Premium Domain Enforcement

[Andres Kello]

Hi all,

I've been so busy that I don't remember if this was mentioned before or not, but based on the posts regarding the current auction of New.mobi, it doesn't seem like it was.

Premium Development Requirements are finally being enforced by mTLD. This is an e-mail they sent out to all relevant Premium Domain owners on September 4, 2008:


The relevant auctions are defined as Sedo 1 (September 26th to October 3rd 2007), Sedo 2 (October 31st to November 7th 2007), Traffic 3 (October 12th 2007) or GoDaddy 1 (November 5th to 7th 2007). [Any other auctions will be subject to separate communications].

By participating in one or more of these auctions, you agreed to the terms and conditions set out in the dotMobi Auction End-User Agreement. These terms provided for the following:

1. A dotMobi compliant parking page to launch within 10 days of the initial domain transfer date

2. Launch a full web-site with relevant content within 6 months of the initial domain transfer date [relevant = relevant to the domain name]

3. Web-site to be compliant and to have a mobile readiness score of at least 4/5

4. Notify dotMobi in the event of a sale and contractually bind any new party to the terms of the End-User Agreement [please note that in the event of a sale, the 6 months clock does not re-start]

dotMobi has received extensive feedback from the market that the 6 month development timeline was not a long enough window, particularly for those bidders that acquired a number of domains in the auctions or for large corporations with lengthy internal processes. In light of this, dotMobi has elected to extend the development deadline and the new deadline for compliance with all obligations is 10 January 2009.

Time moves quickly and we urge you to commence development work without delay so as not to put your domains at the risk of re-acquisition by dotMobi (with no funds returned) per the Agreement after the new deadline has passed.In short, all Sedo 1, Sedo 2, Traffic 3, and Godaddy 1 Premium Domains need to be developed by January 10, 2009 or they will be taken back by mTLD without a refund. If anyone wants to test the resolve of mTLD to take back these Premium Domains after they were lenient enough to give an across-the-board 8+ month extension on the original 6-month deadline, I have a revolver with one bullet itching for you to play with.

[vikrantjain22]

At Last, high time they took the difficult decisions
Better late than never

[gogo]

Thanks for that info Andres. And I think maybe that revolver should have five bullets in it.

[Scandiman]

forget the revolver, I want people to believe it is an auto loader w/ a full clip and one in the chamber

[cobo]

Very good and timely info! Thank you.
We are getting there!
Now, where are all those mobile pay systems?!?!

[setjmp]

Very good and timely info! Thank you.
We are getting there!
Now, where are all those mobile pay systems?!?!

Waiting for you to make it? :-D Or someone else around here :-D

[cobo]

Waiting for you to make it? :-D Or someone else around here :-D
Hehe, well I guess my asset mgmt. clients look at me as a "pay system" of sorts. :laugh:
But tech wizard I am not! :dontknow: It will definitely be someone else! :hmmmm2:
I will, however, make massive use of these "soon to be" pay systems when in place.
Also setjmp, welcome to the forum.

[setjmp]

Cool. Well for any tech wizardry, it takes a good idea too. Unfortunately, often, I'm weak in that area. Seldom does anything really happen from one person. WIsh I realized that years ago...

Glad when deciding where I'd try to get more focused and stable wound up mobi... For real, cause it's real and portable :) Thanks for the welcome. Haven't see such a commected community since the early days of #unix on EFNET, though that was just fun and play really, lol... Thanks again..

[TLD]

welcome setjmp :biggrin: Nice compliment for the forum..

[Jeff]

Hi all,

I've been so busy that I don't remember if this was mentioned before or not, but based on the posts regarding the current auction of New.mobi, it doesn't seem like it was.

Premium Development Requirements are finally being enforced by mTLD. This is an e-mail they sent out to all relevant Premium Domain owners on September 4, 2008:

In short, all Sedo 1, Sedo 2, Traffic 3, and Godaddy 1 Premium Domains need to be developed by January 10, 2009 or they will be taken back by mTLD without a refund. If anyone wants to test the resolve of mTLD to take back these Premium Domains after they were lenient enough to give an across-the-board 8+ month extension on the original 6-month deadline, I have a revolver with one bullet itching for you to play with.

:hello:

I thought this might be an intriguing and highly constructive topic ... in seeking updates to the, as revised, "development requirements" set by mTLD (January 10, 2009)for all Sedo 1, Sedo 2, Traffic 3, and Godaddy 1 Premium Domains, IMHO.

