Premium .Mobi Domain Names Still Out of Compliance - Domain Name Wire

[Scavenger]

<img alt="" height="1" width="1">
Premium .Mobi Domain Names Still Out of Compliance (http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=T&ct=us/0-0&fd=R&url=http://domainnamewire.com/2008/06/03/premium-mobi-domain-names-still-out-of-compliance/&cid=0&ei=inFFSJf2BIe4lgS6iq2lBA&usg=AFrqEzfD3rU15Qp1IMb8PRFAwNOybgqJKg)
Domain Name Wire, TX - 16 minutes ago
dotMobi is currently working on its premium name compliance program and is encouraged to see site development roll out across some of its auction names. ...


More... (http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=T&ct=us/0-0&fd=R&url=http://domainnamewire.com/2008/06/03/premium-mobi-domain-names-still-out-of-compliance/&cid=0&ei=inFFSJf2BIe4lgS6iq2lBA&usg=AFrqEzfD3rU15Qp1IMb8PRFAwNOybgqJKg)

[Scandiman]

Far from 'best efforts' on those domains. Need to either enforce those 'best effort' requirements or drop the stipulation and pursue another path.

[Gerry]

So, what is to become of this?

Below are the top 25 domain sales from the first Sedo premium auction and their current status:


Hosting.mobi forwardes to dclux.com, non-mobi complaint web page
Bank.mobi does not resolve
Download.mobi does not resolve
Currency.mobi does not resolve
Insurance.mobi does not resolve
Chat.mobi non-mobi parking page
Traffic.mobi non-mobi parking page
Books.mobi non-mobi parking page
Free.mobi does not resolve
Loans.mobi compliant parking page
Marketing.mobi does not resolve
Creditcard.mobi does not resolve
Rent.mobi compliant parking page
Creditcards.mobi does not resolve
Voip.mobi forwards to VOIPgate.com, non-mobi compliant web page
Webcam.mobi does not resolve
DomainName.mobi does not resolve
DomainNames.mobi forwards to EUROdns.com
Advertising.mobi compliant parked page
Downloads.mobi non-mobi compliant web page
Credit.mobi compliant parking page
Atm.mobi non-mobi compliant web page
Payment.mobi non-mobi compliant web page
Index.mobi non-mobi compliant web page
Cricket.mobi compliant parking page

[Scandiman]

So, what is to become of this?Ultimately up to mTLD on this one. Carrots will only go so far, there needs to come a time for the stick.

http://media.citypages.com/1562010.40.jpg

[Pred]

Carrots will only go so far,

:eek2: :embarassed:


Ultimately up to mTLD on this one. there needs to come a time for the stick.

http://media.citypages.com/1562010.40.jpg

what's her hourly rate? i'm in :biggrin:

[Scandiman]

what's her hourly rate? i'm in :biggrin:

I figured you'd find that alluring :laugh:

[hawkeye]

uhh, I'll take that phone number too Pred. :rolleyes2: :embarassed: :smile:

[noonoo1]

they do these in france i believe

[Pred]

I figured you'd find that alluring :laugh:

what can i say.......public school education :coo2l:
although usually it was a sports master wrapping his size 12 trainer round the back of your head :embarassed:

[coast]

And now for something completely different...

Today's topic: Out of compliance mobi premiums. :laugh::laugh::laugh:

[Andres Kello]

The best approach IMHO is to avoid having to use the stick altogether which can backfire and annoy owners to the point of making them launch something "minimal" just to keep mTLD off their backs. Something "minimal" would obviously still be better than "nothing", but I think this extension deserves a lot better and I therefore hold it to a much higher standard. The way to avoid having to use the stick altogether (or at least minimizing its use) is by pre-filtering potential owners of Premium Domains to ensure they not only have a kick-ass development plan, but a long-term interest in the domain itself so that it doesn't pop up "for sale" within months of buying it as we've already seen with several Premiums. The only way to do that is - you guessed it - via RFP. The RFP also removes the potential loophole that is "best efforts". The "best efforts" of a guy that doesn't know how to design mobile websites and has a $1,000 budget is going to be quite different from those of a company that has been operating in this specific business for years and has a 7-figure budget. The RFP lets mTLD see beforehand exactly how good those "efforts" will be.

Having said that, for those that do not develop or have no intention of developing, I fully agree with Scandi that a stick is needed. It's very simple, if people don't "have" to develop their Premiums, many won't. To make matters worse, if others see that development isn't being enforced, they'll jump on the Premium bandwagon too with no intentions of developing, which will only compound the problem.

I think the best approach to the stick is to start off with some leniency - to show that mTLD mean no harm and are trying to work with the owners - but also reserve the ultimate stick in case that leniency is abused: forfeiture.

Speaking from experience, I do not know if 6 months is realistically enough time to get a "best efforts" site out as I've learned with Dating.mobi, hence the leniency part. So perhaps in cases where it can be demonstrated that development efforts are well underway, reasonable extensions can be given on the deadline if requested by the domain owner. I would rather launch a near-perfect version of Dating.mobi a few months late than launch a rushed version full of errors in order to meet a one-size-fits-all deadline.

However, at some point - maybe the 12 month mark - the real threat of forfeiture needs to kick in so that Premiums not developed by that point can be given to someone who will create a kick-ass site on it. I'm not even convinced the original owners should get a refund having known the rules of the game beforehand and having obstructed the development of that domain for a year.

[Scandiman]

And now for something completely different...

Today's topic: Out of compliance mobi premiums. :laugh::laugh::laugh:LOL, but in a budgie free zone.

'Compliance' is probably the wrong term to use here, easily confused with code compliance which is completely different from undeveloped Premiums with dev requirements.

Not sure how to refer to this, just don't want to introduce confusion.

[Andres Kello]

LOL, but in a budgie free zone.

'Compliance' is probably the wrong term to use here, easily confused with code compliance which is completely different from undeveloped Premiums with dev requirements.

Not sure how to refer to this, just don't want to introduce confusion.I agree, let's call it Premium Domain Compliance vs. Code Compliance. :)

[Scandiman]

However, at some point - maybe the 12 month mark - the real threat of forfeiture needs to kick in so that Premiums not developed by that point can be given to someone who will create a kick-ass site on it. I'm not even convinced the original owners should get a refund having known the rules of the game beforehand and having obstructed the development of that domain for one year.
I like it, as long as there are clear communications that the domain is going to be repossessed, maybe even duplicated in a public space for everyone to see. Clear, consistent guidelines that can be followed to demonstrate significant effort to contact the domain owner, inform them of their obligations, provide links to all the dev resources, and then, after all that process has been exhausted can forfeiture come into the scene, the option of last resort. And even then a clear plan for reallocating such domains back into the community in a consistent manner.

[Andres Kello]

I like it, as long as there are clear communications that the domain is going to be repossessed, maybe even duplicated in a public space for everyone to see. Clear, consistent guidelines that can be followed to demonstrate significant effort to contact the domain owner, inform them of their obligations, provide links to all the dev resources, and then, after all that process has been exhausted can forfeiture come into the scene, the option of last resort. And even then a clear plan for reallocating such domains back into the community in a consistent manner.I agree 100&#37; and the transparency in these cases is key. Perhaps an open "ticketing" system - where the communication between mTLD and the domain owners can be viewed by the public much like with WIPO cases - would be best. Full transparency would greatly reduce, if not eliminate, the number of accusations that mTLD was abusing its powers or acting unfairly.

[Scandiman]

I agree, let's call it Premium Domain Compliance vs. Code Compliance. :)
I just want 'compliance' out of there all together, too confusing. Also not all Premiums were released with dev requirements. All of this is in reference to the Auction End User Agreement found here http://mtld.mobi/system/files/Auction_End_User_Agreement.pdf

[Andres Kello]

I just want 'compliance' out of there all together, too confusing. Also not all Premiums were released with dev requirements. All of this is in reference to the Auction End User Agreement found here http://mtld.mobi/system/files/Auction_End_User_Agreement.pdfI agree 'compliance' is confusing as it's used for code compliance as well, but it's technically the correct term to use since owners of Premium Domains with Dev Requirements must comply with those requirements.

What do you suggest calling it?

[Scandiman]

I agree 'compliance' is confusing as it's used for code compliance as well, but it's technically the correct term to use since owners of Premium Domains with Dev Requirements must comply with those requirements.

What do you suggest calling it?
How about using adherence... Dev Requirement Adherence? Or Premium Dev Adherence?

[coast]

What if we call it "play by the rules premium development" or something like that? I agree there should be some leniency, with the operative word being "some." If left to their own devices, many people will park it and forget it. I think a refund protects mtld from lawsuits to a degree and keeping the name exposes them.

[Andres Kello]

Premium Dev Adherence?I'm fine with that.

Let's get back to the topic at hand:


How many of you think there should be some leniency with regards to the Premium Development Adherence deadline?



How many of you think mTLD should use the forfeiture of Premium Domains as a last resort in cases where Adherence is neglected for too long?


(Note: you can agree with both, they're not mutually exclusive)

[gogo]

no to leniency, yes to forfeiture - that way the ball is in the domain owner's court and they have to approach MTLD if they want some sort of extension.

Why not require a "development deposit" - say 10-25% of the sale price in addition to the sale price - which is held in escrow and can only be got back when development is completed to a satisfactory standard. Agreed delays would incur delayed development penalties deducted from the deposit before it was refunded.

[Scandiman]

I'm fine with that.

Let's get back to the topic at hand:


How many of you think there should be some leniency with regards to the Premium Development Adherence deadline?



How many of you think mTLD should use the forfeiture of Premium Domains as a last resort in cases where Adherence is neglected for too long?


(Note: you can agree with both, they're not mutually exclusive)I think they should give them all to me ;):laugh:

Seriously though, initial leniency, tons of notices, more notices, a few more notices, one more notice, then forfeiture. As for a refund... no. That's like having a built in hedge against being unable to flip the domain in the alloted time. Domainers need to get the message: If you buy it then build it, or you will lose it.

[Work In Progress]

I actually posted something similar on another thread earlier today.

Leniency- Up to a point. If a company / individual can come up with proof they're working on a great site...then, fine. If they've had this name for the past 6 months and have nothing but changed nameservers....no

I think fines would help. If you've gone past your deadline, then you get fined (if you wish to keep the domain). Fine could be per day, per week, per month....whatever. Somebody needs to take accountability. If you don't play by the rules, give it up. No refunds. You knew about this beforehand. Kind of answers my feelings on forfeiture...:embarassed:

[domainitrix]

This is just a crazy off the wall idea....

But, what if these premier name owners are made to buy a development package with companies like Fortune Cooky or pool of other premier companies that will tailor make the site for them--.mobi not having to be responsible for the outcome of the product of course. If the name is way past the site development deadline.

Just a thought!

[hawkeye]

I agree with 'some' leniency at first, coupled with 'prodding' for completion. 6 months is too soon, and 12 months is reasonable. However from then, the owner should be notified that 'new owners' are being sought (and actually should be), and awarded if not in adherence by the 15th month. Tough titty on the monies paid. If one agrees to rules set in place before proceeding... oh well..., Life's a bitch!

Also perhaps there should be a requirement of a mobi compliant 'Coming Soon' page, so something resolves when keyed in. And maybe even a commital date be mentioned on when the site 'should be/will be' operational. A little motivational thing for them to be aware to. (Also would be a nice embarrassment to them to not complete it!)

[vikrantjain22]

The enforcement should be strictly applied as soon as the time for 6 months comes to an end. As a business mTld needs to stand up to its words and act accordingly. A compromise once is a compromise always and this certainly is becoming the latest butt of jokes everywhere mocking the entire community on the enforcement requirements of the agreement.
A commitment is a commitment and each of the bidders were aware of the requirement and had agreed to abide by them.

