.UK Announced

[Alpha]

Because it is more profitable to sell a small number of domains at a multiple of fair value and leave the rest unsold, than it is to sell all at fair value.

Fair value I define as a dollar more than whatever the second highest bidder will pay. The domain market is extraordinary - in very few other markets will frequently the top bidder be prepared to pay a multiple of anyone else. So in most markets it makes sense to settle for fair prices, but not in this one.

Perhaps domainers should have been required to turn over ten per cent of their stock each year, to stop them holding out for the multiple of fair value prices that leave so much stock unsold.

good idea. lets make all those farmers and land owners do the same. And the people who make Fifa 13 that I went out to buy yesterday; why is that game so much more expensive than the others at Christmas.. we should make them sell it cheaper.

Can I come round to your house and have a look in your wardrobe and take all the clothes you haven't worn for a while and give them to the needy?

What planet exactly are you on? or are you just anti-capitalism.

 

[righthand]

Your response doesn't explain why he wouldn't dump the ones that will never sell. If most will never sell then they're an unnecessary cost, surely, so why doesn't he dump those?

How long should a registrant wait in order to ascertain who the highest and second highest bidders for a domain name are? What if there is only ever a single offer?

Domain names are a tool to allow entities to accomplish things online. Each entity has a different idea and a different expected outcome. This goes some way to explain wildly differing valuations of the same domain name without taking traffic metrics into account for instance.

He doesn't know which are the ones that won't sell. He just prices them all at a multiple of fair value and accepts that most will never sell.

Indeed it's very difficult to know what the second highest bid for a domain might be. But if less than 1% of stock is being sold each year, it's a certainty that prices are being set well above the 'fair' level.

Because if after 10+ years he still owns all but a few % of the domains, then they've mostly been priced too high for the highest bidder, let alone the second highest.

 

[righthand]

good idea. lets make all those farmers and land owners do the same. And the people who make Fifa 13 that I went out to buy yesterday; why is that game so much more expensive than the others at Christmas.. we should make them sell it cheaper.

Can I come round to your house and have a look in your wardrobe and take all the clothes you haven't worn for a while and give them to the needy?

What planet exactly are you on? or are you just anti-capitalism.

Computer games companies make something new that would not otherwise have been there, so their entitlements should be different.

Land is a very different thing. It usually sells for around market value. Sellers do not hoard land and hold out for prices that are often unrealistic - there is no point because if land goes for X and acre and asking price is 2X, it will never sell. Buyers nearly always have a good alternative.

I am not anti-capitalist, but I am pro controlling monopolies. The seller of a domain name can hold a pretty good monopoly. A particular domain may have an unusual value to me, which seller can exploit. Perhaps have already named my business, or have limited choice due to existing product names.

I don't have a problem with all domain speculation. It just seems unacceptable that one can make an offer for a domain that is probably the best offer there will ever be, and yet still be declined by a seller who thinks he might be able to screw more out of you. Not a very savoury first step on the road to building a business.

 

[Alpha]

Land is a very different thing. It usually sells for around market value. Sellers do not hoard land and hold out for prices that are often unrealistic...

Are you sure about that, or did you just make that up because it fits your argument?

there are many examples of land being bought and resold not based on market value, but based on the potential of what a developer can do with it.

It wasn't long ago that we were reading about people buying green-belt land, as a speculation on the planning regulations one day being relaxed.

Do you really want to live in a country where it is dictated what is "fair", and you are penalized if you strive for more. We have country's in the world that act just like that, I won't name them for fear of upsetting the PC police here.. but you get my point, we all know who they are, and the majority of us look at them in almost disbelief... yet here you are suggesting something similar but just for domain names.

 

[getmein]

Computer games companies make something new that would not otherwise have been there, so their entitlements should be different.

We could say that about google, they made something new and they have a far bigger monopoly on where webusers go than domainers. Each domain was 'new' at the point of registration, should the owner not also be entitled to the benefits of their domain? How long should these 'entitlements' last?

