The .CA Registry (CIRA) and “Public Interest”

by Zak Muscovitch in Uncategorized | Posted on September 3rd, 2010 | Comments Off

Zak Muscovitch at DomainConvergence 2008

Guest contributor Zak Muscovitch is a domain name lawyer, based in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. He has been practicing domain name law for over ten years and is now running for the election for a seat on the CIRA Board of Directors. Go to http://www.DNattorney.com and http://zak-for-cira.ca/ for more information.

The Canadian Internet Registration Authority (“CIRA”) operates Canada’s .CA domain name registry in the “public interest”. Where does this authority come from and what is the “public interest”? During the current 2010 election for CIRA’s Board of Directors, these questions should be raised and debated. CIRA has an important role to fill as the operational manager of the registry, but has an equally important role to fill in terms of governing the .CA space in the public interest.

Read the full article after the jump.

When CIRA was incorporated as a Canadian federal corporation without share capital (otherwise known as a not-for-profit corporation) on December 30, 1998, there was no mention of “the public interest” in its formal objectives as filed with Industry Canada. CIRA’s formal objectives were:

a) to act as the registry for the .CA Internet domain;

b) to provide professional registry services comparable to other major national and international Internet registries;

c) to develop and carry out any other Internet-related registration activities in Canada; and

d) to do all such other things as are incidental or conducive to the attainment of the above objects.

In 2006, CIRA made apparently minor revisions to their filed objectives with Industry Canada, so that c), above, now read;

“to develop, carry out and/or support any other Internet-related activities in Canada”.

The change is small, but noteworthy. One can see that “support” of “any internet-related activities” was added, ostensibly expanding CIRA’a objectives to include broader involvement and support in anything Internet related, not just registration related. This is the foundation for CIRA’s mandate to be actively involved in supporting Internet related activities in Canada. But there was still no mention of the “public interest” in CIRA’s formal objectives. So where does the “public interest” come into play for CIRA?

On March 11, 1999, Michael Binder, Assistant Deputy Minister Spectrum, Information Technologies and Telecommunications (Industry Canada), wrote a letter to Rob Hall, then Chairman of the Board of CIRA, to thank John Demco for his management of the registry for the previous ten years, to congratulate CIRA on its incorporation, and to “recognize CIRA as the administrator of the .ca domain space” (the “Binder Letter”).

The Binder Letter essentially confirmed that the Government of Canada was permitting CIRA to run the registry and that CIRA was expected to adopt certain principles in its operation. The term “public interest” however, did not appear in this letter. Rather, the term “public resource” was used in the following manner:

“The .CA domain space is a key public resource, helping to promote the development of electronic commerce in Canada and important to our country’s future social and economic development”.

The term “public resource” was used within a context that suggested that .CA domain names had two important roles to play, which were both in the public interest;

a) economic development through the development of Internet businesses for wealth creation; and

b) social development so Canada could fulfill its aspirations as a society.

Accordingly, even though the term, “public interest” was not expressly used by Industry Canada in confirming CIRA’s mandate, it was nonetheless made clear CIRA was to operate the .CA registry with this combination of public interest priorities in mind; namely economic and social development.

The first express use of the term “public interest” as it relates to CIRA, appeared shortly thereafter. On October 10, 2000, Industry Canada confirmed to the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (“ICANN”), that CIRA was formally being designated as Canada’s administrator of the .CA registry. In this letter, Industry Canada expressly confirmed that CIRA was to operate in the “public interest”:

This agreement provides that the Government of Canada will designate CIRA to be the new administrator of the .ca and that CIRA will manage the .ca in accordance with principles set by the Government of Canada in the March 11, 1999 letter referred to above and any additional principles that are in the public interest and reasonable. [emphasis added]

The “agreement” referred to by Industry Canada, above, was the “Umbrella Agreement” wherein UBC (the former .CA administrator under the leadership of John Demco), the Government of Canada, and CIRA, agreed on the transition to administration of the .CA registry by CIRA. The Umbrella Agreement expressly made reference to both CIRA being mandated to operate the .CA registry as a “public resource” and in the “public interest”.

