I’m very pleased to announce that we have just released our new FREE iPhone app called Domain Sales. We created the iPhone app to help grow the industry in the area of valuations and exposure to international markets.

Improving Domain Valuations

I’d like to see some solid financial modelling and rigour around domain valuations. Comparables go a long way towards that vision, just like in the real-estate industry.

Consider a .com just like you would a premium suburb. If you have a 4 bedroom house, 2 bathrooms in a good neighborhood, that will cost $X. If you have a hyphenated domain name in a less popular extension (suburb), it could be worth a fraction of $X.

Bringing ccTLD’s Into The Spotlight.

Our DomainerIncome members have benefited from years of monitoring Aftermarket auctions as well as ccTLD drops. I believe this gives them a better understanding of the industry, as they get the depth and breadth. The Domain Sales app delivers the same “international perspective” and will highlight domain sales in countries are the not normally covered by the mainstream. For example: .com.au and .net.au.

The Benefits

• Use comparable sales to justify prices, when you buy and sell domains and websites.
• Real-time monitoring gives you up-to-date knowledge of the markets.

Domain Sales is FREE. You can download it from the iTunes store here.

Feedback

This is the first iPhone App we have released. It’s the first version and we have a long list of features we would like to see developed. If you would like to suggest a feature then please contact us via the DomainSalesApp.com website.

Yesterday I read an article in Marketing Magazine discussing the new top-level domains.  It stated:

“Will a new TLD web address automatically be favoured by Google over a .com equivalent? Quite simply, yes it will.”

I found it difficult to believe what I was reading, as the article contained no statements from Google. Fast forward to this afternoon and Google spokesperson Matt Cutts has stated:

“that’s just not true”

“feel the need to debunk this misconception”.

 When it comes to new TLD’s, what do Google REALLY think?

“I don’t expect a new TLD to get any kind of initial preference over .com, and I wouldn’t bet on that happening in the long-term either.”

“you shouldn’t register a TLD in the mistaken belief that you’ll get some sort of boost in search engine rankings.”

Here is the full statement from Matt – straight from the source!

The earnings call for Overstock has disclosed some interesting results for .co, but what does that really mean?

By way of background, in 2010 Overstock purchased o.co for US $350,000 and indicated it would rebrand its business O.co.

Fast forward to 2012 and here are some extracts from their earnings call transcript:

• “O.co was my bad call…“

• “It did get out there into peoples heads, but what we discovered and we turned it up slowly and we actually had nice adoption from the beginning of last year, gradually people shifting to O.co and then, but we got into the Christmas season and it worked terribly for people who were not familiar with us.“

• “There was a tremendous amount of traffic diverting to O.com and I think we’ve figured out. It was about eight out of 13 people who were trying to visit us through O.co. Eight were typing O.com.“

Note that o.com is reserved (not available for registration), so I don’t know how they tested this. Perhaps via monitoring DNS queries?

What’s My Take On .CO ?

Since .co came into being, I’ve written a number of articles on .CO talking about marketing and risk management. I even took the time to put together one of the first videos showing people how to turn on Geotargetting (to make .co anything other than Colombia). I know my views caused a bit of a stirr amongst some bloggers (who were displaying paid banner advertising from .co), but that’s life. As it turns out, I was right.

The Overstock Experience

What’s clear is that O.co didn’t work for them. However that does not mean that it will not work for you. A survey of one is close to meaningless. Large brands should be taking away some lessons learned from the Overstock experience including:

• People misreading the domain name in offline advertising.
• Rebranding your entire business around a domain name.

Here is that bottom line – don’t write off .co. It’s easy for the media (and bloggers) to criticize, especially in light of this disclosure. This issue is really not about .co (the extension itself), but rather how the rebranding and online advertising was handled.

People should learn from this experience and move on. It’s not about the domain name, its about building a profitable business.

Google has announced that they will retire their hosted domain product within Adsense. Effective immediately, publishers cannot use the product and it will no longer be available for existing users by June 27.

This might come as a shock to some, but not to others, as last year Google announced their “parked domain classifier“, which appeared to contradict the hosted domains product.

Where does that leave people now? They have to find a new domain parking provider. Good news for the parking companies, or the beginning of the end? While Google does “hold all the cards”, the parking companies *combined) have a material impact on Googles balance sheet.

Are you impacted by this? Leave a comment and let me know.

Australian regulator ASIC has just published a guide with far reaching implications for Internet Marketers, domain name investors and social media experts.