Land is a very different thing. It usually sells for around market value. Sellers do not hoard land and hold out for prices that are often unrealistic - there is no point because if land goes for X and acre and asking price is 2X, it will never sell. Buyers nearly always have a good alternative.

I think you nearly always have an alternative when it comes to domains, might not be as good but as a buyer you decide what you'll pay and if you think it's worth it.

A particular domain may have an unusual value to me, which seller can exploit. Perhaps have already named my business, or have limited choice due to existing product names.

I understand what you're saying and the frustration this could cause. However, I think what you call exploitation, is in fact also called business. If I want to take a lease on a property in Oxford Street, I know a large percentage of my costs will be the property. I can see that as exploitation by the landlord, or I can see it as cost of doing business. The cost is the same, all that changes, is how you frame it in your mind.

I don't have a problem with all domain speculation. It just seems unacceptable that one can make an offer for a domain that is probably the best offer there will ever be, and yet still be declined by a seller who thinks he might be able to screw more out of you.

The seller has no way of knowing if it 'is probably the best offer'. Sellers can make mistakes, get greedy and end up not selling the names - thats one of the downsides of speculation. I think all sellers will have situations where they indeed should have sold at the offered price but across a portfolio have reasoned their net income is higher by holding out for higher prices.

 

[righthand]

Are you sure about that, or did you just make that up because it fits your argument?

there are many examples of land being bought and resold not based on market value, but based on the potential of what a developer can do with it.

It wasn't long ago that we were reading about people buying green-belt land, as a speculation on the planning regulations one day being relaxed.

Do you really want to live in a country where it is dictated what is "fair", and you are penalized if you strive for more. We have country's in the world that act just like that, I won't name them for fear of upsetting the PC police here.. but you get my point, we all know who they are, and the majority of us look at them in almost disbelief... yet here you are suggesting something similar but just for domain names.

Rarely is the top bidder for a piece of land willing to pay twice as much as the next bidder - so there is no point in the seller holding out for a two times or more fair value price. But that scenario is common in the domain market.

Perhaps controlling the domain market would be more trouble than it's worth. It just seems that the current situation, whereby many decent domains will never be put to use, is far from ideal.

 

[righthand]

We could say that about google, they made something new and they have a far bigger monopoly on where webusers go than domainers. Each domain was 'new' at the point of registration, should the owner not also be entitled to the benefits of their domain? How long should these 'entitlements' last?

I think you nearly always have an alternative when it comes to domains, might not be as good but as a buyer you decide what you'll pay and if you think it's worth it.

I understand what you're saying and the frustration this could cause. However, I think what you call exploitation, is in fact also called business. If I want to take a lease on a property in Oxford Street, I know a large percentage of my costs will be the property. I can see that as exploitation by the landlord, or I can see it as cost of doing business. The cost is the same, all that changes, is how you frame it in your mind.

The seller has no way of knowing if it 'is probably the best offer'. Sellers can make mistakes, get greedy and end up not selling the names - thats one of the downsides of speculation. I think all sellers will have situations where they indeed should have sold at the offered price but across a portfolio have reasoned their net income is higher by holding out for higher prices.

Unlike the domainer, the computer programmer has created something that would not otherwise have been available.

Often the buyer does have reasonable alternatives - but regardless buying a domain can be an ardous process because many domains do not have asking prices. Or the seller just picks a number out of the air that may be nowhere near what he's really willing to accept. A buyer can spend much time coming up with a name and considering exactly how much it is worth to him, only to find that his offer isn't enough, and having to go through the process all over again.

And there are many occasions where anything less than the exact match .com is not worth bothering with - if a competitor later takes the domain instead, effort may have been counterproductive. Or it does not reflect well on your business if you are trading at joneswidgetsonline.com while joneswidgets.com is a parking page. Domainer can extract some of the value of your brand in addition to the value of the domain name.

 

[websaway]

Computer games companies make something new that would not otherwise have been there, so their entitlements should be different.