The Umbrella Agreement expressly confirmed that the “public interest”, as originally expressed in the Binder Letter, involved both a concern for economic and social development:

“the parties are of the view that the .ca domain space should be developed as a key public resource for social and economic development for all Canadians”. [emphasis added]

The Umbrella Agreement further confirmed that in accordance with Industry Canada’s mandate to CIRA of October 10, 1999:

“CIRA was incorporated as a not-for-profit corporation with the intention of managing the .ca domain space in the public interest”. [emphasis added]

The next appearance of the express use of the term, “public interest”, as it relates to CIRA, appeared in the “Principles for the Delegation and Administration of Country Code Top Level Domain Names”, Presented by ICANN’s Governmental Advisory Committee on February 23, 2000 (the “GAC Principles”). This document’s objective was to suggest principles that will assist in the development of best practice for the delegation and administration of ccTLDs (country code top-level domain names, such as .CA).

Section 5.1 of the GAC Principles stated:

The relevant government or public authority ultimately represents the interests of the people of the country or territory for which the ccTLD has been delegated. Accordingly, the role of the relevant government or public authority is to ensure that the ccTLD is being administered in the public interest, whilst taking into consideration issues of public policy and relevant law and regulation. [emphasis added]

The GAC Principles also laid out some broader principles that emphasized that while a ccTLD manager such as CIRA has a duty to serve the public interest of its local community, it also has a duty to the global Internet community:

The Internet has evolved from a tool reserved for computer and networking research, to a global medium for commerce, education, and communication. The new realities of the Internet, including its increased importance as a vehicle for national economic growth, and the expanding and more diverse nature of the Internet community necessitated evolution in the traditional means of managing and administering Internet technical functions.

The manager of a ccTLD performs a public service on behalf of the relevant local community and as such the designated manager has a duty to serve this community. The designated manager also has a responsibility to the global Internet community. By ‘global Internet community’ we do not mean any specific legal or international entity, but rather we interpret the term to refer to all of those who are affected by, now or in the future, the operation of the relevant TLD, because such operation may impinge on more than one jurisdiction and affect the interests of individuals and entities from both within the relevant country or territory and elsewhere.

Although this was an ICANN document and an ICANN set of principles, CIRA formally and legally adopted certain of the GAC Principles on November 30, 2000. Then Chair of the CIRA Board, Maureen Cubberley, wrote to Michael Roberts, President of ICANN, and stated that “CIRA supports the framework of the GAC principles as a sound basis for the ongoing relationships concerning the delegation and administration of ccTLDs” and confirmed CIRA’s commitment to administering the .CA registry as a “public resource” in accordance with the Binder Letter.

Accordingly, CIRA’s mandate to operate the .CA registry both as a public resource for economic and social development, and in the public interest, has a well established foundation and history. The question then turns to the myriad of possible applications of these important but very broad principles and to what degree CIRA has followed them.

On October 7, 2009, renowned Internet Law expert, Professor Michael Geist, expressed his concern for what he felt was a “Disappearing Public Interest Mandate”. He noted that “CIRA has not done enough to advance the potential social side of the mandate despite [is] and leaving it to its directors to question whether the social contributions found in leading country-code domains around the world are even part of CIRA’s mandate.” This followed Professor Geist’s previous Blog posting and Toronto Star article wherein he questioned “an unmistakable shift toward prioritizing commercial gain over the public interest”. As examples of this shift, Professor Geist noted a “decision to effectively terminate plans to create an external, public interest body to address “excess” funds”, a decision to “expand CIRA’s registry services to new generic top-level domains”, and “killed a planned submission to the CRTC’s net neutrality hearings”.

In response to Professor Geist, CIRA Chief Executive Office, Byron Holland, disputed Professor Geist’s observations while confirming that “the dot-ca domain is essential to social and economic development within Canada, and we take our mandate of effective stewardship of this key public resource very seriously”. Mr. Holland stated that CIRA “[had] not abandoned plans to actively pursue other public-interest elements of [CIRA’s] mandate”, but noted “[CIRA has] been steadily building [a] reserve but [CIRA] is not quite there yet”.

Mr. Holland also noted that, “CIRA is pursuing additional sources of revenue from other potential registry services to ensure that we have the funds necessary to live up to our stated operational obligations and increased activity in the public interest side of the Canadian domain space.”

Accordingly, what can be seen here, is the struggle to follow both tracks that the Government of Canada mandated CIRA to follow, namely social and economic development, in the public interest. Professor Geist has correctly pointed out that social development in the public interest, is a key component of Canada’s mandate to CIRA, and yet there is scarce evidence that CIRA has embarked on what could be considered an appropriately ambitious course. Professor Geist cites the fact that  “other countries have used their domain name authorities to fund research, engage in public policy, or even grant every citizen the right to a domain name at no cost”, yet Canada appears to have not pursued any of these social development opportunities in any substantial manner.