[Pred]

The enforcement should be strictly applied as soon as the time for 6 months comes to an end. As a business mTld needs to stand up to its words and act accordingly. A compromise once is a compromise always and this certainly is becoming the latest butt of jokes everywhere mocking the entire community on the enforcement requirements of the agreement.
A commitment is a commitment and each of the bidders were aware of the requirement and had agreed to abide by them.

yes agreed :coo2l:

[jack_sparrow]

Sorry, I dont get enough time to post - but definitely find time to read thru anything important :)

Tell me something - why dont the authorities define something similar compliance for the cellular handsets - why does every phone has a different display size, cache memory, display capability, diff graphic rendering, diff parsing, and 40 more parameters.

My company survives on this faults as we do on-the-fly customization for any websites for any handset - irrespective of codes or compliance - so even the most horribly done website -be it php or java or flash or html or xml and the handset be nokia, motorola or iphone we have a solution for all :)

But that apart when there is so much of noise on code compliance why not a browser compliance for mobile phones ??

There is no single set of code or mark-up language or graphics format which can be viewed universally , smoothly and correctly on all handsets in the same uniform way... for website you do minimal optimization for IE, FF, Mozilla etc and you are done... but for mobile phones - only god knows :dontknow:

Thats why even AOL is one of our top customers :)

Cheers and all the best to all of you...

[Scandiman]

Sorry, I dont get enough time to post - but definitely find time to read thru anything important :)

Tell me something - why dont the authorities define something similar compliance for the cellular handsets - why does every phone has a different display size, cache memory, display capability, diff graphic rendering, diff parsing, and 40 more parameters.

Oh, wouldn't that be a dream for the coders but a nightmare for those trying to differentiate their products in the marketplace. Besides, at least for me, I'd rather not have any 'authorities' who dictate this kind of detail for an entire family of products.



My company survives on this faults as we do on-the-fly customization for any websites for any handset - irrespective of codes or compliance - so even the most horribly done website -be it php or java or flash or html or xml and the handset be nokia, motorola or iphone we have a solution for all :)

But that apart when there is so much of noise on code compliance why not a browser compliance for mobile phones ??

There is no single set of code or mark-up language or graphics format which can be viewed universally , smoothly and correctly on all handsets in the same uniform way... for website you do minimal optimization for IE, FF, Mozilla etc and you are done... but for mobile phones - only god knows :dontknow:

Thats why even AOL is one of our top customers :)

Cheers and all the best to all of you...

Are you speaking of a page not displaying the same or not loading at all?

[TLD]

The enforcement should be strictly applied as soon as the time for 6 months comes to an end. As a business mTld needs to stand up to its words and act accordingly. A compromise once is a compromise always and this certainly is becoming the latest butt of jokes everywhere mocking the entire community on the enforcement requirements of the agreement.
A commitment is a commitment and each of the bidders were aware of the requirement and had agreed to abide by them.

only way. at least warnings should be issued

[coast]

The enforcement should be strictly applied as soon as the time for 6 months comes to an end. As a business mTld needs to stand up to its words and act accordingly. A compromise once is a compromise always and this certainly is becoming the latest butt of jokes everywhere mocking the entire community on the enforcement requirements of the agreement.
A commitment is a commitment and each of the bidders were aware of the requirement and had agreed to abide by them.

I would agree to "leniency" as an extension of time granted by mTLD at their discretion. I'd like to see reminders issued at months 4, 5, and a warning 15 days into month 6. Vik is right, there needs to be accountability.

[cobo]

Maybe do it like baseball:
Strike One: Warning #1 at Month 6.
Strike Two: Month 9 : Warning #2 and must show proof of ongoing development effort.
If no proof, you are out (just like a caught foul ball). Name taken back and into auction it goes.
Strike Three: Month 12, if not fully developed, you are out! Name taken back and into auction it goes.
Just a quick thought.

[DomainTalker]

First, personally, I intend to comply with the 6 month rule for development of premiums into websites (but, please see below).

Second, I intend that each of my premium names will ultimately be developed into significant businesses, in their own right.


Having said that, its become very obvious to me that 6 months - whilst certainly long enough to get a reasonably respectable site up - is generally nowhere near long enough to develop the great premium names into truly quality business applications....Applications that would represent .mobi as well as it could possibly be done....Many of the great .com sites, of course, were developed to their current standard over many years, not a handful of months.


dotmobi - and we - should very carefully manage this issue of 6 month compliance, in my opinion...

In my experience, rules, and national laws, that are impractical (that have unintended consequences) in practice, invite civil disobedience, and non-adherence....There are several practical issues involved in this 6 month rule, that perhaps, could have been thought about a bit more carefully before writing it into agreements:


(i) Many large corporates (the kind of end user dotmobi would like to own .mobis) have a very long decision-making process.

So, even if they secured a .mobi premium, a trail-time of 12 months - and much longer - to determine their strategy as to exactly how they could best build & take advantage of the name in a new, untested, mobile market-space, would not be unusual.

(and, just saying: 'well, they knew the rules' simply betrays a lack of understanding about how most large organisations work - Large corporates, in particular, should be given all the time they need, imo, to work out how to get behind a mobile strategy with their name(s). Very often they will take that time, anyway....I think that should have been built into the thinking from the beginning ).


(ii) In terms of individuals (and corporates, too) there are many, many factors that can affect the timing of a roll-out of a new premium website. These include:


- Thorough determination of a strategy for the business (yes, these are not just names - these 'names' are potential major businesses for individuals, and for Corporates)....Getting this right takes research, time, and careful consideration....6 months barely registers in the larger scheme of things.

And, its very much in .mobi's interest, imo, that folks take the time they need to do the best possible job on their premiums....And, this is much more than technical excellence (that's a minimum), its content excellence, that people want.


- Major events in one's life - or, the Corporate business environment....During any 6 month period, major things can happen, that prevent, or delay, serious projects....If Bear Stearns, JP Morgan, or Merrill Lynch, had bought ,mobi premiums at auction in, say, Dec 2007, how many of them may have developed important developed sites today, after the 'other priorities' they may have had to deal with during the recent financial crisis, and, are still dealing with (including, corporate survival, and keeping their jobs)?

Perhaps, these Corporates would have focused on the new mobile opportunities via their premium .mobi name - as a top priority during this crisis - where very survival was (and is) at stake - but, its very possible that the new .mobi project would still be on the back burner, for now...

Is it a serious suggestion that dotmobi would take their premium name away for missing the 6 month deadline...???...I would hope not....It wouldn't be in .mobi's interest - and, it would actively **** off a major end user corporate (almost certainly litigation, too). Not a great business model to do that.


Similarly, at a personal level, there is divorce, illness, death in the family...a thousand unexpected reasons why people of goodwill, and good intention (and talent), could get delayed on projects in any short 6 month period...

Again, 'they knew the rules' seems arbitrarily inflexible to me, and counter-productive...That kind of rigidity - applied consistently - is begging for counter-action, and great negativity.

And, also, I'm not convinced that attacking your own financial investors - the very people that have put money down on your brand - is the finest basis for any business.

There is much more, but you get the idea.


Personally, I wouldn't have designed a business model that included a 6 month rule, in the first place....If I had felt that motivation for development of premiums was important to the strategy, I would have designed some other model to achieve it.

But, since dotmobi went with that, then, on balance, I think that they should be realistic, and practical, about it, and, as others have suggested, modify the 'enforcement' to working - positively, and encouragingly - with each non-adhering premium-holder, over time, to achieve the outcome they want...Not threateningly, which is often counter-productive, but supportively.....A total of 12 months (from purchase) - with regular contact - would make the world of difference, I think...and help overcome many of the possible impediments that people & Corporates can face over the short term.


In my own case, owing to the limitations of the 6 month timeframe, my strategy for my premiums has to be:


(i) Get as respectable a site up in that 6 month timeframe, as possible....But, knowing that these initial efforts will only be a fraction of what I hope they will become - and, what they should have been right from the start, if I'd had the time.

(ii) Later - go back and re-work each site/business according to a much more properly thought out business strategy for each of them - and, with the time taken to apply the resources & manpower that the task really requires...ie content, features, sub market niches, interactive capabilities, powerful SEO, research & modification, finding what works, and what doesn't etc etc....All the kind of things that 6 months doesn't realistically really allow for in building a successful business.


(iii) Marketing, and market penetration, for each of the sites, as businesses....In 6 months, I have to guess what may work, and go with that - or, simply settle for what is easily available...So, later, having met the arbitrary 6 month compliance, I may find much more sophisticated market models that really have the potential I hope for.

Sadly, this will almost certainly require a re-launch of the sites, after I've had the time to work through the issues of content, technology, market opportunities, resources, and business-building etc etc for each of them....That's wasteful, and not ideal - but, its very likely.

So, the time constraints - whilst meeting a general PR need of .mobi visibility - can work actively against producing, in 6 months, what Andres calls the 'best of breed' site, every time.


So, imo, the 6 month rule has unintended consequences - and, if rigidly enforced - would, I believe, be counter-productive...provoke fury, kill goodwill, and, ironically, turn away many (valuable individuals and corporates) who didn't manage to comply for very good reasons....


Finally, a comment to Andres....


I confess I don't have your nobless oblige, Andres, in standing aside from opportunities that may arise in domain investment. And, I don't agree that premium names should go only to large Corporates, instead of individuals...


In fact, I think that would be a great strategic mistake for the future of .mobi.


Its an interesting fact that the vast majority of great new businesses - in new fields - are not started, or created, by big business....They are mostly built by visionary individuals, with the energy and imagination to take a chance, and back their ideas (think everything from Google, to YouTube, to FaceBook - and, before them, to Microsoft, Yahoo and ebay, and before that, to the financial powerhouses, and resource mining houses etc etc etc...Mostly built by remarkable individuals.


The large Corporates can serve a purpose in using their market position, and financial clout, to help create a profile and awareness for .mobi....So, we want them to get in there with us - the more the merrier....


...But, I believe the great new mobile businesses - the new world that's in the making right now - will be built by imaginative individuals, as they have so often been before.....And, I want great opportunities for these individuals - using great premium names from .mobi - to be in there with the chance to do it.


So, Andres.....As a man with vision, and energy, and imagination, I'd like to hear you saying exactly the opposite to what you've been saying on this....Invest more, yourself, man....Get premiums into the hands of those real go-getter individuals, with ability & talent - and lets see the next powerhouse(s) in the mobile space from them.

.

[Pred]

thats' an excellent post and i fully agree. some really good points made
consider yourself ........ 'blank' ?................. can you guess? :biggrin:

[coast]

Thank you for sharing your opinions, DomainTalker. As someone who has numerous premium domain names and is working to develop them, it is insightful to learn your views. This is why I suggested an ability for mTLD to offer extensions of the 6 month rule for the very reasons you mentioned.

Also, I agree that mobility members and other like-minded individuals should be the ones to buy premium names and make sure they get into the hands of people who would develop them properly, especially if they are not yet educated to know about .mobi or are on a longer funnel. The only good news I can see to all the .mobi bashing is the prices are lower and buyers can use the savings to pay for more development.

[Caroline Greer]

Some very interesting comments within this thread and DT, I think your post perfectly illustrates the realities on all sides.

While I am NOT drawing any parallels here, we clearly don't want (or need) mass hysteria tequila.mobi style on our hands which is why we need to tread very carefully with this project.

6 months is indeed a relatively short timeframe for many corporations and individuals (particularly those that acquired a number of domains in the auctions).This is especially the case when the domain holder is new to mobile or the company, while knowing that they need to develop a 'mobile strategy', is still trying to figure out what on earth that means! However, 'best efforts' could be interpreted in a number of different ways and our continued work in the area of providing tools and resources to make development a quick and easy task should be helping matters for those that want to be helped.