Titled “Advertising financial products and advice services: Good practice guidance”, the document applies to any medium, and specifically singles out “webpages, banner advertisements, video streaming (e.g. YouTube), and social networking and microblogging (e.g. Twitter);”

The 47 page guide is quite extensive, covering all aspects of the industry, including:

• Testimonials
• Product comparisons
• Use of terms and phrases
• Images, photographs, diagrams and examples
• Advertising (including “bait advertising” and false or misleading representations)
• Record keeping ( as in keeping a copy of your ads )

For those that dont comply, the guide details how ASIC will deal with contraventions, including Consumer Compensation, Civil Penalties and Criminal Charges.

So, where do you start? My recommendation is to get legal advice.

What does the future hold? Looking into my crystal ball I can see:

• Internet marketers changing their strategies.
• Domain investors selling off their domains.
• Website developers moving away from anything financial / risk related.
• Internet marketing gurus changing both their language and products.
• Social media experts watching what they say and keeping copies of their ads!
• Existing companies (that are compliant) will strengthen their positions.

What’s your view on this? Post a comment below – I’d love to hear from you.

Google has announced a new “parked domain classifier”.

“This is a new algorithm for automatically detecting parked domains. Parked domains are placeholder sites that are seldom useful and often filled with ads. They typically don’t have valuable content for our users, so in most cases we prefer not to show them.“

This statement somewhat contradicts Google’s own product called Adsense for Domains, whereby “publishers with undeveloped domains to help users by providing relevant information including ads, links and search results”.

So, how should the industry interpret these statements? If you are using “Adsense for Domains”, then everything is ok, but any other ad feed is “not valuable”?

]]> http://www.simonjohnson.co/domaining/google-targets-parked-domains/feed/ 0 http://www.simonjohnson.co/auda/industry-supports-johnson-in-auda-election/ http://www.simonjohnson.co/auda/industry-supports-johnson-in-auda-election/#comments Fri, 30 Sep 2011 03:44:17 +0000 Simon Johnson http://www.simonjohnson.co/?p=272

It’s great to see both the industry and the media getting involved in the auDA Election.

The Domain Industry News Magazine, DNJournal has posted this great article. This is a small extract; I’d encourage you to visit DNJournal and read the article.

Quote:

“The only candidate from the domain investment community running for one of those positions is Simon Johnson (you can read his expanded candidate statement here). Simon is well-known in both the international and Australian domain communities. I met him at the T.R.A.F.F.I.C. Down Under conference in 2008 and  can tell you is well versed in all of the issues and would make an excellent board member.”

Thanks to Ron Jackson for his support and coverage of the election. I will post more media coverage here, as it happens.

The 2010/2011 Names Policy Panel made a number of recommendations regarding domain name monetisation to the auDA Board. This submission was made to the auDA Board in August. Since then, many domain name owners have been eagerly awaiting the auDA Board Minutes. After approximately a month of waiting, the minutes have been published on the auDA website.

Of particular note is the “Minority Report” (which I co-authored) with two other Panel Members, David Lye (Netfleet) and Erhan Karabardak. (CooperMills Lawyers). The Minority Report highlights many issues with auDA Policy, but is particularly focused the Domain Monetization Policy.

One of the fundamental issues with auDA Policy is the (incorrect) definition of domain monetisation. The Minority Report states “the Panel should have considered, in more detail, the definition of ‘monetisation’ and the policy objectives/outcomes.” In response, the auDA Board “did not agree” .

auDA – Can You Define Domain Monetisation ?

I believe that auDA has held an incorrect view of what constitutes “domain monetisation”. So when the industry attempts to constructively engage and to help auDA develop a workable definition, the Board replies (via their minutes) that they “did not consider it necessary to convene a different group to deal with the issue”.

We are now in the unfortunate situation where the industry has been ignored and excluded and auDA will come up with their own definition. So what can we expect? The Board Minutes give us a small insight:

“d. the definition of “domain monetisation” should be replaced with a description of permissible practice, to accommodate a range of monetisation models; and”

“e. the Guidelines for Accredited Registrars on the Interpretation of Policy Rules for the Open 2LDs (2008-06) should be amended to include additional explanatory material regarding domain monetisation.”

Such a definition of “permissible practice” should raise alarm bells, particularly with Internet Marketers and domain investors. Wouldn’t it be more productive to engage with the industry and get a clear, agreed definition?

Does Australia Still Have A Domain Monetisation Policy?

Yes. While the Domain Name Monetisation Policy is (soon to be) no more, the content will be moved into the Domain Name Eligibility and Allocation Policy Rules.

What Is The Concern?

The Minority Report explains the belief that:

• auDA Policy seeks to and/or has the effect of imposing content regulations on domain name registrants.

• Content regulation of Australian websites is undesirable and outside the scope of auDA’s mandate.

• The majority of the Panel was unable to demonstrate any harm or detriment caused by the monetisation of domain names.

auDA, lets work together on an agreed definition. Please don’t go behind closed doors and go it alone.