On the other hand, Mr. Holland correctly points out that in order to fulfill Canada’s mandate to CIRA to engage in social development, CIRA must raise funds from economic development opportunities, including managing CIRA with “reliance on market forces and private sector leadership”, as required in the Binder letter. CIRA cannot of course make any substantial headway into social development projects without adequate resources, and therefore the exploration of revenue generation opportunities is required and closely tied to CIRA’s mandate of social development.

Nevertheless, an election is now underway for the Board of Directors of CIRA, and it is imperative, indeed it is in the public interest, for all concerned to vigorously debate how CIRA can better follow the two tracks of social and economic development mandated by the Government of Canada by seeking and applying all appropriate sources of revenue.

CIRA is in an enviable position of being able to realize reoccurring revenues from its monopoly over .CA registrations. It gets $8.50 year after year, for each .CA registered. CIRA currently has nearly 1.5 million .CA’s registered. By promoting the .CA registry and by increasing access to .CA domain names in a manner consistent with CIRA’s mandate, CIRA could potentially reap millions more on an annual basis that it could, and should, apply to ambitious social and economic development projects. The nature of such projects should be debated and raised in the election with all ideas put on the table, from free domain names for all Canadians, to a special fund for Canadian Internet entrepreneurs.

As someone standing for election for the single public seat available this year on the CIRA Board, I intend to continue to raise these issues in public and would like for others to do the same.

Zak Muscovitch is a Canadian domain name lawyer and his CIRA election web site is zak-for-cira.ca.

(c) 2010 DomainNameNews.com

Advertisement
Upcoming Domain Industry Events, Conferences & Auctions

ActingCoach.com: Now Developed Thanks to WhyPark

by Elliot in Uncategorized | Posted on September 3rd, 2010 | Comments Off

I bought ActingCoach.com several months ago hoping for a quick flip. I posted it for sale on forums, and I also received a few inquiries from end users (from the parking page), including one nice (profitable) offer. I passed on that offer hoping to receive more from another end user company, and when a better offer didn’t materialize, I decided to get back in touch with that acting coach to see if he was still interested.

As it sometimes goes, the acting coach who made the offer had opted to buy another name in the interim, and he wasn’t able to buy ActingCoach.com when I came back to offer it to him. Se la vie. In light of this, I decided I would develop it, although I wasn’t willing to spend the same amount of time (or money) it took to build my other directories.

In lieu of a full development project, I opted to work with WhyPark and the company’s new DomainApps offerings. I used the  directory option along with videos, Twitter feed, and article feed, and I incorporated it all with a customized template in similar fashion to DogWalker.com. You can either pay $200 for them to build a custom theme, or you can probably pay a bit less at a place like eLance and select a designer to build one for you (give the designer one of their templates to use the code for the WhyPark modules).

Because I had WhyPark customize the design for this project, the site was put together by Craig Rowe and his WhyPark development team, using the interface and tools they have for everyone to use. If you (or your designer) has any trouble setting it up, I would think Craig and his support team can help… it’s one of the nice things I’ve found about working with the company.

I also worked with Acroplex, LLC (better known by many as Acro) to create the site’s logo, which gives it more character. For a relatively small investment, a logo like this can make a world of difference. I also worked with a copywriter found on eLance to add custom articles, and the plan is to continue adding articles. It’s an inexpensive way to drive traffic to the website.

To market the new site, I intend to reach out to the same acting coaches and companies that opted to not buy the domain name. I will see if they’d like to be listed on the site for a small monthly fee. I know the market is smaller than DogWalker.com, but I paid less for the domain name than DogWalker.com. I also know the market is competitive, and acting classes are expensive.

One of the best things about this and working with WhyPark is that I can use this template on future directory development projects, which was what I first said when I learned about the new Apps. Having a good website is important, but being able to scale my business is more important. Additionally, unlike my WordPress-based websites, I am not responsible for data management, security updates, or plugin updates with my WhyPark site, which relieves me of a big burden.

WhyPark takes $1.00/month for every paying directory client.  I charge $5/month so that’s an 80/20 revenue share, but I have the ability to charge whatever I want.  Depending on sign ups, cancelation rate, and the competition, I will probably play around with the listing cost as the site gets more traffic.