Does anyone have the full list of the aformentioned domains (or is it published already here on the site for reference) ... their current - hoping fully developed - status, and whether or not mTLD has taken back any of these domains for non-compliance? Today is February 23, 2009. :deal:

What is the latest, let's please discuss openly and candidly.
-Jeff :cool:

[rob]

Hi Jeff, Here is a good example of mtld's need for enforcement. http://creditcards.mobi this is a straight redirect to the dotcom.

Domain ID:D4201-MOBI
Domain Name:CREDITCARDS.MOBI
Created On:11-May-2006 22:12:30 UTC
Last Updated On:16-Sep-2008 21:48:38 UTC
Expiration Date:11-May-2009 22:12:30 UTC
Last Transferred Date:13-Dec-2007 15:35:23 UTC
Trademark Name:Premium Name
Trademark Country:IE
Trademark Number:Premium Name
Date Trademark Applied For:2005-01-01
Date Trademark Registered:2006-01-01

Cheers
Rob

[Jeff]

Hi Jeff, Here is a good example of mtld's need for enforcement. http://creditcards.mobi this is a straight redirect to the dotcom.

Domain ID:D4201-MOBI
Domain Name:CREDITCARDS.MOBI
Created On:11-May-2006 22:12:30 UTC
Last Updated On:16-Sep-2008 21:48:38 UTC
Expiration Date:11-May-2009 22:12:30 UTC
Last Transferred Date:13-Dec-2007 15:35:23 UTC
Trademark Name:Premium Name
Trademark Country:IE
Trademark Number:Premium Name
Date Trademark Applied For:2005-01-01
Date Trademark Registered:2006-01-01

Cheers
Rob

Thanks Rob, yes I agree ... that's not a good showing for MANDATED actual stand-alone .MOBI development, IMHO :frown:

Is there a full and complete list of the (all) Sedo 1, Sedo 2, Traffic 3, and Godaddy 1 Premium Domains? This may be the best place to start with our investigations (perhaps some can start cleaning their revolvers, as well) IMHO.

-Jeff :cool:

[mjnels]

although it doesnt really affect my speculation.... im actually interested to hear about this as well...

i know its only been a month after the new deadline, but whats up mTLD?

[Jeff]

although it doesnt really affect my speculation.... im actually interested to hear about this as well...

i know its only been a month after the new deadline, but whats up mTLD?

Good points, I'm sure many are looking forward to the answer ... since the "deadline" has already been extended once IMHO. :argh:

-Jeff :cool:

[Gerry]

Hi Jeff, Here is a good example of mtld's need for enforcement. http://creditcards.mobi this is a straight redirect to the dotcom.

Domain ID:D4201-MOBI
Domain Name:CREDITCARDS.MOBI
Created On:11-May-2006 22:12:30 UTC
Last Updated On:16-Sep-2008 21:48:38 UTC
Expiration Date:11-May-2009 22:12:30 UTC
Last Transferred Date:13-Dec-2007 15:35:23 UTC
Trademark Name:Premium Name
Trademark Country:IE
Trademark Number:Premium Name
Date Trademark Applied For:2005-01-01
Date Trademark Registered:2006-01-01

Cheers
RobWow, that really sucks.

What a waste.

I wonder if they are actually getting traffic from a mobile platform?

If so, then what?

Hit a dead end of a full PC site?

[Gerry]

forget the revolver, I want people to believe it is an auto loader w/ a full clip and one in the chamberEgad.

I have ten 20 round clips each with 15 9mm hollow points loaded.

Should I go ahead and put in the last 5 in each?

Sounds like this may get heated.

[Jeff]

Today, on February 23rd, mTLD must now take back "creditcards.mobi" (without a refund), correct?

-Jeff :cool:

[DomainTalker]

As a Premium .mobi owner of several (development-mandated) domains, I can confirm that mTLD are continuing to communicate, personally, by email, with the owners about the status of each and every affected Premium .mobi.

They have reminded the owners of the deadline for each of the premiums they own, and sent follow-up reminders to develop by a specific date, as well. Also, they remind owners that the developed domains must comply with a minimum 4/5 ready.mobi score. And, they have reminded owners that failure to comply with these deadlines will result in the loss of the domains.


As the process works through, seeing a list would be interesting....but, I imagine mTLD would be the only ones to know exactly the status of each premium, in this regard. Whether, or not, they choose to publish such a list is another matter, of course.

.

[mjnels]

Today, on February 23rd, mTLD must now take back "creditcards.mobi" (without a refund), correct?