In any event, we are indeed currently developing a premium name compliance plan that will hopefully address the very many issues at play.

Many thanks.

[Scandiman]

Some very interesting comments within this thread and DT, I think your post perfectly illustrates the realities on all sides.

While I am NOT drawing any parallels here, we clearly don't want (or need) mass hysteria tequila.mobi style on our hands which is why we need to tread very carefully with this project.

6 months is indeed a relatively short timeframe for many corporations and individuals (particularly those that acquired a number of domains in the auctions).This is especially the case when the domain holder is new to mobile or the company, while knowing that they need to develop a 'mobile strategy', is still trying to figure out what on earth that means! However, 'best efforts' could be interpreted in a number of different ways and our continued work in the area of providing tools and resources to make development a quick and easy task should be helping matters for those that want to be helped.

In any event, we are indeed currently developing a premium name compliance plan that will hopefully address the very many issues at play.

Many thanks.
Thanks for the comments Caroline, great to hear from you on such an important topic.

[Pred]

Thanks Caroline :coo2l:

[Andres Kello]

Thanks for posting, Caroline, it's great to hear from you here.


Finally, a comment to Andres....

I confess I don't have your nobless oblige, Andres, in standing aside from opportunities that may arise in domain investment.It's not noble of me at all, the only reason I'm doing it is because I think it will help .mobi - and therefore my investment - in the long-term, not because I feel like I'm doing anyone a favor.


And, I don't agree that premium names should go only to large Corporates, instead of individuals...

In fact, I think that would be a great strategic mistake for the future of .mobi.I'm not saying they should only go to large Corporation instead of individuals. I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that only entities - individuals, small businesses, corporations, it doesn't matter - with pre-established development plans should have the opportunity to buy the Premiums. Do you disagree with that? Does anyone here? I would genuinely be interested in seeing a counter-argument to that. If anyone believes it is better for the future of this extension - or that it will not affect it - to have Premiums be bought by entities with no pre-established development plans rather than by ones with, please explain how.

If a buyer doesn't have a plan for a Premium and is just buying it because they feel the price is "low" (yes, I've been guilty of that myself in the past but have learned from my mistakes :)), then that's not what's best for that particular domain or the extension because the development will most likely be rushed and improvised, not the next Facebook or Google. If we want the next Facebook on .mobi, we need entities with a plan getting the Premiums, and the only way to ensure that is via RFP.


Its an interesting fact that the vast majority of great new businesses - in new fields - are not started, or created, by big business....They are mostly built by visionary individuals, with the energy and imagination to take a chance, and back their ideas (think everything from Google, to YouTube, to FaceBook - and, before them, to Microsoft, Yahoo and ebay, and before that, to the financial powerhouses, and resource mining houses etc etc etc...Mostly built by remarkable individuals.I agree 100% and made this same exact point last year (http://mobility.mobi/showpost.php?p=19558&postcount=8). So I re-iterate, if the individual has a great plan, then they wouldn't have any problems getting a Premium via an RFP-filtered auction versus an open Auction, so no harm done. If they don't have a plan, then the Google, Youtube, and Facebook examples don't apply. Those great companies weren't started without a plan and certainly didn't happen by accident or chance.

My concern is that too many individuals without a plan are getting the Premiums and then "winging it" or - even worse - attempting to flip them. I know of at least 8 Premium Domains so far that are for sale by the owners, and those are just the ones I personally know about and I suspect there are a lot more. Again, that's hurting the extension because instead of focusing on properly developing and marketing those domains, the owners are focused on flipping them. They obviously never had a plan for the domain.


The large Corporates can serve a purpose in using their market position, and financial clout, to help create a profile and awareness for .mobi....So, we want them to get in there with us - the more the merrier....

...But, I believe the great new mobile businesses - the new world that's in the making right now - will be built by imaginative individuals...with imaginative plans. :)


And, I want great opportunities for these individuals - using great premium names from .mobi - to be in there with the chance to do it.And those with a great plan would still be there at an RFP-filtered auction.


So, Andres.....As a man with vision, and energy, and imagination, I'd like to hear you saying exactly the opposite to what you've been saying on this....Invest more, yourself, man....I am certainly investing more in .mobi, just not in Premiums. I spent $x,xxx buying 3 .mobi's at Sedo this week alone, none of them Premiums, of course. But you certainly will never hear me say that entities without a plan for the domain should be ending up with the Premiums. :)


Get premiums into the hands of those real go-getter individuals, with ability & talent - and lets see the next powerhouse(s) in the mobile space from them.Go-getter individuals with ability and talent will normally have a plan before buying a domain, rather than buying a domain and then creating the plan based on the domain.

DT, I think we actually agree more than you realize. I think where we disagree is with how we're generally categorizing the current set of buyers of the Premiums. Based on all the evidence I have, I don't think all the current buyers are "go-getter individuals with ability & talent". Several are just people looking for a good deal rather than looking to build the next Facebook.

I obviously don't expect other buyers with no plans to stop investing of their own accord in what could very well be undervalued or great Premiums, and that's why I think mTLD needs to implement an RFP filter. They can then auction the domain amongst those who genuinely have a plan for the domain and get the best of both worlds.

Bottom line, if a buyer is not interesting in filling out an RFP, then they probably have no plan for the domain and are not genuinely interested in it, and therefore probably should not end up with the Premium in the first place.

[coast]

Thank you Caroline. :) Welcome back.

[DomainTalker]

I'm not saying they should only go to large Corporation instead of individuals. I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that only entities - individuals, small businesses, corporations, it doesn't matter - with pre-established development plans should have the opportunity to buy the Premiums.


I doubt whether Steve Jobs - when he started Apple in his garage at home - had written some 'development plan', Andres....lol....Nor, did Bill Gates & Steve Allen, of Microsoft, when they started out on the road to creating an empire...:)...Its the nature of the beast, in a new paradigm...


...Even worse....IBM, for example (the great leading Corporation in the computer space at the time) - for all their 'corporate plans' - had made the judgement that this new paradigm of Personal Computers were not going to be a viable business, and were not putting resources into developing that market. They were just wrong.

(Then, IBM had to - later, when they saw what Bill Gates had developed, and its popularity - pay Bill Gates to get access to his technology on a PC distribution deal - the deal, which was the real foundation for Microsoft's later pre-eminence. Cost IBM millions, over time).....This kind of example is repeated over and over throughout corporate history.


The lesson is....Big Corporations are generally followers - not leaders - into new markets, and new paradigms.


...And, I'm saying that mobile internet is a new space, that, to be successful, will require new thinking, new interactions with consumers, new ways of doing business....New thinking....All of which Big Corporates are not (despite infinite resources) generally structured to be best at..

...But, its likely that its the right individuals that will take the risks to create this, and create the foundations for the future powerhouses (maybe even some here at Mobility....)


...And these kinds of entrepreneurial people so often work by sensing an opportunity - often not quite sure why its a good idea, or how it will work, or where the idea will lead them....they just sense something - and, find their way to it, by trial and error in the real world....These guys often could no more write a 'development plan' for their embryonic idea, that made sense, than give a strategy seminar at Davos.

None of that stacks up with 'pre-established business development plans' thinking....If they were good at that, they'd work for a large corporate, and - too often - have their great 'sensing of opportunities' ideas killed by internal beauracratic, and corporate budget allocations, committees...


The real value to .mobi of the big Corporates is, imo:

(i) The awareness profile, financial/marketing resources, and endorsement, they can bring to .mobi, if they adopt it for their current business, and launch & promote their .mobi sites....


(ii) And, backing an early individual's brilliant start-up idea - once the entrepreneur has seen the idea, and has it up and moving - and either joint-venturing with that individual to power it up - or, buying them out, and then pouring resources into the concept, to take it from small and promising, to large and successful.


So, its good to have the Corporates in the .mobi space...

I just wouldn't - in any way - limit the possibilities of missing out on even one original thinker getting a premium, with the chance of them getting to that point - just because he can't write a development proposal because he only has a glimmer of an great idea - and, has no idea how he's going to make it work - or, when....He/she may be exactly the kind of player that can break moulds - and launch .mobi's commercial success...

It only needs one, two, or three, of them to really make it, to explode the whole .mobi space....Don't shut them out because they are focused on exploration, trial and error, rather than on planning processes.


I do agree with you that many/most players are never going to be that exceptional individual. Many may, or may not - flip their domains for a profit. That's business. Many won't develop them at all (we've been discussing a process to handle that)....But, the positive impact of just ONE of the genius' getting a premium, and making it work is incalculable for .mobi....

I say, you don't build new worlds by structuring strategy to fit only the majority of well-organised, well-planned, rational people....You leave the door open to the mavericks - its their very irrationality, that breaks open the game. Just as Gates & Jobs did for the PC.


Its a small risk...A risk that some premiums may not get developed well, or at all, in the shortish term (in which case, the safety net of, say, a 12 month progress interaction with the registry, and ultimate withdrawal of the name, can deal with that)....And, some delay, here, or there, on some premiums, won't matter at all in the big scheme of things over the next 10-20 year timeframe, anyway.....The real downside is minimal.


But that one disorganised genius could change the entire game for .mobi.....Lets make sure they get the chance.


.

[DomainTalker]

Hi, Caroline....Thanks for reading our thoughts...

You guys have the ultimate task of deciding how to play these things, but its very healthy to be open to relevant thinking from the wider .mobi diaspora.....There are a lot of people here that have significant experience over many, many, fields....Good to tap in, and check assumptions...

.

[Scandiman]

I just wouldn't - in any way - limit the possibilities of missing out on even one original thinker getting a premium, with the chance of them getting to that point - just because he can't write a development proposal because he only has a glimmer of an great idea - and, has no idea how he's going to make it work - or, when....He/she may be exactly the kind of player that can break moulds - and launch .mobi's commercial success...

It only needs one, two, or three, of them to really make it, to explode the whole .mobi space....Don't shut them out because they are focused on exploration, trial and error, rather than on planning processes.
.
.
.

But that one disorganised genius could change the entire game for .mobi....Lets make sure they get the chance.

.
On this point DT I very much agree with you. I personally don't see fortune 500's caring a whole lot about generic domains, be it mobi or com. They're infatuated with promoting their own brands and of course I'm happy to see a .mobi following their brand name.

But with these Premium generic domains that are highly coveted by domainers I'm not deeply troubled if they all are not stellar sites. It's an unrealistic expectation IMO. Connecting 5000 domains with the 'best' end user is a huge undertaking. The problem I see though is that these domains thus far are mostly being released in domainer environments which is not the typical place to find that genius with the hot idea that can make .mobi a household word. I'm eager to discover another approach to bring the domains to a different crowd. Try different things. Maybe a cool place to try RFP'ing a few Premiums (or especially the single character domains if made available by ICANN) is in the dev.mobi environment instead of the domain community.

What would be really helpful for everyone is a cost/benefit analysis for mTLD to expand the RFP of the Premiums. It's really easy for us to want them to release top domains to someone with a cool idea, we're not the ones losing all that sales revenue. And they really have no guarantee that the hot concept will indeed take off. Balancing that short term lost income with the long term benefits to the registry is not an easy thing to project. But the information highlighted in the OP shows that the current method of name release in large is not getting the desired result of developed sites so if that is indeed the goal for the Premiums, a different approach needs to be tried.