For those who are interested and want to track the success of this site, here are its current SEO rankings (I’ve had a coming soon page up for a little over a month):

Acting Coach: #24 Google #10 Bing
Acting Coaches: #93 Google #113 Bing

I would not endeavor on a project like this if I owned a name like GreatActingCoach.com, ActingCoaching.com, or some other non-exact match domain name that would be difficult to rank in search engines. I chose ActingCoach.com because this is a profession that advertises online (competitively) and people are searching for acting coaches every day.

Disclaimer:

WhyPark is an advertiser on the RSS feed of my blog. The company did NOT ask me or pay me to post this article. I am NOT making any additional revenue if you or anyone signs up as a result of this program or builds websites using WhyPark. I am posting this disclaimer because it seems there are always going to be people who think there is nefarious intent with positive blog posts.

Related posts:

1. Coming Soon: WhyPark Domain Apps I spent some time working with Craig Rowe of WhyPark...
2. How WhyPark is Saving Me Money on My Google Adwords Campaign A few weeks ago, I wrote about using WhyPark in...
3. WhyPark Monetization Changes Announced WhyPark announced some changes to their monetization model today, and...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Dolce & Gabbana Loses Bid For DandG.com In WIPO; Having A Facebook & Twitter Page Was Key

by MHB in Uncategorized | Posted on September 3rd, 2010 | Comments Off

The domain name owner of DandG.com just fought off a complaint by Dolce & Gabbana. (the decision has not yet been reported)

However is a nice win for the domain holder who was represented by Mike Rodenbaugh of Rodenbaugh Law.

Its a very interesting decision since Dolce & Gabbana has a very well known trademark on D&G since at least 1994 and the domain owner even offered to sell Dolce & Gabbana the domain,  (among others) for an amount in excess of $100,000.

The panel put a LOT of weight on the fact that the domain holder put up a Twitter and Facebook page for D & G Marketing and actually had followers

Here are the highlights from the decision:

“The Complainant also owns at least one trademark registration for the D&G Design trademark in the United States of America”

“The disputed domain name was first registered on November 17, 2003, and for approximately 6 years, it was used in connection with a website for a business called David & Goliath Advertising Agency or D&G Advertising.”

“The Respondent acquired the disputed domain name from a third party on February 24, 2010, who in turn had purchased the disputed domain name by public auction.”

At the time the Complaint was filed, the disputed domain name reverted to a one page website which featured the Respondent’s “D&G” Marketing logo. ”

“Shortly after acquiring the disputed domain name, the Respondent contacted 6 different D&G-related businesses, including the Complainant, to solicit offers to purchase the disputed domain name. The Complainant and Respondent exchanged correspondence about the proposed assignment of the disputed domain name, but were unable to reach an agreement.  The Respondent sought payment in the amount of USD100,000.”

“The Complainant submits that the word “and” is commonly used to denote the ampersand symbol in domain names, because the “&” symbol cannot at this time be used under typical domain name protocols.  Therefore, the Respondent’s use of the common word “and” between the letters “d” and “g”, creates the functional equivalent of the Complainant’s trademark D&G.”

“Accordingly, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name <dandg.com> is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s D&G trademark.”

“”The Respondent submits that it had a legitimate interest in owning the disputed domain name, which is composed of two of the twenty-six letters of the English alphabet, and the common word “and”. ”

“The Respondent claims to have purchased the disputed domain name <dandg.com> on February 24, 2010 with the intention of operating a marketing firm called D&G Marketing, standing for David & Goliath.  The Respondent has submitted evidence of the Respondent’s D&G logo, letterhead, business cards and an e-mail address, and evidence of marketing the D&G Marketing business through Facebook and Twitter.  The Respondent contends that its evidence supports the conclusion that the Respondent has a legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.”

“The Respondent further submits that it is in the business of acquiring domain names, creating corporate logos and branding programs, and selling the entire branded portfolio (including the domain name) to interested buyers.   This practice of buying and selling domain names and developed portfolio is characterized as a legitimate interest under the Policy.”

“The Respondent submits that it was not aware of the Complainant’s rights in the D&G trademark.”

“The Respondent further submits that it acquired the disputed domain name for the purposes of running a marketing business under the name D&G Marketing.  In any event, the Respondent contends that the purchase of a domain name for purposes of resale is not evidence of bad faith in and of itself.”