Land is a very different thing. It usually sells for around market value. Sellers do not hoard land and hold out for prices that are often unrealistic - there is no point because if land goes for X and acre and asking price is 2X, it will never sell. Buyers nearly always have a good alternative.

I am not anti-capitalist, but I am pro controlling monopolies. The seller of a domain name can hold a pretty good monopoly. A particular domain may have an unusual value to me, which seller can exploit. Perhaps have already named my business, or have limited choice due to existing product names.

I don't have a problem with all domain speculation. It just seems unacceptable that one can make an offer for a domain that is probably the best offer there will ever be, and yet still be declined by a seller who thinks he might be able to screw more out of you. Not a very savoury first step on the road to building a business.

Congratulations !

This is the among the most naive posts I have ever seen on this forum.
It's back to the drawing board for you.

 

[righthand]

Congratulations !

This is the among the most naive posts I have ever seen on this forum.
It's back to the drawing board for you.

I’ll let you think that. Didn’t intend to take up so much space - doesn't achieve anything.

 

[grantw]

I’ll let you think that. Didn’t intend to take up so much space - doesn't achieve anything.

Why are you using 2 usernames?

Grant

 

[Systreg]

I’ll let you think that. Didn’t intend to take up so much space - doesn't achieve anything.

Why are you posting on this topic/forum using 2 different user names?

You just posted the same thing on the previous page under your Sorlag user name before you edited that post (Edit: Your Sorlag post has since been deleted):

 

[Alpha]

Why are you posting on this topic/forum using 2 different user names?

You just posted the same thing on the previous page under your Sorlag user name before you edited that post:

Haha fail.
@Sorlag/righthand: you need to go back to troll school

 

[sorlag]

Why are you using 2 usernames?

Grant

Evidently I wished that first post to be deleted. Domain message boards largely feature only one side of the story, that of the domainer. I occasionally feel like giving the side of the buyer, and prefer to do so anonymously, though it hardly matters as I'm largely out of the industry anyway.

 

[websaway]

Evidently I wished that first post to be deleted. Domain message boards largely feature only one side of the story, that of the domainer. I occasionally feel like giving the side of the buyer, and prefer to do so anonymously, though it hardly matters as I'm largely out of the industry anyway.

who are you speaking as now sorlag or righthand ?

 

[sorlag]

who are you speaking as now sorlag or righthand ?

take your pick, but I feel I have now taken up quite enough space in this thread

 

[foz]

"Fair value" would be impossible to pin down. Ask 20-30 knowledgeable domain people to appraise a name and the variance in value will be apparent.

And when has business itself been "fair", the alpha groups always come out on top.

 

[Stephen]

UK Government ?

Trying to find which Government departments, officials, committees,
sub committees etc. deal with the UK internet and domain names
to provide them with the debate on what is wrong with
the Nominet .uk proposal and the consequences if it goes ahead.

Any help would be appreciated.

 

[mojoco]

Trying to find which Government departments, officials, committees,
sub committees etc. deal with the UK internet and domain names
to provide them with the debate on what is wrong with
the Nominet .uk proposal and the consequences if it goes ahead.

Any help would be appreciated.

Perhaps Alex Blowers Director of Legal & Policy at Nominet could provide some info..........

"We continue to work with government, law enforcement agencies and policy makers to ensure the entire .uk domain name space remains a trusted and safe environment."

 

[GreyWing]

Trying to find which Government departments, officials, committees,
sub committees etc. deal with the UK internet and domain names
to provide them with the debate on what is wrong with
the Nominet .uk proposal and the consequences if it goes ahead.

Any help would be appreciated.

Certainly BIS, DMCS are the main two.

 

[Edwin]

Trying to find which Government departments, officials, committees,
sub committees etc. deal with the UK internet and domain names
to provide them with the debate on what is wrong with
the Nominet .uk proposal and the consequences if it goes ahead.

Any help would be appreciated.

Tangentially related, but you may want to look through Hansard to see which MPs and Lords have mentioned Nominet in the past (and which have taken Nominet's money to cover travel or other expenses)
http://www.parliament.uk/search/results/?q=nominet