-Jeff :cool:

they could, but its based on their discretion.

however i do agree that if they dont eventually take back some of these non-compliant names that the whole "premium name with development requirements" will forever be a joke. at the same time, this is why i dont think mTLD is as "greedy" as you make them out to be. their contracts clearly stated they are free to take back the domains at anytime with no refund if they wernt developed. and so far, they havnt done this.

still, if there are tons of premium .mobi's that havnt been developed by this time next year, i will consider their contracts about premium domains a complete joke.

[Jeff]

As a Premium .mobi owner of several (development-mandated) domains, I can tell you that mTLD are continuing to communicate, personally, by email, with the owners about the status of each and every affected Premium .mobi.

They have reminded the owners of the deadline for each of the premiums they own, and sent follow-up reminders to develop by a specific date, as well. Also, they remind owners that the developed domains must comply with a minimum 4/5 ready.mobi score. And, they have reminded owners that failure to comply with these deadlines will result in the loss of the domains.


As the process works through, seeing a list would be interesting....but, I imagine mTLD would be the only ones to know exactly the status of each premium, in this regard. Whether, or not, they choose to publish such a list is another matter, of course.

.

Thanks for the scoop, DT ... but does this not bode the question; what is the meaning of the new January '09 deadline if it's not going to be strictly enforced (I mean, there are, seemingly literally, folks with revolvers who have stated that it is fact not to mess with mTLD on this revised deadline this time around!, IMHO)? How long can this casual non-enforcement continue ... without further causing damage to mTLD's (and, by relation, the .MOBI extension itself) legitimacy and reputation? :hmmmm2:
Let's discuss this matter frankly. IYHO's?

-Jeff :cool:

[DomainTalker]

If some premium owners fail to comply on a domain, then, that'd be a pity - they'd lose the domain, and .mobi would have one less premium name out there.


But, in the big picture, so what?....It'd just mean someone didn't develop a domain....The domain would go back to mTLD, eventually someone else would own it, and eventually it'd be developed.

No big drama for the .mobi extension, as a whole.


(edit)
what is the meaning of the new January '09 deadline if it's not going to be strictly enforced

Oh, I expect them to enforce it allright, Jeff...I expect its happening, in some cases, as we speak....so, you can settle yourself down, and wait to see.


My point is, if someone loses a domain, its not the end of the world....

.

[Tim]

I don't think it would damage .mobi in general beyond purist domainers who were looking for excuses anyway. As a previous quality auditor, I fall on the side of the purist; what's the use of having a protocol if you're not going to follow it? But in reality, I bet end users won't give two swings of a goats tail about it.

Thanks for the scoop, DT ... but does this not bode the question; what is the meaning of the new January '09 deadline if it's not going to be strictly enforced (I mean, there are, seemingly literally, folks with revolvers who have stated that it is fact not to mess with mTLD on this revised deadline this time around!, IMHO)? How long can this casual non-enforcement continue ... without further causing damage to mTLD's (and, by relation, the .MOBI extension itself) legitimacy and reputation? :hmmmm2:
Let's discuss this matter frankly. IYHO's?

-Jeff :cool:

[DomainTalker]

But in reality, I bet end users won't give two swings of a goats tail about it.

Well said, Tim.

No one but a domainer - and mTLD - gives two fingers whether development deadlines are met, or not...and, in the end, end users (and, some domainers are also end users, of course), and consumer users - not most domainers - will determine .mobi's future...

Like I said, who cares? Apart from the purists, as you call them.

.

[mjnels]

at the moment - im a pure .mobi domainer and it doesnt affect me but im curious to see if they hold to their word.

im patient though, but seriously if mTLD doesnt take some non-compliant names back by say, 2011, i declare their entire contract about premium domains a total joke.

[noonoo1]

To be honest if mTLD wants to be taken seriously and look professional then they should be waving that big stick and take then back. They cannot be seen to be weak and without direction.:rolleyes2:

[Jeff]

To be honest if mTLD wants to be taken seriously and look professional then they should be waving that big stick and take then back. They cannot be seen to be weak and without direction.:rolleyes2:

^ Hammer. Head. Nail. :bingo:


im patient though, but seriously if mTLD doesnt take some non-compliant names back by say, 2011, i declare their entire contract about premium domains a total joke.

I agree ... though I don't at all understand where you're getting a 2011 date, IMHO. :dontknow:

I say the time is now, folks (it's past due, TWICE)! :eek2:
IMHO.

-Jeff :cool:

[mjnels]

I agree ... though I don't at all understand where you're getting a 2011 date, IMHO. :dontknow:

I say the time is now, folks (it's past due, TWICE)! :eek2:
IMHO.

