniker places on it, this would create instant liquidity and go a long way toward building confidence in domain valuations.
I’d rather see rules created for domain ownership that would take the registrar completely out of the ownership cycle. Whether by beginning the deletion process at 14 or 30 days prior to expiration, or requiring multiple year registrations. The registrars, while having to foot a small reg fee in the deletion window, are placed in a position of reaping massive profits on the financial hardship or absent mindedness of their clients.
I’m also weary of the fact that registrars can sniff at lightspeed while we as the end users can be banned if we sniff more than a few times per minute. So they have a built in advantage by removing any possibility of a lucky catch to junk names. The system isn’t setup to be a level playing field in any direction. I remember the days of Netsol being the ONLY registrar by government mandate… and $200 Yr reg fees. Registrars have enjoyed a monopoly which simply isn’t acceptable in any other industry that I can think of.
@SDM I’d lay money that registrars would simple hold the names for whatever “share period” there might be and then sell the names.
I bought a domain from a seller (goanna.info) —- but as I was new in the field —I didn’t know I had to change all the whois info so that when the renewal time came ,,,, I would get the notice and not the person from whom I bought it! 🙁
Later on I showed evidences of my buying the domain …still I didn’t get the domain back. I wrote the seller several times to the address I had but it was a total failure.
I accept my mistakes, and learnt a lot from the experience …. but I urge you to respect proofs such as I provided such as trading screen-shot etc. so that less experienced people don’t like me and loose a validly owned domain due to ignorance. Please think about this too!
It happened 2 years back and now I am much wiser and hence I don’t want some other guys don’t get the treatment like me and its the duty of the domain industry leaders like Tucows and GoDaddy to teach new clients about how to retain a domain bought in auctions and marketplaces.