New auDA members have asked me to publish a detailed candidate statement, informing them of where I stand on a variety of issues.

If I had to summarise it, I’d say that I’ll work in the public interest and constructively with the Board, towards the following outcomes:

• Reduce regulation and grow the .au marketplace
• Decrease costs and red-tape for consumers and small business
• Ensure auDA funds are appropriately spent on transparent, demonstrable outcomes

Here is a detailed explanation of where I stand on the following issues:

1. Domain Name Registration Costs

In comparison to the rest of the world, the price for an Australian .au domain name is far too high. I’d like to bring costs down, to ensure that small businesses have an incentive to choose Australian over other TLD’s.

Right now, it’s easier and more economical for an Australian company to go offshore. In fact, many small businesses that I have spoken to, say its “all to hard” to register a .com.au and they don’t want the grief of wading through auDA policy to see what they can/cant do.

2. Domain Name Transfer Costs

Australia charges people a FEE to transfer their domain name. You would be hard pressed to find any other country on the planet that does this.

In Australia, this transfer fee is known as a COR (Change of Registrant). I believe that the COR is unnecessary and is simply “revenue raising”. Given the high level of automation between registrars and the registry, the COR should be abolished.

3. Domain Monetisation

I’m very concerned that auDA Policy seeks to and/or has the effect of imposing content regulations on domain name registrants. This is undesirable and outside the scope of auDA’s mandate. As a Member of 2010 Names Policy Panel I co-authored a submission to auDA on this issue. You can read the details from page 20 in the Final Report.

The bottom line is that auDA Policy restrictions in relation to monetisation are antiquated, flawed and should be eliminated. Here is just one example, auDA Domain Monetisation policy states:

a) “domain monetisation” means registering a domain name in order to earn revenue from a monetised website;

b) “monetised website” means a website or landing page that has been created for the purpose of earning revenue from advertising, including monetised domain parking pages;

Under this definition, I believe that newspapers, are monetised websites! After all, they write content and earn revenue from advertising. As you can see, domain monetisation is a legitimate business model, its just that some people negatively associate it with cybersquatting, which is clearly not the case!

4. Free Market

I believe in a free market. As long as you don’t break the law (eg: register domains containing trademarks) you should be able to register the domain name of your choice.

5. Reserve List

I believe that the Australian Government (both Federal and State) should be able to protect specific names. In fact, I endorsed the auDA Reserve List in the 2010 Names Policy Panel.

6. Trademark Domains and Cybersquatting

I have never supported the registration of domain names in bad faith. Many domain investors know that I’ve been quite vocal within the domain investment industry, condemning the small minority of people that engage in this unethical practice.

For those that don’t know, there are existing, effective measures that the public can take with regard to “bad faith” registrations. They are:

a) UDRP
b) Trademark laws

Given this situation, there is really no reason to have domain monetisation policy (regardless of the document that its put into), as it can have the consequence of restricting ecommerce. Given that the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Econony is pursuing the National Broadband Network (NBN), it needs to have a good hard look at the affect of auDA Policy in this area.

7. Privacy

I believe that Australians should be able to take reasonable steps to protect their identity. A whois privacy service is provided by Registrars in almost all other countries, but not in Australia.

There is no credible reason not to protect consumers. In the event auDA wanted to find out the owner of the domain (for operational reasons), they could request the information from the Registrar or the Registry.

8. ICANN New TLDs

I do not support the introduction of new TLD’s. eg: .anything

• It appears to have the affect of forcing business to pay for additional domain names, in order to defend their trademarks. The Association of National Advertisers (ANA) in the USA also has similar views.
• It’s cost prohibitive for small business to become a registrar. eg: ICANN $185k non refundable fee – just to start.
• There is a real, tangible threat to the .au namespace. What if someone was to register .aus or .aussie as a new TLD? It may confuse the general public.

9. CGDNs (Community Geographic Domain Name)

I support encouraging small business and the community to get online. CGDNs are an interesting concept, but they are unnecessary. The same result could have been delivered in .org.au.

Back in 2010, when they were reviewed, I submitted this statement, encouraging auDA to give serious consideration to closing it down.

The question still remains, how much time money as auDA spent on this initiative?

10. Direct Registrations In .au

A few people have proposed registering your-name.au. I not support direct registrations as they could lead to confusion in the marketplace.

11. auDA Foundation

I support many charities and do volunteer work, so the intent of a foundation, goes to the heart of what I believe in. Having said that, is it right that Australians are taxed (get charged a fee by auDA) every time they register a domain name, and some of that money goes to the auDA foundation? As members, do you recall auDA ever asking you how to spend this money?