-Jeff :cool:


just getting the 2011 date from my patience.... this is just me speaking as a pure play speculator making observations.

i am patient with my observations, but the flavor of my post is that if something doesnt happen eventually, mTLD will not be taken seriously about their development requirement for "premium domains." it is already under question now by even .mobi enthusiasts, but i understand the concept of the carrot and the stick.

i promise to personally make a thread in 2011 on every domain forum if they havnt taken back some of the indisputable non-compliant names. just remind me..

[Jeff]

just getting the 2011 date from my patience.... this is just me speaking as a pure play speculator making observations.

i am patient with my observations, but the flavor of my post is that if something doesnt happen eventually, mTLD will not be taken seriously about their development requirement for "premium domains." it is already under question now by even .mobi enthusiasts, but i understand the concept of the carrot and the stick.

i promise to personally make a thread in 2011 on every domain forum if they havnt taken back some of the indisputable non-compliant names. just remind me..

Good enough, appreciate the candor!

-Jeff :cool:

[Tom]

Personally I don't think that this revocation will ever happen.

Hopefully I'm wrong.

[Jeff]

Personally I don't think that this revocation will ever happen.

Hopefully I'm wrong.

I sure hope you're wrong ... can you expound on why you believe this revocation may not ever happen? :eek2:

Thanks kindly.
-Jeff :cool:

[Tom]

I sure hope you're wrong ... can you expound on why you believe this revocation may not ever happen? :eek2:
Not based on anything in particular, just my 2 cents.

I'll believe it when I see it. :smile:

[Jeff]

Not based on anything in particular, just my 2 cents.

I'll believe it when I see it. :smile:

Perhaps because the "deadline" has already been revised once ... and now again not being firmly enforced? Appreciate your two sense, and - again - I hope and pray that you're wrong, IMHO. :eek2:

My overall sense amongst most all candid .MOBI discussers ... both here and at the other .MOBI Forum™, both public and private ... is a general uneasiness with regard to what mTLD says they'll do, and what they actually end up doing.
It's been said before, this is a major league credibility issue! :rolleyes2:

Just my two sense.
-Jeff :cool:

[Tim]

your conclusions are premature

Perhaps because the "deadline" has already been revised once ... and now again not being firmly enforced? Appreciate your two sense, and - again - I hope and pray that you're wrong, IMHO. :eek2:

My overall sense amongst most all candid .MOBI discussers ... both here and at the other .MOBI Forum™, both public and private ... is a general uneasiness with regard to what mTLD says they'll do, and what they actually end up doing.
It's been said before, this is a major league credibility issue! :rolleyes2:

Just my two sense.
-Jeff :cool:

[Jeff]

your conclusions are premature

I respectfully disagree ... on January 9, 2009 they may have been premature, IMHO.

Thanks for understanding.
-Jeff :cool:

[gogo]

There has been a lot of uncertainty about this and it has caused concern on here, both about MTLD's credibility and about the buildout of the mobi space on premium domains and how that affects the mobi aftersales market. The argument is usually that if people find no site or content on premium names they will get turned of to mobi, and the counter argument is that so many premium coms are parked and that hasn't put people off using com.

IMO the point of the development requirement was to get sites up, and it is cheap enough to do that that I just can't understand these owners not doing it. Perhaps they think they have nothing to lose. All it takes is making public one repossession to make them think again.

There may be costs or opportunity costs associated with repossession for MTLD, but if they don't ever repossess a name it won't just be the development requirements that will be seen as meaningless, the requirement for dotmobi sites to have a dotmobi compliant home page could also be diluted or trickle away.

BTW does anyone know if they plan any premium auctions this year?

If they repo a cheap name the owner is unlikely to take legal action in response; if they repo an expensive name they can resell it at a good price.

[Accent]

It is a fine line - being stern enough to show you mean it but adaptable enough to coax compliance where possible. I expect there will be a series of warnings - even phone calls - before domains are lifted. As there should be.

You owe your landlord rent on the first, but he doesn't kick you out on the second, he tries for a while to get you to pay. If you won't, eventually he calls in the marshal.

A timely topic, however.

[DomainTalker]

Yes, its a very delicate position to be in for mTLD....

No other Registry has ever tried this enforcement notion before.


I'm certain that mTLD are enforcing their premium development policy, as we speak. Their contracts are clear, they have issued (revised) deadlines, and, I know for a fact that they are communicating with each premium owner, personally, about it. I hope it goes smoothly.