The biggest risk I see with not enforcing the Premium development requirements is not so much the future of the extension but the loss of credibility for mTLD. The net result will be a domainer community that has no regard for the rules since the rules have no substance. We aren't there yet but if we are still having this conversation June of '09 then there will be a serious loss of credibility for mTLD, especially in the domainer community, in spite of everything positive that they are doing. It's my hope that it doesn't come to this, which is why I think it is imperative that the rules are enforced with a clear, transparent and consistent methodology, and soon. Either that or get rid of the requirement altogether since without enforcement it is not going to have the desired result anyway with the vast majority of domain speculators.

[Pred]

some really good points made here.
like coast says reminders are good. softly , softly at first.
i mean icann & registrars manage to send out send out mass emails just to remind peoiple to have correct whois! and they're hopeless

as far as the premiums though, doesn't mean there has to be an earthshattering domain on a premium generic, look around the web, the likelyhood is the greater the name, the blander the site or parked. doesnt have to be like this in mobi, far from it, but the site has to at least comply, even if parked, its not asking much., if they cant even do that, on the top premiums.

when (not if) mobi takes off, then it will start to get a lot more type in, chances are top generics will start getting quite a few more hits in partic. and thats when people want to find something resolving on the site or they will be turned off there, there and then

as far as top entrepreneurs and great developers bringing something out in mobi? doesnt matter about top generics, i almost guarantee if we get to household names in mobi sites (wouldnt it be great? :biggrin:) it will be brandables like 'migg' or something in the main, or company acronyms, like sas.mobi, it wont be like car.mobi, house.mobi etc imo. hopefully some will be great though. category crunchers are perfect to do this but in reality as we are seeing the wrong type of person usually owns, just the way it is

[DomainTalker]

The problem I see though is that these domains thus far are mostly being released in domainer environments which is not the typical place to find that genius with the hot idea that can make .mobi a household word.


I agree, Scandi....the core thing here is how do we get .mobi names - premium, or otherwise - into the hands of people that will do something exciting with them, thereby advancing .mobi...?


Maybe we should turn this on its head...?...Start with the notion that ideas & concepts are the most valuable currency right now for this - and finding the people that have them, and will do something with them, the most urgent task?


So....Instead of starting the process with a sales process (and then via auction/RFP/time-deadlines etc) hoping that names will get developed and built up, how would it be if dotmobi took a selection of premium names from their reserve, and began with a public ideas process per premium name, instead...?

I don't mean ideas & business plans as per RFP's etc...because that presupposes detailed business models, complete with investment structures, timeframes, processes, and financial support.....and, I believe that process often simply misses the next 'Steve Jobs', and his garage...

...Maybe we should structure the emphasis precisely upon world-beating ideas - and finding the world-beating people to go with them?


I mean, suppose dotmobi were to say something quite different - aimed at finding great concepts for their names - and finding the people to drive them...

Such as (as just an example):


..."Here's the name mobile.mobi...We're putting out a global call for hot concept ideas for mobile.mobi that may turn this domain into a world-leading mobile internet brand....We don't want your money - We don't want a financial plan, or a marketing plan - We want your ideas for this great domain...All ideas & concepts considered....Anybody can submit their ideas. No restrictions...."

And, suppose dotmobi were to say: "We'll give the person, with the best submitted idea/concept (in our judgement) for mobile.mobi, an 80&#37; ownership share in that domain - FREE - on certain conditions (including that dotmobi retains a 20% interest - and therefore an upside in the future value of the domain - if it becomes a successful business...Conditions could include things like the winner can do nothing else with the name at all, except develop it - no parking, no forwarding, no selling it, no anything, for, say, 5 years - but, no 6 months to develop...maybe 1-2 years).

Suppose .mobi were to limit this promotion opportunity to just 10 carefully chosen names...? (so their risk is minimal - and it doesn't affect any of their other current premium disbursement channels...).


...And, then promote this invitation to all and sundry - on blogs, social networking sites to reach the (mainly) young, non-domainer, computer-savvy folks, on domainer forums to reach the domainers, on tech forums to reach the developers, on business blogs to reach business people, on advertising forums to reach PR & Advertising agencies etc etc...cast the net as wide as it will go - including the mainstream & business real world media.

And, it wouldn't matter if the ideas arrive on paper bags, and backs of envelopes. Its the ideas that matter.


I wonder if something like that would amaze with the energy & creativity it may bring out....?....And, the chance of sheer brilliance being found - perhaps, from an unlikely source....?...If just one of those domains truly made it, it would lead the way to help motivate others to get conceptually creative, and just one great success would put .mobi on the map.

...Not to mention, the global PR opportunity - a great media story to tell in the press, and on TV (Mediaadvantages...?) to give .mobi mainstream awareness, too.


I'm not suggesting this is a fully thought through plan....But, I wonder if something 'out of the box' like this - that specifically seeks, and incentivises, great, committed people, that would be in it primarily for the opportunity to create a special something - would unearth a game-breaker to drive a premium to the skies...?

Just a thought.

.

[Scandiman]

IMaybe we should turn this on its head...?... I realize it is probably just a figure of speech but "we" don't get to turn anything. It ultimately is mTLD's decision since it is their domains. Hopefully our discussions here will prove useful in their evaluations.

Your concept of minority ownership is interesting, and the registry would be in a position to actually enforce such a contract since domains have no lien holder provisions in their registrant information. But this would correspond to a domain sale while the real value will actually reside in the business behind the domain which is what they would need to be a stakeholder in to realize any revenue from the arrangement. What would be ideal is if this concept could take hold and some standard agreements be prepared, even existing .mobi domain owners could offer their own domains up via this process in an effort to see their own domains reach a higher potential. Lots of legalities to iron out but no harm in dreaming :laugh:

[Accent]

..... Maybe we should turn this on its head...?...Start with the notion that ideas & concepts are the most valuable currency right now for this - and finding the people that have them, and will do something with them, the most urgent task? .....
We could do that here - incubate ideas for mobisites that would be potentially successful. I would love to get some ideas for my names.

Concerning the OP, it is a serious problem, particularly as it seems that most owners are not going to develop, it appears, without some pressure. This means that many will build minimal sites only to get DotMobi off their back, adding little to the extension. I question how many of the buyers even knew about the development requirements before their purchase.

Something is very wrong when you see that list of the first 25 and NONE are developed, something like 2 months after the deadline.

[coast]

As much as I believe that some people need significantly more than 6 months to develop a site to be great -- Rob, Pilot and Vcool and our top developers can't be everywhere at once you know -- there needs to be a public statement to show mTLD is in charge of this process.

Before Sedo the public perspective was that mTLD was too distant and too controlling. Here is a case where a bit more control in the process would be appreciated by the greater .mobi domaining community. It's two months after the deadline and something should be said or done.

These sites that direct to computer-only parking need to get those pages on to mobile parking, and at 6 months I want to see a coming soon page. Who cares if google doesn't like coming soon? The spiders will come back later.Allowing a site to remain parked past the deadline just allows the people with developer requirements to continue to get away with being paid for breaking their contracts and it sends the completely wrong message IMHO.

If nothing more than that, I want to see mTLD disallow commercially parked pages past the deadline. That would be a huge start.

[rob]

As much as I believe that some people need significantly more than 6 months to develop a site to be great -- Rob, Pilot and Vcool can't be everywhere at once you know -- there needs to be a public statement to show mTLD is in charge of this process.

Before Sedo the public perspective was that mTLD was too distant and too controlling. Here is a case where a bit more control in the process would be appreciated by the greater .mobi domaining community. It's two months after the deadline and something should be said or done.

These sites that direct to computer-only parking need to get those pages on to mobile parking, and at 6 months I want to see a coming soon page. Who cares if google doesn't like coming soon? Allowing a site to remain parked past the deadline just allows the people with developer requirements to continue to get away with being paid for breaking their contracts and it sends the completely wrong message IMHO.

If nothing more than that, I want to see mTLD disallow commercially parked pages past the deadline. That would be a huge start.

Once again a great post Holly!!
This is the reason i made mobisitetrader happen .. it is obviously not for money .. i did this for the extention. Example is removing web search results to make the site more mobi compliant. The site still scores only 4/5 because of adsences delimiter error. Do you think google cares? Maybe i should email them and ask them to add a & after the ; so it would be 5/5 at ready.mobi

Cheers
Rob

[Andres Kello]

None of that stacks up with 'pre-established business development plans' thinking....If they were good at that, they'd work for a large corporate, and - too often - have their great 'sensing of opportunities' ideas killed by internal beauracratic, and corporate budget allocations, committees...

These guys often could no more write a 'development plan' for their embryonic idea, that made sense, than give a strategy seminar at Davos.DT, I think you got too caught up on the word "plan" and missed my point entirely.

I wasn’t referring necessarily to a formal business plan or fully laid out plan on paper (although I think we can all agree that many successful Start-ups started exactly that way). A pre-established plan can be something as simple as a "vision" someone has for a particular concept for which a particular domain would fit perfectly.

Regardless of the terminology – plan, vision, idea, thought-process, whatever - the point is whether the buyers of Premium Domain have given any serious thought to what they wanted to do with the domain before they bid on it, or whether they bid on it in the heat of the moment just because they thought it was "cheap" as the auction clock was ticking. If we continue to have the latter, we're going to continue seeings lists like in the OP, and that should be concerning everyone.

Are you suggesting that a buyer who has given zero thought to a domain until he saw it on the auction block for "cheap" is going to be just as likely to create the next Facebook as someone who went into the auction focused on just that one specific name because they already had a vision/plan/idea for it? I highly doubt it.

Vision is what drives every entrepreneur to imagine, create, overcome challenges, and eventually succeed and vision always comes first.


I doubt whether Steve Jobs - when he started Apple in his garage at home - had written some 'development plan', Andres....lol....Nor, did Bill Gates & Steve Allen, of Microsoft, when they started out on the road to creating an empire...:)...Its the nature of the beast, in a new paradigm...Probably not, but I seriously doubt Steve Jobs had no vision - or plan in his head - when he was in his garage, or that Bill Gates dropped out of Harvard to start Microsoft with no vision or plan. Do you disagree?


The lesson is....Big Corporations are generally followers - not leaders - into new markets, and new paradigms.

...And, I'm saying that mobile internet is a new space, that, to be successful, will require new thinking, new interactions with consumers, new ways of doing business....New thinking....All of which Big Corporates are not (despite infinite resources) generally structured to be best at..

...But, its likely that its the right individuals that will take the risks to create this, and create the foundations for the future powerhouses (maybe even some here at Mobility....)Again, no one is disputing that and no one is saying only corporations should get the Premiums.


...And these kinds of entrepreneurial people so often work by sensing an opportunity - often not quite sure why its a good idea, or how it will work, or where the idea will lead them....they just sense something - and, find their way to it, by trial and error in the real world....Are you suggesting that the Premiums be used for "trial and error"? If that's the case, then we have a more divergent view of the Premiums than I thought because I hold them to a completely different standard. I have absolutely no problem with the nearly one million non-Premiums being used for "trial and error" but if the Premiums are also used for trial and error then too many of them will be sacrificed for the quest for the next big thing. There's nothing left after the Premiums, all the valuable non-Premiums are already taken. If the most generic, typed-in domains which have been specifically held back are subjected to time-consuming trial-and-error because the entities getting them had no pre-established plan/vision/idea for the domain, then the OP list is going to become the norm because I can assure you that a lot more successful businesses were created from a clear vision than from simple trial-and-error with no plan or vision. Google, Facebook, Digg, and Youtube did not happen by accident or chance.