It appears to me that the auDA Foundation is well outside the auDA charter set by the Australian government. Money would be better spent helping small business get online and reducing the barriers to entry into the .com.au namespace.

12. auDA Review

I support an independent body to review the decisions made by auDA. Of particular note are the decisions that auDA makes in relation to placing names into Pending Delete. This process “takes away” the domain name from registrants as a result from a breach of auDA policy.

It’s no secret that over the years I’ve been quite active in questioning various decisions made by auDA. You can find a few questions and answers regarding auDA Travel and auDA Membership, in the 2010 auDA Board minutes.

13. Associations

I’m standing to represent auDA Members and the general public. I have no association with ICANN, commercial interests in registrars, or memberships to related associations.

The fact of the matter is that there are no other candidates that are full-time domain name investors (people that actually “do it” for a living).

14. Changing the auDA Constitution

At the 2011 AGM, auDA is proposing to change the constitution. The voting form shows you three boxes (packages) to tick:

PACKAGE 1: Introduction of “Life Member” class of members
PACKAGE 2: Streamlining removal of members for non-payment
PACKAGE 3: Housekeeping and clarifying amendments

I encourage you to VOTE AGAINST all of these measures.

Package 1.

• What is the benefit to the members in having the auDA board appoint “life members”?

• Why does the auDA Board propose that they appoint life members? I would have thought that auDA members would be the people to appoint life members?

• Unfortunately this is another measure which demonstrates the current perception of a “boys club”.

• Can you honestly name anyone who has (seriously) “made an outstanding contribution” to .au ? What I’m talking about here, are benefits to .au, not benefits to the person nominating them, not benefits to a 3rd party organisation, but real, tangible benefits to auDA Members and the general public.

Unless auDA can clearly articulate what the benefits are (to the members – not the Board), there is no reason to support this change to the constitution.

Package 2.

Earlier this year, auDA experienced delays in signing up new members. As such, I believe that one (1) month is too soon. The reality is that things get lost in the mail, on the fax machine, people have questions, life happens. I would support (2) months, but not one.

Package 3.

This is a “mixed bag” of clauses. While I agree that most of them shouldn’t have been in there in the first place, the reason for deleting them should be explained to the members in plain English.

For example: 21.4 – Why is this being deleted? “Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this clause, a Director may make a decision in the interest of the Legal Person which appointed that Director”.

In the explanatory memorandum, the reason behind deleting this clause was given as “deleting the final sentence”.

How does this change impact upon these “Independent Directors” who are “appointed by the elected Directors”? I’d note that at the 2006 AGM, auDA wanted to “increase in the amount payable to the independent directors for the next 12 months from $60,000 to $100,000.”.

15. Voting

Download this form and post or fax it in. I would encourage you to nominate me as your Proxy. When you vote, let me know!

If you have any further questions please get in contact.

Last updated

18-9-11 – Added Package details.

ICANN – good in theory, but it’s failed the public. The original intent of serving “the public interest”  has been lost.

Esther Dyson recently summed it up perfectly. It was so good in fact, I decided to post it here:

“Most of the people active in setting ICANN’s policies are involved somehow in the domain-name business, and they would be in control of the new TLDs as well. It’s worth it to them to spend their time at ICANN meetings (or to send staffers), whereas domain names are just a small part of customers’ and user’ lives. And that means that the new TLDs are likely to create money for ICANN’s primary constituents, but only add costs and confusion for companies and the public at large.”

In most companies, the Board is accountable to the shareholders and/or it’s members. ICANN will tell you that its accountable to this mystical thing called “the public”, but that’s meaningless. There is really nothing that the general public can do, to influence policy. Not when you have a network of registries, registrars, lobby groups and consultants all feeding from the same trough.

Perhaps its time to change the ICANN constitution to make it an international agency? i.e. part of the United Nations? It’s not the first time I’ve spoken about this. The reality is that ICANN needs some serious governance put over the top of it. We saw this when ISP’s started emerging; multiple governments said “get your act together or we will do it for you”. As a result, many Internet Associations were formed to deal with these issues. As for ICANN? Well it’s been 13 years and I believe that time has run out!

The issue here is that the NTIA (National Telecommunications and Information Administration) has no love for UN control of ICANN. That being said, the United States really needs to step in and take some action (contractual / legislative) to help steer ICANN in the right direction. Of course, it could only really do this with the support of multiple governments.

The big question, is how bad does it have to get before they step in and do the right thing? Will this be before the Internet is thrown into confusion after new TLD’s are introduced? Will the ANA (Association of National Advertisers) prevent ICANN from doing this? Who knows?

What I’d like to see is people starting to act in the public interest and not in their own self interest.