“The Respondent submits that it did not target the Complainant, but sent inquiries to several companies that used the initials “D” and “G”, and that this offering for sale of the disputed domain name to several entities is evidence of good faith”

“Furthermore, the offering for sale of the disputed domain name for more than the cost of registration is not evidence of bad faith per se.”

“The disputed domain name was purchased by Respondent after it had been registered and used for many years, in the marketing field, thereby acquiring significant value which had nothing to do with the Complainant’s business.   Therefore, in all the circumstances, the Respondent contends that the offer to sell the disputed domain name to Complainant for USD100,000 is not evidence of bad faith.”

“The Panel finds that the Complainant has established rights in the D&G trademark by the evidence submitted in the Complaint.

“The Panel finds that the disputed domain name <dandg.com> is in fact the functional equivalent of the trademark D&G, and accordingly it can reasonably be viewed as a virtual replication of the Complainant’s D&G trademark.”

“Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name <dandg.com> is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.

The Panel’s assessment of the evidence filed in these proceedings is that it sets out the history of this domain name as follows:

“1.   The disputed domain name was registered in November 17, 2003.  The disputed domain name was registered and used by David & Goliath Advertising Agency or D&G Advertising for over 6 years.  From the case record, no complaint appears to have been made against the disputed domain name over this period.

“2.   The original domain name registration expired, and the disputed domain name was then sold by public auction.  At that point, the disputed domain name was purchased by a third party, who then in turn sold it to the Respondent on February 24, 2010.”

“3.   The Respondent acquired the disputed domain name, according to the submissions filed for the purpose of (i) operating a marketing business under the name D&G Marketing;  and (ii) for the purpose of reselling the disputed domain name for a profit.”

“4.   On March 12, 2010, sixteen (16) days after acquiring the disputed domain name, the Respondent sent e-mails soliciting 6 different “D&G” businesses offering to sell the disputed domain name.”

“5.   In the relatively short period from the date of acquisition (February 24, 2010) to the commencement of these proceedings (May 10, 2010), the Respondent has taken some preliminary steps towards setting up a business.

“These preliminary steps include what could reasonably be viewed as typical conduct for the early stages of any business:  for example, preparation of business cards and letterhead with a logo.  As such, these steps do not carry significant weight in terms of proving the operation of an actual business. ”

“However, the Respondent also established temporary Twitter and Facebook accounts which promoted its D&G Marketing business in the field of online marketing.  The Respondent has furnished evidence of 435 followers on Twitter. ”

“In its supplemental evidence, Respondent provided an affidavit and brief supporting statements from three potential customers, describing how D&G Marketing has promoted its business in association with the D&G name over the past few months.  Although the evidence is somewhat thin in terms of proving business activity in the conventional sense (i.e. customers and revenues), it is significant for one consistent point:  nothing in the Respondent’s website, printed materials, logo, graphics, or social networking sites makes any reference to the business of Dolce & Gabbana or to the fashion and design fields where the Complainant operates.  All the evidence is in fact, consistent with the Respondent’s position that it is in the early stages of setting up an online marketing venture, with the possibility that it may sell the disputed domain name as part of its portfolio of domain names.”"

“The Respondent has also brought forward evidence that the letters “D” and “G”, and the combination “D&G” are commonly adopted business identifiers in the U.S. market and elsewhere.  The Respondent has identified many users of the “D&G” business name in the Los Angeles area alone, and notes that there are multiple trademark registrations for D&G in the U.S. and in Europe for a variety of products and services.  Five of the businesses (other than the Complainant) approached by Respondent to solicit offers for the disputed domain name appear to have their own legitimate interests in using “D&G” as part of their operating names, (e.g. D&G Sports – California).”

“Bearing in mind that the burden of proof is on the Complainant to establish the absence of a right or legitimate interests on the part of the Respondent, in this Panel’s opinion, the evidence in its totality favours the Respondent.  On the balance of probabilities, based on the evidence filed in this matter, the Panel finds that the Complainant has failed to establish that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.”