I just wouldn't - in any way - limit the possibilities of missing out on even one original thinker getting a premium, with the chance of them getting to that point - just because he can't write a development proposal because he only has a glimmer of an great idea - and, has no idea how he's going to make it work - or, when....He/she may be exactly the kind of player that can break moulds - and launch .mobi's commercial success...
.
.
But that one disorganised genius could change the entire game for .mobi.....Lets make sure they get the chance.I think it's a little far-fetched to assume that an original thinker with a great idea for a domain or a "disorganized genius" would not be able - or willing - to fill out an RFP app. I filled one out for Why.mobi in a couple of hours and all I had was a "glimmer". If I can do it, anyone can. And let's be dead honest, all the successful companies we've been using as examples were started by people in their twenties. Do you know what generally acts as a bigger barrier to entry for a twenty-something year old than an application form? Money. Most twenty-something year olds could not afford the Premium prices to begin with, so a lot of potential young, energetic geniuses are automatically locked out of the Premiums, and an RFP wouldn't change any of that. It would only ensure that those who can afford the Premiums are qualified to own them. So I don't buy the argument that the RFP is an obstacle to entities with an idea for that particular domain.

In fact, who here genuinely believes that the RFP filter would not - generally speaking - result in more qualified suitors, be it individuals, corporations, small businesses, etc? I filled one out and I can tell you, it makes a huge difference.


Many may, or may not - flip their domains for a profit. That's business. Many won't develop them at all (we've been discussing a process to handle that)It might just be "business", but it hurts the extension as it wastes valuable time and also does not ensure an ideal suitor as the decision of who it's flipped to is up to the domain owner who will normally be more interested in short-term profit than what's best for the domain or extension. Plus, we know that most of the sales in .mobi are going to resellers, not end-users. That's not what the Premiums were reserved for, so much so that owners of Premiums are required to advise mTLD when selling a Premium.


I do agree with you that many/most players are never going to be that exceptional individual. ....But, the positive impact of just ONE of the genius' getting a premium, and making it work is incalculable for .mobi....I agree, but again, the RFP filter would not keep them out.

To use an extreme example, even if I had to choose between 1 genius getting a Premium and making it work or more than 5,000 separate non-genius entities each with their own unique vision launching their Premium and adding unique and diverse content and sites, I would choose the latter in a heartbeat because it would create an unbeatable foundation for .mobi. Even if the RFP filter somehow kept potential geniuses out, would we risk having a bunch of undeveloped or poorly developed Premiums just to give one potential genius - who happens to be unwilling to fill out an application to make his dream a reality - a shot at developing an amazing site? What if that genius ends up never showing up or fails? That's a huge gamble to take to allow for the possibility for one potential disorganized genius who is incapable of filling out a simple RFP app to get a Premium because we would risk having so many premiums undeveloped, poorly developed, or with little diversity. I don’t buy that either. Also, I don't think 1 amazing site is anywhere near enough to "make" .mobi.


Its a small risk...A risk that some premiums may not get developed well, or at all, in the shortish term (in which case, the safety net of, say, a 12 month progress interaction with the registry, and ultimate withdrawal of the name, can deal with that)....And, some delay, here, or there, on some premiums, won't matter at all in the big scheme of things over the next 10-20 year timeframe, anyway.....The real downside is minimal.I strongly disagree. It's not a small risk, it's a massive one and the downside is huge. Why? Because unlike when .com started, .mobi isn't the only solution for the mobile web. As we saw from yesterday's poll, there are several other options available, and if the content is built first on them, what's going to compel future developers - let alone mobile users - to pick .mobi over the newly-established standard? If we lose the race to become the mobile standard, .mobi will be nothing more than a .biz, and that race to the finish line is going to last significantly less than 10-20 years. The clock is ticking, have no doubt about it. Put another way, had .mobi been launched 10 years from now - with the same Premiums and compliance rules - it would have been nothing more than another .biz because by then the mobile web would have been established, just like how .com was established when .biz itself was launched. What's so fantastic about .mobi is that it was launched at the perfect, most opportune time - the true start of the mobile web - giving it the opportunity to solidify itself as the standard.

Have another look at the list in the OP. Almost 2 years into this extension, we’re supposed to be building up the ecosystem with diversity of content from several different players who have completely different backgrounds laying the groundwork for a standard. Instead, we have a bunch of Premiums with absolutely no sign of life. If that’s not an early warning signal, it should be.

I speak from personal experience - and I think a lot of you here share the exact same experience - when I say that the development work and energy you put into a domain depends greatly upon what happened before you bought the domain. I certainly had a "vision" for a mobile dating site before bidding on Dating.mobi yet had nothing on paper the day I bought it. Having had that vision, I was able to detail a much more in-depth, thorough, well-thought out, and engaging development plan for it compared to my development of names I only bought because I thought they were "cheap". And had Dating.mobi gone up for RFP, I would have easily applied for it - even though I had no formal development or business plan for it - just like I did with Why.mobi. The only difference is that it would have forced me to put my vision on paper before buying the domain rather than afterwards. What’s the harm in that? None, except that I probably would not have submitted an RFP for some of the other Premiums I bought because they were "cheap", which in retrospect would have been absolutely fine since that means someone with an actual vision or plan for it would have gotten it and probably developed something better than what I'm going to do.

Again, what do you guys think is better for the extension, having the Premiums end up in the hands of people who had a vision/plan/idea for that specific domain, or in the hands of people only interested in flipping the domain, developing via “trial and error”, or who have no intentions of developing and will be forced to develop? To me, it’s a complete no-brainer.


Diversity of Content is another important issue. When the Premiums are released via open auction, you get something else we’ve been seeing, a handful of people (again, that includes me up until recently), owning a significant portion of the Premiums. Where is the diversity in content? Have a look through this list (http://www.soldnames.com/top/mobi/) and see how often the names of owners repeat. For this ecosystem to thrive and engage, it needs more qualified players involved to add diversity. Where is the diversity of content and ideas going to come from? The RFP filter makes it considerably more difficult (and expensive!) for one entity to own too many Premiums.

Since in an open auction, only money talks, let's use another extreme example to look at the diversity issue from a different angle. Let's say a billionaire comes in, jumps on the Premium bandwagon, and scoops up the 4,000+ Premiums left and develops each one. How diverse do you think those sites will be? He'll probably use the same backend, templates, affiliate programs, etc, for several of them. We would have over 4,000 of the best .mobi domains looking pretty much the same with no diversity to make the ecosystem unique, interesting, and engaging enough for the average user. Not to mention that one person could hardly create the next Facebook, Google, Digg, and Youtube simultaneously.


Folks, I know this isn’t the most popular point of view and that everyone wants to have the opportunity to buy as many Premiums as they want without any obstacles or restrictions. When the first auctions started, I thought the same way. But based on my personal experiences and deep observations from different angles of all the information I have access to in this industry, I sincerely believe that is a myopic view because that's not going to create the quality and diversity of content needed to make the .mobi ecosystem engaging enough to solidify itself as the standard for the mobile web, which will ultimately hurt all our investments in the very Premiums we're discussing. This industry needs to consider that OP list an early warning signal and course-correct to reach the end goal.



Maybe we should turn this on its head...?...Start with the notion that ideas & concepts are the most valuable currency right now for this - and finding the people that have them, and will do something with them, the most urgent task?Now we're starting to be on the same wavelength, I think. :) I fully agree that ideas and concepts are the most valuable currency, a lot more than the greenback, although I also accept that the Premiums are an important funding source for mTLD, which is why I still believe a hybrid RFP Auction is the best of both worlds.

So, the question we have to ask ourselves is, do we want to have to force people who do not want to develop their Premiums to develop them anyway, or find a way to avoid that altogether and ensure people who are strongly motivated and qualified to develop their Premiums get them in the first place?

[Andres Kello]

This is the reason i made mobisitetrader happen .. it is obviously not for money .. i did this for the extention.We need more people like you, Rob! :)

[DomainTalker]

Andres,

I do enjoy discussions with you - tho, I'm sorry my thoughts provoked the need in you to write quite so much...!!...:)


Reading your posts above, I don't think we are actually all that far apart on the core issue...

...We both agree that premiums need to be developed; We both agree that the clock is ticking on .mobi's place in the mobile firmament; We both agree that there's a place for the individual in owning premium names; We both energetically support .mobi as the vehicle & the mechanism for the future (and present) mobile web etc


What we disagree about are the tactics & emphasis to be placed on certain things, to achieve it, at this time - And, I believe, we disagree on an underlying philosophy about how best that should be managed.


I think we need to be very careful, at this particular moment in the development of the mobile web - and .mobi, in particular.


Yes, I'm sure we are all disappointed that the whole mobile thing has not roared ever upwards, without a pause....And, many are nervous about the longer-than-hoped-for time its taking for the truly mass penetration and usage of handheld internet-enabled mobile devices....And, disappointed in the slower than expected development of the 350, or so, .mobi premium names, so far issued.....And, some are concerned about the ROI timeframe on their .mobi investments.

And, yes, we are aware of competitive forces in the mobile space.


My caution to everyone, is that we do not over-react to this disappointment, by either, attempting to force the problem to go away by over-tight administrative action...Or, by trying to engineer a solution by trying to mandate some of the important elements within the .mobi diaspora....My observation is that kind of thing never works - and, often makes things worse.


First, let me respond to a few comments you made.




Are you suggesting that a buyer who has given zero thought to a domain until he saw it on the auction block for "cheap" is going to be just as likely to create the next Facebook...?

Why not?

...I built an incredibly successful business from a brand new business idea (in a field I knew nothing about) that I once jotted down on the back of an envelope at a lunchtime - By that same afternoon, I was investing money in making it happen.


The important thing, in any enterprise, Andres, is not how long you ruminate over it - but the quality of the opportunity, and the belief, passion & excellence you bring to making it happen.


Absolutely, I believe its possible to build a great business - over time - based on a domain, whose field it represents, that the buyer may initially know little about.

We learn....And if we're good, we'll do it proud.




Are you suggesting that the Premiums be used for "trial and error"?

No...not in the shallow sense implied by this question...

I thought I was quite clear that I meant the development of any domain - and the business we build around it - will inevitably involve fine-tuning, after the site is launched...discovering what features of the business turn out to be most popular - what is less popular - what becomes profitable, and what doesn't - what should be added, what removed etc..

Whilst we do our best - in any business - to predict in advance the optimum business package, if we're smart, we will adjust the offering, adjust to actual performance....Try things, and adjust things, if necessary.

That's called 'trial and error'




Having had that vision, I was able to detail a much more in-depth, thorough, well-thought out, and engaging development plan for it compared to my development of names I only bought because I thought they were "cheap"

Well, I'm pleased for you. I look forward to enjoying that vision when it is ready for the world to see.


I won't dwell on the 'cheap' point....But....that's one of the several times, in your post, you referred to buying premium domains "cheap", as if there was something wrong with buying something at market price - whatever that market price may be, on a given day.......There's nothing wrong, imo, with being the beneficiary of a bit of luck at an auction....I won't apologise for that.

...And, there is NO connection that I can see between the price one pays for a premium domain - and the commitment to doing the best one can with it....You may have had a problem with that, for yourself, but, I don't.


Nor, do I believe I have any problem with constructing a vision for my premiums - even if I got some of them 'cheap', and unexpectedly.




For this ecosystem to thrive and engage, it needs more qualified players involved to add diversity (my colour red)

What exactly does 'qualified' mean?....And who is qualified enough to own .mobi premium names?...

Sure, dotmobi could play god - and simply allocate names to people, or organisations, on some criteria....But, I'd strongly advise against it....'Command' processes always distort market dynamics negatively.

Would this 'qualification' be based on technical web-skills?...On business acumen?...On the level of passion?...Some panel's idea of a good idea?...On who writes business plans?...On the impressive name of an organisation?....On?....On?...


Y'see, Andres, this is where you and diverge sharply...


