Subscribe: CircleID: Comments
Added By: Feedage Forager Feedage Grade A rated
Language: English
alternative  domain names  domain  free speech  free  jun pdt  jun  million  pdt  posted jun  posted  udrp  xyz domains  xyz 
Rate this Feed
Rate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feed
Rate this feed 1 starRate this feed 2 starRate this feed 3 starRate this feed 4 starRate this feed 5 star

Comments (0)

Feed Details and Statistics Feed Statistics
Preview: CircleID: Comments

CircleID: Comments

Latest comments posted on CircleID


RE: Phishing: the Worst of Times in the DNS (Jean Guillon)

2017-06-27T06:33:03-08:00 protect consumers:

Link | Posted on Jun 27, 2017 6:33 AM PDT by Jean Guillon

RE: Breaking the Mold: Reclassifying Over a Billion .XYZ Domains for Alternative Uses (Doug Mehus)


That's flawed reasoning. There ARE better ways to curb domain name spam and phishing. ICANN could, for instance, amend its Uniform Rapid Suspension policy to allow domain names to be swiftly deleted, and prohibited from re-registration for an unspecified period of between 3 and 12 months, to allow flexibility, for reasons other than trademark infringement. :)

The fact that you've got some domain names costing $40-60 (or more!) harkens back to the "bad old days" of Network Solutions as sole registry operator and registrar (not to mention root server operator and administrator of the functions of IANA!). It's too expensive for individual domain name owners who want to run a blog, park it for future use and even small businesses. In short, it's money grubbing. :(


Link | Posted on Jun 26, 2017 4:07 PM PDT by Doug Mehus

RE: $850 Million Valuation: Methodology Critique (George Kirikos)


Your critique is incorrect. Briefly:

1. It was $872 million, not $850 million. The figure comes directly from the financial statements.

2. For your statement "There are no royalty payments associated with the purchase of a domain name." shows a misunderstanding of the relief-from-royalty methodology. What relief-from-royalty does is ask "what are the royalties that would have to be paid if the domain name was owned by someone else, who charged for the use of the domain name?" Since the domain name (or patent, or other IP) is actually owned by the user, no actual royalties or licensing fees change hands. It's an imputed amount for the royalty, to determine its fair value. In equilibrium, a profit-maximizing holder of the domain name would charge a royalty or licensing fee just below the incremental profit earned by the licensee of the domain name. (i.e. if the licensor charged more, then the licensee would terminate the licensing agreement, since it would be losing money).

3. For your point #1, there is no "dividing the value of cash flows by the book value of the domain name." Show me the equation where you think that there is division. What one is doing is attempt to add up (and discounting to today) the expected incremental value of the domain name to earnings in the future.

4. We know from SEC documents that the domain name was acquired in a $90 million deal, albeit with the payments spread over 35 years (over $30 million paid so far). We know Wal-mart paid $9 million for the domain name in a bankruptcy court auction. Why is anyone shocked, given the enormous size of the automotive industry, that the domain name would be worth $872 million? Go try and buy it for less, and tell me what they say....

Link | Posted on Jun 26, 2017 7:56 AM PDT by George Kirikos

RE: What to Expect at ICANN 59, Johannesburg (Alan Levin)


to South Africa… hope you have fun…

Link | Posted on Jun 26, 2017 1:33 AM PDT by Alan Levin

RE: Breaking the Mold: Reclassifying Over a Billion .XYZ Domains for Alternative Uses (Alex Tajirian)


Unfortunately, your pricing strategy encourages domain name registrations for spam and phishing.

Link | Posted on Jun 23, 2017 10:38 AM PDT by Alex Tajirian

RE: The Future Internet I Want for Me, Myself and AI (Alex Tajirian)


I have been using machine learning techniques to value domain names since 2005 ( I have also pointed out the advantages of machine valuations over human (

Link | Posted on Jun 23, 2017 10:33 AM PDT by Alex Tajirian

RE: Internet Governance for Sustainability (ruddyconsult)


As admirable as your intent may be, you are referring only to the sustainability of the Internet. ICT4SD is about the sustainability of life on earth, that of the planet and its inhabitants.

Link | Posted on Jun 20, 2017 11:12 PM PDT by ruddyconsult

RE: Why the Record Number of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking UDRP Filings in 2016? (Gerald M. Levine)


The jurisprudence that has been developing over the years (which is quite complex and yes some mark owners and counsel seem to think it's an alternative trademark court) is essentially without appellate oversight. One possibility could be a review procedure as there is in the URS, also Nominet for dot uk that could have the effect of harmonizing the views.