“Accordingly, in all of these circumstances, the Panel finds that the Complainant has not satisfied the requirement under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. “In making its finding for the Respondent, the Panel nevertheless acknowledges that on the basis of a more complete evidentiary record and with the benefit of cross-examination, a Court or tribunal could reach a different conclusion.  In the UDRP process, the Panel is limited in terms of the ability to test the evidence put forward by the parties.  In many cases, the proof of abusive registrations is relatively straightforward.  However, when a respondent provides (what ultimately proved to be) sworn evidence contesting the complainant’s essential allegations, with supporting documentation, and that evidence is not subject to cross-examination, and the complainant has been unable to put into the record contrary evidence or argument sufficient to rebut or call into question the veracity of that provided by the respondent despite being offered the opportunity to do so,  the burden on the complainant to satisfy all elements under the policy is obviously difficult to meet.  That was the particular challenge faced by the Complainant in this matter.”

Interesting case.

If you compare this case with one released yesterday, over the domain name BandH.com, that held for the much less famous trademark of B&H (photo equipment) since the domain was pointed to a affiliate site selling photo equipment

Sedo Revenue Down But Earnings Up

by Andrew Allemann in Uncategorized | Posted on September 3rd, 2010 | Comments Off

Revenue slides but bottom line improves in first half of year.

Revenue at domain name brokerage and parking company Sedo for the first half of 2010 was down compared to the same period last year, but earnings were up.

Sedo Holding reported (pdf) revenue of 21.9M EUR for its Sedo division in H1 2010, compared to 22.6M EUR for H1 2009. However, profit increased from 3.0M EUR to 3.3M EUR. The company’s employee base dropped from 172 to 157 between periods.

At the end of June the company had 16.7 million domain names listed for sale, up 26.5% from last year. It now has 7.3 million parked domains, up 17.7% compared H1 2009. Sedo has 1.1 million registered users as of the end of the half, up 22.2% in a year.

The company is sticking with its prediction that 2010 will be a slightly down year for its Sedo division, followed by a return to growth in 2011.

© DomainNameWire.com 2010.

Get Certified Parking Stats at DNW Certified Stats.

Related posts:

1. Sedo Revenue Down 20% This Year, But Turning the Corner
2. Sedo 2008 Revenue Falls to EUR 54.7 Million
3. Sedo Founders Sell Remaining 24% of Company, Schumacher Promoted

MorganLinton.tv Live from LA Tonight – Don’t Miss My Reflections on Ireland/England

by Morgan in Uncategorized | Posted on September 3rd, 2010 | Comments Off

After being back in LA for a week I think I’ve finally adapted back to PST and I’m looking forward to a great show tonight. I’ll be reviewing my trip to TRAFFIC Dublin and MeetDomainers Manchester and sharing some of the things I learned. I met some incredible people at both shows and gained  excellent insight into the ccTLD market that has me more excited than ever.

I will also be covering some of the topics I discussed at both TRAFFIC Dublin and MeetDomainers so if you weren’t there I’ll help bring you one step closer. Of course I still would recommend you get to a conference soon if you haven’t yet – TRAFFIC Miami is just around the corner! If you’re in Europe DOMAINfest Prague should be incredible and if you’re going to TRAFFIC Miami you should also make sure to hop on DNCruise.

As you can tell I’m more excited than ever and I can’t wait to share my excitement with all of you tonight! See below for the exact time and place to find the show no matter where in the world you’re located!

MorganLinton.tv Global Time Schedule

6:00PM PST – California, Vancouver, etc.

9:00PM EST – New York City, Toronto, etc.

2:00AM GMT+1 – London, Dublin, etc.

4:00AM GMT+3 – Israel, Istanbul, etc.

11:00AM (Saturday) GMT+10 – Sydney, Eastern Australia, etc.

[ Watch on MorganLinton.tv ]

Looking to Buy .COM Profession Domain Names

by Elliot in Uncategorized | Posted on September 3rd, 2010 | Comments Off

I am looking to buy a couple (or maybe more) high quality profession domain names, and I would be interested in seeing your priced submissions. As I always do, I have posted the requirements for the domain names I want to buy.  Please do NOT submit names that do not meet ALL requirements set out below. No exceptions.

• Profession (like acting coach, dog walker, or private pilot)
• .COM only
• At least 15,000 local exact match searches a month (GAKT)
• Domain created (registration date) before 2001
• Price $5,000 or below
• Domain names not currently on the market

If you have names that are more expensive, I am probably not interested for this project. I have been buying names like these for the last two years, so I know they are out there to buy. I am a motivated buyer, but please don’t waste your time or mine by saying something like, “I know this doesn’t meet all of your requirements, but…”

If you would prefer that the domain names with prices not be revealed, just submit the domain name via comment and say something like (please remove this) and I will do my best to delete your comment and follow up with an email.  I do expect that you’ll submit names that have prices though since that’s a requirement.