When someone sets themselves up (or allows another entity to assume the role) as some kind of 'Standards Commissioner' on creative & entrepreneurial market efforts - deciding who is, and who is not, 'qualified' to own premium names, in this case - then we're asking for trouble, imo.

You can't mandate or dictate, the success of free markets, and exactly how participants will create those markets....Markets & individuals do that. And, I believe, the best individuals are self-selecting.....The answer is to set the right frameworks - and manage it intelligently - with a mix of carrot & stick - and allow the energy to flow freely....Not try to micro-manage every player in the market....And, its arrogant to suggest it, imo.




...everyone wants to have the opportunity to buy as many Premiums as they want

And, so they should, imo....!!...Nothing wrong with that...


If .mobi's place in the mobile web makes sense - as a proposition (and I believe it does, of course) - then participants will find a way to succeed....You just need a fair, sensible, supportive, realistic, and well-balanced, oversight system to help maximise outcomes.


Micro-managing some quota allocation system - limiting people to a certain number of premium domains - would be horrendous, I think...!!...The absolute worst way to get powerful outcomes.




Since in an open auction, only money talks, let's use another extreme example to look at the diversity issue from a different angle. Let's say a billionaire comes in, jumps on the Premium bandwagon, and scoops up the 4,000+ Premiums left and develops each one. How diverse do you think those sites will be? He'll probably use the same backend, templates, affiliate programs, etc, for several of them. (colour added)

Andres, this is window-dressing, dressed up as a point of substance.


Its a vast assumption that the owner of many premiums will not invest best-efforts to maximise his ROI, by, effectively (if I understand you) turning out 'boiler-plate', ordinary websites. He'd be a poor businessman, if he did that....That's an insult to anyone that owns more than a few .mobi premiums - and, its based on pure supposition.


Yes, I believe that a 6 month timeframe stacks the odds against the creation of 'best of breed' websites right off the bat (as I said, for many reasons, including, by comparison, that the best .com sites often took years to evolve into top sites) - and, I'm not saying it cannot be done (I'm sure you will achieve that, yourself)...

...But that's VERY different from saying, as you do, that therefore people that own multiple names won't do them full justice - and, therefore they shouldn't be allowed to own them...!!...I think that's the wrong conclusion to draw, from the wrong base assumption.

If people have invested in premiums - and made the mistake of thinking they could be parked like .com names - gain revenue - and wait til the market rises....Well...they misread the mobile market dynamic, imo - and misread dotmobi's requirements - and a poor ROI for them will reflect that.


But, to suggest that the solution is to cut out those very people that are ready, willing, and able, to invest in your brand, on some arbitrary quota allocation, then you are turning away your own investors - and, that's madness, imo....especially when launching into a new, untried, untested, mobile market, where we have to create the market, itself, from the ground up...!!

I say, if one wants a faster take up of website development, manage & encourage the people concerned - and the specific issues arising with them (including, after best efforts, ultimately removal of the domain)...

...Don't solve the problem by distorting & mandating the investor-base....Nor, by eating your own.



And, here's the thing:


At heart, I don't believe in mandating markets, and market activity...

Yes, there's a lot you can & should do to help optimise outcomes....You can set goals....You can set guidelines....You can offer incentives....You can lay down sanctions...You can regulate them sensibly with sensible, practical, frameworks...You can persuade & encourage....You can provide tools...You can enforce sensible sanctions, in a sensible manner, using sound judgement....You can assist, guide, advise, and encourage...You can learn from experience, and modify regulations & frameworks that don't work, in practice....You can provide a living, communicative, responsive, flexible, environment...


...And, within all that, then, you let people drive the market performance.


You will have successes, and failures, along the way, for sure. And, winners and losers....But, in my observation, you will have the success that the market (and the people within it) will create, and make....If the market opportunity is good enough, people will make it succeed - If its not, then they won't.

That's called a sensibly regulated, free market system, imo....And, is the foundation of the great wealth that has been created in the Western capitalist system.


Alternatively, you can attempt to micro-manage the market - and micro-manage the people that will make, or break, it for you....ie mandate it.

...You can ensure that the supply of choice assets only reaches certain approved 'right-thinking' people....Or, try to engineer it so that people only do what someone mandates is the right way to do it....Or, You can even work things so certain people are excluded, because they don't meet some mandated criteria....Or,you can have over-tight regulation, enforcement-by-rote, and, rigid compliance mechanisms etc etc...

That's called a 'Command' system. And, it doesn't generally work well....You get dumbing-down, uniformity, less initiative, the dead hand of interference, and second-guessing. And distorted market values....Much less chance of success for the entire enterpise.

And, you also lose the independence that breeds creativity & the flair....Exactly, what we need to create a bold new frontier.


Andres, I share your general concerns....And, commend your high standards, and desire for the best for .mobi....but, not some of your 'solutions', and some of the measures you advocate...


...I say, let dotmobi manage the laggards (which includes me, by about 3 weeks on one of my names)...If the 6 month criteria was a little ambitious, then modify that...and, manage it as another thing to be managed. If some premiums are in hands that won't respond, then dotmobi knows what to do - but, short of that, lets not eat our own.


These are tough moments on the road to the .mobi future...Tough for many reasons - including the infancy of the established mobile web marketplace, as a whole, the expensive download costs for many, the low percentage of everyday people that use it, and the slower than hoped-for developement & take-up of .mobi sites....These are part of the inevitable setbacks & frustrations we could expect...

But, the sky's not falling...mobi will be here....And, we'll all make a success of it....Its the time for clear thinking, and a steady hand....And pulling together...

And, any issues that arise will be fixed.

.

[Andres Kello]

Thanks for the reply, DT, it's always a pleasure discussing with you.


...We both agree that premiums need to be developed; We both agree that the clock is ticking on .mobi's place in the mobile firmament; We both agree that there's a place for the individual in owning premium names; We both energetically support .mobi as the vehicle & the mechanism for the future (and present) mobile web etcAgreed.

Just a few quick point (don't worry folks, not another "essay" :)). I don't consider pre-filtering bidders via RFP "micromanaging" as I can speak from experience and was never micromanaged by mTLD at any point during the development of Why.mobi (which is almost done, by the way!). And it certainly doesn't turn the market into a "command" market. People would still drive the market performance - just like we drove the Why.mobi concept - it's just that it would be people who are "qualified" in the sense that they had a plan/vision/idea for the Premium and that's why they submitted an RFP app for it in the first place. Sedo pre-filters bidders who want to bid over $10k to ensure they have the ability to pay up, mTLD should do the same to ensure the owners of Premiums have the ability and forethought to develop the Premiums well. And no one who is truly interested in a particular Premium would be "cut out" - and they would even have the opportunity to win several if they filled out multiple successful RFP apps and won the subsequent bidding - so I don't see any harm at all with the hybrid RFP Auction format, only improvements on the current allocation system. With regards to owning multiple Premiums, however, time is a constraint no one can escape from, so it is clear that the more Premiums an entity owns, the less time (and money!) they can divide amongst each one, leading to - all else being equal - diminishing quality, which would only be compounded if they naturally attempted to counteract those constraints by re-using templates, affiliate programs, backends, etc, which opens up a whole other can of worms I described in my previous post with the "billionaire" example. The RFP filter would certainly make it more difficult for a single entity to own several Premiums, but not impossible. And I have absolutely no problem with people buying Premiums for "cheap" as long as they had a plan/vision/idea for the domain in the first place (as I've stated in the past, I rather an end-user like BMW get a Premium like Cars.mobi for $1 than a reseller for a record-breaking $300,000 as the former leads to an ecosystem whereas the latter leads to counter-productive hype). I do, however, have an issue with people who have given no forethought to a Premium buying it just because they're "cheap" (again, I am guilty of that myself) because - all else being equal - the latter will almost always lead to a poorer developed site (if a site at all). See, while it's true that some successful businesses were started in the spur of the moment with no forethought (your "envelope" example), it is also true that those are limited cases and that a significantly greater number of successful businesses were started with a plan, vision, or idea behind them. So it is a much safer bet to limit the Premiums to the latter because you get too many wildcards with the former, as we have clearly seen from the OP list. And by the way, don't expect the next list from the subsequent auction to be any different. Again, these are early warning signals we can't afford to ignore. But time is not on our side.

By the way DT, none of this is directed at you specifically, I'm just as guilty of a lot of the things I've been pointing out, and that's where I learned a lot of what I'm saying. The rest of my observations come from the sum of all the information I have access to in this industry.

Having said all that, I think we can respectfully agree to disagree. :)

[Pred]

so, are you two gonna get a room or what? :biggrin:

.........................:puke:

[DomainTalker]

Having said all that, I think we can respectfully agree to disagree. :)

Agreed.....:)


The benefit of exchanges like that is that it forces us to think important issues through...And, articulate what we think is important, and why.

...If something one of us said helps lead to best outcomes - or helps avoid mistakes - then that's all good...



Pred....Back in yer box, ya irrepressible friggin' Dingo - or, I'll set that lady in a business suit with the ruler on yer...:D

.

[cobo]

Now this has been a nice professional interplay with several good points brought up to ponder. My hope is that mTLD has noted same. Thanks guys... you rock! Now I've got to get back to the crazy trading markets and earn my mobi development money!

[Scandiman]

(as I've stated in the past, I rather an end-user like BMW get a Premium like Cars.mobi for $1 than a reseller for a record-breaking $300,000 as the former leads to an ecosystem whereas the latter leads to counter-productive hype).

Here's the problem that needs to be recognized, the seller of cars.mobi absolutely does care about getting $1 vs $300,000. We all know the troll at another forum who looks at a hypothetical sale like this and trumpets mTLD's greed, but it is business. It's easy for us to tell someone else to sell their domains for cheap to help the ecosystem when we are not the ones giving up that sales revenue.

What needs to be done here is a cost/benefit analysis, if mTLD gives up this hypothetical $300,000 sale today, what is the long term financial benefit to their organization? In essence they are 'investing' $300,000, what is their ROI? Remember after all, they are a for-profit company. It's this kind of analysis that will win the day in pursuing a greater emphasis on the RFP process, however it may look like.

While it has its limitations, I find it useful to look at things in analogies. The Premium names are kind of like govt owned land that is slated to be distributed to private concerns. The govt can control everything and mandate every little detail, or they can have a free for all letting everyone do whatever they want if anything at all (the latter is the landrush and we don't want that for the Premiums IMO). I think the best option is found somewhere in the middle, zoning laws give some prescription of what can go where and those laws change as needed but ultimately it is the free market that comes in and builds. In an ideal world you will get first class stuff everywhere, but it is not realistic. But it is important I think to have something built or else it might as well have not been distributed at all. An added problem of distributing too much land (Premiums) at once for building is that there are not enough people to build it. I have read of and can confirm a general shortage of developers with the competency to build first class .mobi sites. Thankfully Mobility is blessed to have some active in this community. But can you imagine the backlog of work if one thousand Premiums needed to be built in the next 6 months? Impossible IMO without finding or educating additional talent in the mobile web space. Even the current inventory of about 200-300 would be difficult, assuming the domain owners were to honor their obligations.

An auction/RFP hybrid could help shift the interest in Premiums away from the domain (land) speculators and towards the developers. As long as the cost benefit analysis can demonstrate the long term value to mTLD, most especially in the form of higher numbers of domain registrations.

Anyone know how to find out the total number of regs for each of the major TLD's?

[Andres Kello]

Here's the problem that needs to be recognizedI fully recognize it:


although I also accept that the Premiums are an important funding source for mTLD

But I also believe that it is very much in mTLD's interest in the long-term as a going concern to ensure the Premiums are properly developed because if this extension becomes a .biz due to an underdeveloped ecosystem, it's going to significantly hurt their renewals revenue down the line when we all start dropping .mobi's because it didn't become the standard we had hoped for when we invested in the extension.