Link | Posted on Jun 15, 2017 9:21 AM PDT by Gerald M. Levine

RE: Major Flaw Found in WannaCry Raises Questions on Whether it was Really a Ransomware (Charles Christopher)


Let me add one more thing. So let us ASSuME for a moment that the authors are "honest thieves" (by definition, no such thing exists), how then were they to decrypt the victim's hard drive and then, since they are "honest thieves" insure the malware does not again encrypt the same victim's drive after they pay? To do so would, by necessity, creates a "feature" which could be used to defeat the malware in the first place.

That is one give the malware the marker indicating the victim "is not to be victimized again", honest thieves indeed ...

Link | Posted on Jun 09, 2017 7:53 AM PDT by Charles Christopher

RE: Major Flaw Found in WannaCry Raises Questions on Whether it was Really a Ransomware (Charles Christopher)


They are criminals seeking payment. Why would they care about the victims data after they were paid?

"Good guys" would care, but they ask would not author malware.

Link | Posted on Jun 09, 2017 7:44 AM PDT by Charles Christopher

RE: Does ICANN's UDRP Preserve Free Speech and Allow Room for Criticism? (Paul Tattersfield)


If such a domain name is genuinely registered and used for the purposes of criticism of the brand, the second and third requirements which the Complainant has to establish will not be met.

Which is where I believe the wording you are concerned with originated.

Link | Posted on Jun 06, 2017 12:48 PM PDT by Paul Tattersfield

RE: Does ICANN's UDRP Preserve Free Speech and Allow Room for Criticism? (Niel Harper)


The determination of whether or not the right decision is/was made is highly subjective. In many UDRP cases, there is recorded dissenting opinions among the panelists on such. However, my position is that one of the reasons that the UDRP is problematic with regards to free speech is because the majority decision of 'identical or confusingly similar' is regularly adopted, and often times with little to no consideration if the registration was actually abusive or used in bad faith. The de facto reasoning is that "Not all Internet users are English speaking or familiar with the use of 'sucks' to indicate a site used for denigration". This is too convenient a catchall and comes across as though panelists are either lazy or siding by default with the Complainant (trademark owner), hence not allowing room for legitimate criticism.

Link | Posted on Jun 06, 2017 10:13 AM PDT by Niel Harper

RE: Does ICANN's UDRP Preserve Free Speech and Allow Room for Criticism? (Paul Tattersfield)


I've had a cursory look at the three cases you cite. To be fair to the panellists they considered in depth the individual circumstances of each case and came to what seems on the surface at least the right decisions.

There are issues with UDRP that need fixing but I don't believe the cases cited above at least, make the case for it failing to preserve free speech or not allowing room for criticism.

George is right; you should look to join the ICANN working group I'm sure the working group would welcome your input.

Link | Posted on Jun 06, 2017 9:45 AM PDT by Paul Tattersfield

RE: Breaking the Mold: Reclassifying Over a Billion .XYZ Domains for Alternative Uses (Doug Mehus)


Sorry, but I'm NOT a fan of the .XYZ business model of doing everything from offering free first-year new domain name registrations to now offering 7- to 10-digit all-numeric domain name as some sort of "alternative" to the shortage of IP addresses in the IPv4 space? Come on, we all know that domain names resolve to an IP address.

I'm with Julian on this. :)

Domain names are meant to be a "catchy" word or short phrase to remember - if the point is just to be a redirect, a subdomain on a short top-level domain name would do the trick.

Moreover, if you're trying to be an "IPv4 alternative," one problem (and it's a big one!):  what makes you think people will remember to put ".xyz" after a 7- to 10-digit number? :(


Link | Posted on Jun 06, 2017 8:38 AM PDT by Doug Mehus

RE: Breaking the Mold: Reclassifying Over a Billion .XYZ Domains for Alternative Uses (Julian Mehnle)


Since 1.111B Class .xyz domains can be registered as needed for under $1 each, businesses can scale up or down, depending on their needs, with a nominal commitment. For example, Waive.Car, the ad-supported EV car-sharing startup, could register a 1.111B Class domain to match each license plate in its fleet.

Or they could just register a single domain and create a billion subdomains for themselves and their customers for free!

Is it just me, or does this business model make no sense?

Link | Posted on Jun 05, 2017 10:12 AM PDT by Julian Mehnle