Again, I can’t stress enough that the domain name should meet all requirements set out above.

Also, I am not looking for geodomain names – like NewYorkLawyer.com for this.

Related posts:

1. US City .Com Domain Names Wanted I am once again looking to acquire smaller US city...
2. Looking to Buy a Premium Shop/Store Domain I am looking to buy a shop/store domain name.  For...
3. 4 Number .com Domain Names for Sale I haven’t been a big fan of numeric domain names,...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Quick Poll: How Much Will Slots.co Sell For?

by MHB in Uncategorized | Posted on September 3rd, 2010 | Comments Off

The land rush auction for Slots.co started yesterday and the current high bid is as of time of publication is $15,500.

So we are opening up a poll on what you think this domain will sell for.

The auction closes in 6 days unless extended under the bidding rules of the .Co auctions.

Slots.com sold earlier this year for around $5.5 Million

I’m in the auction for Slots.co and will keep you updated on the bidding.

As always place your vote on the right and your comments below.

Domainvermarkter Forum Live Auction Results

by Frank Michlick in Uncategorized | Posted on September 3rd, 2010 | Comments Off

Albeit with a very late start, we‘re were live blogging the auction results of the Domainvermarkter Forum Live domain auction held in Munich, Germany by Moniker/Snapnames today. As always we do not guarantee the accuracy of these results.

The auction sold 107 domains out of 157 for a total of 75,290 Euro (appx. $96,700 USD). Notable sales include tunen.de for 10,000 EUR (tuning in German, appx. $12,850 USD), qe.de for 5,000 EUR (appx.$6,4000 USD ) and Militär.de (military in German) for the same amount.

See the full unofficial results after the jump.

(c) 2010 DomainNameNews.com

Advertisement
Offer: .com/.net domains only $7.98/yr! Specializing in .kr domains $40/yr
Get expired / deleting domains $14.98/yr fixed price

Bingo.com Ltd Buys Out Bingo.com Payments for $900,000

by Andrew Allemann in Uncategorized | Posted on September 3rd, 2010 | Comments Off

Nearly a century of royalty payments bought out.

Bingo.com, Ltd has bought out its remaining royalty payments on the domain name Bingo.com for $900,000 in equity.

The company had a deal with the prevous owner of the domain (Bingo, Inc) to pay it 4% of gross revenue through 2098. An independent valuation pegged the present value of those payments at $1.4 million to $1.6 million.

If you’re thinking that Bingo, Inc needed cash and that’s why it took a discount, think again. It took the payment in the form of 6 million shares of stock. As a penny stock, these shares aren’t very liquid. Also, the current trading price of the stock is 9 cents instead of 15 cents, which is the valuation that turned $900,000 into 6 million shares of stock. At 9 cents the value is $540,000.

After the deal, Bingo, Inc now owns about 30% of Bingo.com, Ltd.

© DomainNameWire.com 2010.

Get Certified Parking Stats at DNW Certified Stats.

Related posts:

1. Sharing Domain Parking Stats is Easy with DNW Certified Stats
2. Tucows and Marchex See Shares Bounce on Earnings
3. TrafficClub Delays Payments Due to Click Fraud

Are .Co Domains Worth More Than .Org Domains?

by MHB in Uncategorized | Posted on September 3rd, 2010 | Comments Off

I couldn’t help but notice (especially when one of the readers pointed it out to me) that DuiAttorney.co sold for $44,500 in the Land Rush Auctions, which is more than I sold duiattorney.org for earlier this year.

Several months ago I sold DuiAttorney.org through Sedo.com for $35,000 which at the time most thought was a fair price.

However in the latest .Co Land Rush Auction report I posted yesterday, DuiAttorney.co sold for $10K more than the .Org.

So the question is are .Co domain now worth more than .Org domains or are ALL domains now worth more because of the amounts being paid in the land rush auctions.

How much more is DuiAttorney.com worth now that someone has ponied up $45K for the .co?

Or are they completely different animals having no bearing on each other?

Personally my domain name, Duilawyer.org is going to now be priced into the six figures based off of these sales.

Are you going to increase the asking prices of your .com’s based off these .co sales?