Let's face it, Domainers are in it for the money, they're fickle by nature and not very loyal, and if they see start to perceive a losing extension, they'll drop it faster than a handful of molten lava and move on to the next "hot" extension. I do, however, also accept the fact - as demonstrated daily on Mobility - that .mobi domainers are not average domainers and have shown a proactiveness towards the extension that is very encouraging and comforting. But at the end of the day, money is money.


What needs to be done here is a cost/benefit analysis
.
.
It's this kind of analysis that will win the day in pursuing a greater emphasis on the RFP process, however it may look like.
.
.
As long as the cost benefit analysis can demonstrate the long term value to mTLD, most especially in the form of higher numbers of domain registrations.I agree.


if mTLD gives up this hypothetical $300,000 sale today, what is the long term financial benefit to their organization? In essence they are 'investing' $300,000, what is their ROI? Remember after all, they are a for-profit company.Since the hybrid RFP auction is still an auction, the prices would still be close to Fair Market Value. This is a point I discussed earlier (http://mobility.mobi/showpost.php?p=41718&postcount=62) this year (that was another full-on and interesting thread :)).


While it has its limitations, I find it useful to look at things in analogies. The Premium names are kind of like govt owned land that is slated to be distributed to private concerns. The govt can control everything and mandate every little detail, or they can have a free for all letting everyone do whatever they want if anything at all (the latter is the landrush and we don't want that for the Premiums IMO).I couldn't agree with you more.


I think the best option is found somewhere in the middleI completely agree, and think a hybrid RFP auction is that middle, although I'm obviously open to hearing other alternatives. That one just sounded like a simple and obvious one since it combined both formats thereby offering the best of both worlds. But for it to work, mTLD would have to focus on reaching out to potential end-users which is something the community could also help them with.


But it is important I think to have something built or else it might as well have not been distributed at all.Without a doubt. The ones that are already in the hands of entities need to be developed, we can't give up on them. At the same time, we need to be doing what we're doing here and looking for ways to avoid this kind of scenario in the future.


An added problem of distributing too much land (Premiums) at once for building is that there are not enough people to build it.I fully agree but I don't think anyone is arguing that the Premiums be released quicker or in bigger quantities, at least I hope not. If we were to flood the market with Premiums, there wouldn't be enough time for end-user awareness and the prices would fall as supply increased. It would be a lose-lose.


An auction/RFP hybrid could help shift the interest in Premiums away from the domain (land) speculators and towards the developers.I agree and consider that a very positive thing.


Anyone know how to find out the total number of regs for each of the major TLD's?http://www.domaintools.com/internet-statistics/

[Scandiman]

http://www.domaintools.com/internet-statistics/
It's been a while since I've seen some of these numbers.

76,445,394 .Com
11,700,615 .Net
6,844,834 .Org
4,997,637 .Info
1,975,774 .Biz
1,419,944 .Us

Reaching .org/.net levels of reg counts could indeed make for some nice cash flow for the registry. I wonder what the reg count currently is for .mobi? Anyone know how to find that number?

[DomainTalker]

Actually, Andres & Scandi, I don't fundamentally disagree with either of your two last posts on this.


Its about striking the right balance between controlling the pace and quality of the roll out of the premiums - so they act as visible lead flagships in the mobile space - whilst at the same time, not stifling the entrepreneurial flair required to forge new concepts, in a new market place, nor creating poor quality, 'cos of the natural desire to get 'quickly to market'..


My central judgement on this point, is that too rigid a mandated 6 months timeframe for the launch of a new premium onto the market from scratch, risks over-emphasising speed, at the expense of decent quality......Its just hard to get a great site together in that time...


Is it possible that many of the (apparently) laggard premium owners are working on sites, right now?...Its just that they can't get it done in a 6 month timeframe?...If so, things may not be as bleak as it looks, on this front, and many of them will appear in the time ahead.


Clearly, premium holders need to move....But, the 'elephant in the room' on this, is the finesse with which dotmobi plays this....The unpleasant reality, is that if, say, 150 premium holders don't comply exactly on time (including, say, the buyer of Flowers.mobi) - and dotmobi were to enforce the 6-month rule literally - would that be a net benefit to the .mobi brand? And, indeed, the whole .mobi ecosystem?....

...If 150 high profile premiums were taken back over the next few months - especially without compensation - the ensuing predictable furore - precisely because they are premiums - and are a cornerstone of dotmobi strategy - would risk crashing the entire market value for the brand, and set it back years, imo.....That would be catastrophic for all...


...The lesser of the evils, for .mobi, I reckon, is to do whatever it takes to cajole, persuade, encourage, extend deadlines - anything within reason - to get those premiums up, rather than risk that.....Better sites up late, than the alternative.


But, I agree, guys....Every owner must get 'something' up, at the least, as soon as possible.

.

[DomainTalker]

I wonder what the reg count currently is for .mobi? Anyone know how to find that number?

Last figure I saw, Scandi, was about 865,000 regs for .mobi.

.

[Gerry]

This is the number when google search for

site:.mobi

Results 1 - 10 of about 8,050,000 for site:.mobi.

[Dave]

This is the number when google search for

site:.mobi

Results 1 - 10 of about 8,050,000 for site:.mobi.
Those searches always end up showing pages, not sites. Someone at the .TV forum was trumpeting about how many developed sites .TV has now...using the 24,000,000 number that shows up with the "site:.TV" search! :lol:

[Scandiman]

The unpleasant reality, is that if, say, 150 premium holders don't comply exactly on time (including, say, the buyer of Flowers.mobi) - and dotmobi were to enforce the 6-month rule literally - would that be a net benefit to the .mobi brand? And, indeed, the whole .mobi ecosystem?.....

Just for clarity, not all Premium names have been sold with dev requirements. If memory serves me correctly the requirements started with the first Sedo 100. As such I believe Flowers was not sold with dev requirements.

Regardless, there are a lot of premiums out there with the requirements and I think we all agree that how it is handled is indeed important.

I hear you DT, I don't think an immediate repossession for not delivering in the 6 months is productive, but a consistent enforcement plan commencing after 6 months has passed is essential IMO. If we're still dealing with this a year from now AND also still seeing names released under this same agreement it will be a black eye for mTLD.

My instinct tells me that a lot of these names are held by speculators with no intent to dev. But their intent is ultimately not an issue, the issue is following through on the agreement. If losing a Premium name is not incentive enough to build something promised to be built then I don't know what else will motivate them. If beating a dead horse with a stick won't get it to move, neither will trying to feed it a carrot.

IF the goal is to get the premiums built instead of parked, then something needs to be done about this situation and soon. The process needs to commence to notify the domain owners that they are on borrowed time, point them to the many development resources available to domain owners, and affirm the ultimate result of their lack of development activity. If an eventual repo or two from some dead horses resurrects some of the other dead horses and keeps the pure speculators out of the room down the road then so be it, makes more space for those willing to pursue real ideas for those top quality domains other than just parking them for resale. Premium speculators are not the future of this extension IMO.

And I really think a refund is a mistake. It will serve as a hedge to the speculators, a built in bailout if they fail to flip the domain before a repo.

[Scandiman]

Last figure I saw, Scandi, was about 865,000 regs for .mobi.

.
Thats about what I heard as well. Lots of room for growth when compared with the 6 million domains reged in org. Quality premium builds could really serve mTLD well to grow .mobi awareness and hence reg numbers. An additional 4 million domains at say $5/year is nothing to sneeze at.

[DomainTalker]

If beating a dead horse with a stick won't get it to move, neither will trying to feed it a carrot.

Hahaha....Classic, Scandi....:D

.

[Andres Kello]

Its about striking the right balance between controlling the pace and quality of the roll out of the premiums - so they act as visible lead flagships in the mobile space - whilst at the same time, not stifling the entrepreneurial flair required to forge new concepts, in a new market place, nor creating poor quality, 'cos of the natural desire to get 'quickly to market'..

My central judgement on this point, is that too rigid a mandated 6 months timeframe for the launch of a new premium onto the market from scratch, risks over-emphasising speed, at the expense of decent quality......Its just hard to get a great site together in that time...I agree.


Is it possible that many of the (apparently) laggard premium owners are working on sites, right now?...Its just that they can't get it done in a 6 month timeframe?...If so, things may not be as bleak as it looks, on this front, and many of them will appear in the time ahead.I would sincerely hope that's the case, but honestly, I suspect it's not. If they were developing and knew the deadline was looming or had passed, the least they would do is put up a "coming soon" page. If they haven't made the effort to show any signs of life and have left a parking page - or worse, the domain unresolved - knowing they were contractually obliged to develop the domain by the 6-month mark, I would suspect that the majority - not necessarily all - of those owners are waiting to see what mTLD is going to do about it before making any effort to develop. It's like a kid testing his parents. If they see that mTLD is not going to do anything about it, then they won't budge and will have saved themselves the trouble of having to develop the domain and will continue sit on it as an investment. If they see mTLD starts doing something about it, then they'll begin to move on it, but I wouldn't expect any kick-ass sites out of them at that point.


Last figure I saw, Scandi, was about 865,000 regs for .mobi.We're closer to 1 million.


I hear you DT, I don't think an immediate repossession for not delivering in the 6 months is productive, but a consistent enforcement plan commencing after 6 months has passed is essential IMO. If we're still dealing with this a year from now AND also still seeing names released under this same agreement it will be a black eye for mTLD.I agree.


My instinct tells me that a lot of these names are held by speculators with no intent to dev.I agree.


But their intent is ultimately not an issue, the issue is following through on the agreement.I would agree that their intent is not an issue at this point because those Premiums have already been released, making their intent irrelevant. But I would also argue that, moving forward, the intent of future Premium owners is critical to avoiding this situation in the future.


If losing a Premium name is not incentive enough to build something promised to be built then I don't know what else will motivate them. If beating a dead horse with a stick won't get it to move, neither will trying to feed it a carrot.I agree. The reality is, I think the threat of a "stick" will work on them - who would want to lose a Premium they already paid for when they could have it developed for $200 - but it will force them to produce a "bare minimum" site just to get mTLD off their backs. That's obviously better than nothing or a Parked page, but not anywhere near as good as what someone with proper intentions would develop.


IF the goal is to get the premiums built instead of parked, then something needs to be done about this situation and soon.I agree and believe that is the immediate goal. The secondary goal - and just as important - is, again, how to avoid this situation altogether in the future.


The process needs to commence to notify the domain owners that they are on borrowed time, point them to the many development resources available to domain owners, and affirm the ultimate result of their lack of development activity.I know mTLD are looking into this as we speak, as are we on the MAG, and us right here on Mobility. This is a very important topic that is definitely starting to get the attention it deserves.


If an eventual repo or two from some dead horses resurrects some of the other dead horses and keeps the pure speculators out of the room down the road then so be it, makes more space for those willing to pursue real ideas for those top quality domains other than just parking them for resale.I agree, but I don't think it will get to the point of a Repo. The problem is that the Premium Names contract only stipulates that a "best effort" site be created. I just don't see mTLD getting mixed up in legal battles with Premium owners over how good those "efforts" are as long as "something" was developed, so I see this as a potential loophole that will no doubt be exploited by delinquent Premium owners who will rather launch a 3-page site rather than have their Premium repossessed. The RFP filter would resolve this particular point as well because mTLD could assess that "best effort" (and intent) before releasing the names rather than after.


Premium speculators are not the future of this extension IMO.I couldn't agree more.

From this entire discussion, there are 2 critical things we've been focusing on: 1) How to get the overdue Premiums developed, and 2) How to avoid this situation in the future. We all agree that "something" developed is better than a Parked Page or non-resolving Premium, so the first thing we need to look at is how to get the overdue Premiums developed using a delicate balance of "carrot and stick". Second, I think we can all agree that we don't want this situation repeating itself in the future with the 4,000+ Premiums left, so we have to tweak the current allocation system or find a new one altogether.

The ultimate decision is in mTLD's hands, of course, but I think them having access to such in-depth discussions as these is invaluable and is what differentiates .mobi from all other extensions.

[gogo]

Well if the owners of the premiums can't get their sites up maybe MTLD need to hand out the little blue pills.

I agree entirely with Coast that MTLD will need to do or say something public sometime soon so people can see that they at least recognise the issue. If they want to fudge they can say they are "working with domain owners" or "in dialogue", or they could say more if they want to.

Perhaps MTLD should invite RFP development ideas from the public on those names that are past the six month development requirement? The idea of names being repossessed and then given away might get some people moving.

[DomainTalker]

From this entire discussion, there are 2 critical things we've been focusing on: 1) How to get the overdue Premiums developed, and 2) How to avoid this situation in the future. We all agree that "something" developed is better than a Parked Page or non-resolving Premium, so the first thing we need to look at is how to get the overdue Premiums developed using a delicate balance of "carrot and stick". Second, I think we can all agree that we don't want this situation repeating itself in the future with the 4,000+ Premiums left, so we have to tweak the current allocation system or find a new one altogether.

The ultimate decision is in mTLD's hands, of course, but I think them having access to such in-depth discussions as these is invaluable and is what differentiates .mobi from all other extensions.

Agreed, Andres.


...Forward movement on current premiums - firmly, but, with finesse...

...And, a 'tweak' on the future allocation system, but, that, ideally, doesn't exclude an exceptional individual with fabulous concepts, but who perhaps doesn't have corporate resources.

.

[Scandiman]

The problem is that the Premium Names contract only stipulates that a "best effort" site be created. I just don't see mTLD getting mixed up in legal battles with Premium owners over how good those "efforts" are as long as "something" was developed, so I see this as a potential loophole that will no doubt be exploited by delinquent Premium owners who will rather launch a 3-page site rather than have their Premium repossessed. The RFP filter would resolve this particular point as well because mTLD could assess that "best effort" (and intent) before releasing the names rather than after.

Yes, the best efforts clause could turn into a loophole. It's up to mTLD to decide what they mean by best efforts and apply it consistently.

The big problem with the RFP as I've seen it is that it is completely unclear how an application is evaluated. Also will those doing the evaluating share the same vision as the applicant? A classic example of this problem is the story behind FedEx, where the concept was given the kibosh by a business prof but the guy still believed in it and went and built a successful global business. Great ideas are not so obvious at first. It's entirely possible that good ideas are lost on the minds of those reviewing them. Also there is the issue of confidentiality that makes people really nervous. spilling your guts and ideas to a mystery panel of reviewers is not something entrepreneurs like to do. How has that intellectual property now been compromised?

[Andres Kello]

Yes, the best efforts clause could turn into a loophole. It's up to mTLD to decide what they mean by best efforts and apply it consistently.

The big problem with the RFP as I've seen it is that it is completely unclear how an application is evaluated. Also will those doing the evaluating share the same vision as the applicant? A classic example of this problem is the story behind FedEx, where the concept was given the kibosh by a business prof but the guy still believed in it and went and built a successful global business. Great ideas are not so obvious at first. It's entirely possible that good ideas are lost on the minds of those reviewing them. Also there is the issue of confidentiality that makes people really nervous. spilling your guts and ideas to a mystery panel of reviewers is not something entrepreneurs like to do. How has that intellectual property now been compromised?I don't personally envision a particularly stringent RFP approval process. If someone took their time to submit an RFP app, chances are it will be decent and they have a genuine intent to develop a good site. As such, I think an RFP filter would serve more towards identifying genuine intent to develop more than identifying which is the best idea of the bunch. A closed auction would then be held amongst approved RFP applicants and the highest bidder would take it, ensuring mTLD a good price and ensuring an owner who has a proven intent to develop. Furthermore, I think a non-refundable fee should be associated with the RFP app to cover mTLD's costs of assessing the applications and as yet another barrier to entry for pure speculators. This would help ensure only entities genuinely interested in the domain would go through the application process and pay a fee to have a chance to bid.

[Scandiman]

I don't personally envision a particularly stringent RFP approval process. If someone took their time to submit an RFP app, chances are it will be decent and they have a genuine intent to develop a good site. As such, I think an RFP filter would serve more towards identifying genuine intent to develop more than identifying which is the best idea of the bunch. A closed auction would then be held amongst approved RFP applicants and the highest bidder would take it, ensuring mTLD a good price and ensuring an owner who has a proven intent to develop. Furthermore, I think a non-refundable fee should be associated with the RFP app to cover mTLD's costs of assessing the applications and as yet another barrier to entry for pure speculators. This would help ensure only entities genuinely interested in the domain would go through the application process and pay a fee to have a chance to bid.
This system can still be gamed, so enforcement will still be an issue, but I suspect less so.

I expect the sales prices will be less but provided there are a higher volume of quality sites on these high quality domain names then it could have a serious upside in growing the total reg count as .mobi grows in public awareness with better sites and becomes a more common extension.

[Andres Kello]

This system can still be gamed, so enforcement will still be an issue, but I suspect less so.Any realistic system could probably be gamed by those with serious intent to do so, so I don't think there's a watertight solution out there. However, considering RFP apps can't just be composed of BS - actual thinking needs to go into the answers since the Apps are actually read - and that there would be a fee associated for each RFP, I would imagine the gaming of the system would be significantly less almost to the point of being negligible. For example, imagine a speculator interested in 50 domains for which he has estimated he has the budget to win 10 of them (doesn't matter which 10 since he has no development plan for any of them). He would have to create 50 "fake" RFP apps which would be very time consuming. Let's say each RFP app takes 2 hours to complete, he would have to spend 50 x 2 hours = 100 hours on the applications alone. Now let's say the RFP fee is the standard €500 mTLD have charged in the past. He would have to pay 50 x €500 = €25,000. So just to have the opportunity to bid on those 50 Premiums he's interested in - with no guarantee of winning any of them - he would have to spend 100 hours and €25,000. That's a huge barrier to entry which I think would significantly reduce any gaming, especially since even those "fake" RFPers who got through to the bidding would still not be guaranteed to win the domain. On the other hand, for an entity genuinely interested in developing a particular Premium (e.g. me with Dating.mobi), 2 hours and €500 is hardly a barrier. If €500 were found to keep too many entities out of the bidding, it could obviously be adjusted accordingly.


I expect the sales prices will be less Possibly. However, depending on how the RFP Auctions are marketed and executed, the price difference might not be so big and could even be more favorable. To use a previous example, imagine a closed auction for Sports.mobi with ESPN, Sports Illustrated, Yahoo! Sports, Fox Sports, NBC Sports and Sports.com as the only participants, and with all of them knowing everyone that is bidding for that particular domain. The price could conceivably go higher than via an anonymous open auction where bidders are hoping their competition is not aware of it and therefore not participating. If Fox Sports knew NBC Sports was also bidding for Sports.mobi, they might be prepared to bid a lot higher then if they did not know, especially since their loss would automatically mean their competitors gain in this scenario. That kind of information completely changes the dynamics of an auction. This isn't without precedent either, I believe the .asia auctions revealed who all the bidders were before the closed auctions started. Furthermore, the potential decline in sales prices could easily be offset by the application fees received by mTLD, not to mention that the fees could also be used to fund an awareness campaign to formally reach out to the likes of Fox Sports and NBC Sports.


but provided there are a higher volume of quality sites on these high quality domain names then it could have a serious upside in growing the total reg count as .mobi grows in public awareness with better sites and becomes a more common extension.:bingo:


Obviously, all of this - the stringency of the approval process, the amount of the fee, the RFP App itself, etc. - could be tweaked depending on the overall demand experienced.

[DomainTalker]

Yet another Premium .mobi - which should have already launched - up for sale: CellPhone.mobi (http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=330240715619)

Early. Warning. Signal.

Perhaps Nokia, or Vodafone - or, even Sprint, or someone - will buy it, and develop & promote it into a main platform...?....Then this would turn out to be a huge positive move for .mobi...(I know its unlikely...:))

So, not all secondary 'movement' need necessarily be bad for the space...


But, look - I'm with you that it would have been better if Cellphone.mobi had gone to, say, Nokia, or someone similar, in the first place....And, RFP might have achieved that...

...Or, it might not have done (Nokia, et al, were perfectly free to bid for the name at the original auction - They didn't. Why not?...Perhaps they didn't see value in it...?...Who knows...?...And, an RFP process might not have changed that).


I take your point that a pre-vetting system, of some sort, may get more active engagement from those that participate and win the names......But, lets not suggest to .mobi that they put all their eggs in one basket...

What I'm saying is lets be careful about suggesting to mTLD that they go holus-bolus into RFP-ing every premium from now on.


...Even if mTLD did this....Have they got the manpower to assess 4000 RFP's in any reasonable timeframe?....Can they find 000's of people prepared to submit RFP's, across all 4000 of the the names..?....Or, would it take 10 years, or more, to release 4000 premiums, this way?....That may be much too slow to provide the optimum momentum for .mobi., however good the sites were...And, would there be necessarily superior outcomes?...Likely, but, maybe not.

Unintended consequences, again....


And, don't forget, mTLD have their Cities program going - and the upcoming L. releases - and then, the LL. releases....So, the premiums are not their only game in town...


All things considered, by 'tweak' it, I recommend a modified hybrid allocation system for remaining premiums, possibly along these lines:


(i) RFP a significant portion of the names (for the reasons Andres has outlined - but by no means all of them, for the reasons I've outlined)


(ii) Continue to Auction a portion of the names - And, anticipate/expect that many will not get sites up in 6 months (or change it to 12 months) - But, plan for, and ensure, a well-balanced, supportive, encouraging, follow-up process to secure compliance - backed, ultimately, at the end of that process, with the ultimate sanction of withdrawal (not cancellation of the name, but, say, hibernation/suspension of the name, instead, until it IS developed, to avoid legal action).


(iii) Introduce some unconventional allocation processes on a small, select, portion of the names (such as I suggested above - or, some other ideas) - With energy & buzz...To go after great ideas, with the incentive someone could make it a reality....And, also, to cast the net into the 'maverick' waters, in order to increase the chance to find some brilliant mavericks out there.


(iv) Proactively target/educate third-parties - especially the major Advertising Agencies/PR companies that advise major corporates on marketing strategy & tactics - These entities could have a vested interest in persuading their large corporate clients to engage (pay) them to put together brilliant RFP's for selected .mobi names - And, further, then they are paid to devise marketing campaigns/strategies to promote their client's .mobi, as their clients 'go mobile' strategy, which the Agency has recommended (There's nothing like a motivated third-party 'evangelising' for you, through self-interest...lol)....Huge prospective .mobi exposure...

...And, lots more...


....In short, multi-task it....And, keep it moving, flexible, open, interesting - enforce adherence, reasonably - and, don't bog it down in red tape, and the process of it...

It'll be fine....:)

.

[newdomainer]

This is THE issue... but surely the initial requirement must be a compliant parking page with relevant content / ads. At least that makes dotmobi no worse than a huge number of dotcom premiums...

Having premiums not even resolving is just not acceptable at all.

The compliance 'issue' is too big to manage manually but is it possible that mTLD have bots to check .mobi sites & report back non-compliant sites automatically?

Otherwise the purpose of the entire extension is at risk.... It wouldn't surprise me if many with a vested interest in seeing dotmobi fail have a few non-compliant mobi sites out there already!