But, let's look, for a moment, at what this policy could mean:


The reality is, its tricky for mTLD.....In some cases, it may be a case of 'damned if they do, damned if they don't'...

...ie, If they don't repossess a domain that isn't developed according to the terms, they face criticism from some quarters....On the other hand, if they do repossess a top domain, they may well face public criticism and controversy, initiated by the domain registrant - or, even litigation, challenging the legitimacy of the contracts.....In either case, mTLD would be in a place they'd much prefer, I'm sure, not to be in.


I don't know if any premium domain holders will fail to comply on time. But, its a fair bet some won't. Okay. mTLD can repossess them......But, what if there are 50 premium domains in this category?...What if 5 of them are major, multi-national corporates, that actually object to the repossession, and initiate a public brawl about it? Or, worse, litigation? What would be best for mTLD to do?


'Take 'em anyway', some would say. 'They knew the rules', some would say....True.....But.....if 5 major corporates (or, even one) used all their resources to go public about their domains being repossessed - or, worse, litigate - it may be months of negative media PR, Blogs, and argument, plus, court reporting. ....'.mobi doesn't need that', others would say....ie damned if they do, damned if they dont.


And, if 50 domains need to be repossessed because the owners didn't value them enough to get them developed, then, that's pretty awful, too.


This enforcement thing - in reality - is potentially a very hard rock, and a very hard place, thing....and could be a difficult thing to manage for mTLD. Ultimately, what's best for the brand - now, and for the future - should be uppermost in their minds on this.


(Btw - If it were me - and the choice was between the Jeff's of life complaining in Forums about delay - versus JP Morgan coming after me with a baseball bat about repossession - No contest. I know I'd work very hard to finesse JP Morgan into complying eventually, rather than take the domain off them - even if it took much longer to achieve. The lesser of two evils, imo).


Lets hope it doesn't come to that. After all, the real objective is to get the domains developed, and out there. That's more important than the process, itself, imo.


And, another thought....The saddest thing of all, would be if several major corporates simply didn't care if the .mobi name they had was repossessed....ie they happily handed their premiums back to mTLD because they now valued that premium .mobi domain so little.


For .mobi's sake - and, all our sakes - lets hope mTLD manage this difficult process very well.


I don't envy them.

.

[noonoo1]

Perhaps they could sinbin the name for 90days, this would give them a chance to get a site up, if satisfactory give their names back to them. If they don't build a compliant site then keep the names and auction them off or RFP them.

[Jeff]

If they don't build a compliant site then keep the names and auction them off or RFP them.

RFP, yes ... auction, absolutely not IMHO. :eek2:

-Jeff :cool:

[Scandiman]

More on this is now available from mTLD's blog http://dotmobi.typepad.com/dotmobi/2009/02/premium-name-compliance-update.html

What we need to remember here is that while the auctions were public, the contracts are between two private parties and as such are always negotiable. Anyone here is free to try and track the situation from the outside but ultimately without being involved in the individual discussions we don't have the full picture.

Imagine for instance if the people behind CreditCards.mobi have a specific launch they are building towards that coincides with something that is important to their industry and business model. That launch could be another year away and they could inform mTLD of their specific plans and mTLD works with them in their situation. There could be a hundred such situations because when the auction takes place is when the name needs to be acquired, but the usage of the name may not fit the auction timeline.

I was and continue to be an advocate of strictly enforcing the development requirements, but where I've tempered my position is in regards to strict adherence to the deadline without consideration of the facts in the situation, and only the two private parties know the facts.

Yes, it's a difficult situation for mTLD, I don't think it would benefit the .mobi ecosystem if they acted merely as bureaucrats here without taking full account of the individual facts. That being said, a few repo's would certainly send a message to pure speculators to stay away from the Premiums unless they intend to change their spots.

[acc]

More on this is now available from mTLD's blog http://dotmobi.typepad.com/dotmobi/2009/02/premium-name-compliance-update.html

What we need to remember here is that while the auctions were public, the contracts are between two private parties and as such are always negotiable. Anyone here is free to try and track the situation from the outside but ultimately without being involved in the individual discussions we don't have the full picture.

Imagine for instance if the people behind CreditCards.mobi have a specific launch they are building towards that coincides with something that is important to their industry and business model. That launch could be another year away and they could inform mTLD of their specific plans and mTLD works with them in their situation. There could be a hundred such situations because when the auction takes place is when the name needs to be acquired, but the usage of the name may not fit the auction timeline.

I was and continue to be an advocate of strictly enforcing the development requirements, but where I've tempered my position is in regards to strict adherence to the deadline without consideration of the facts in the situation, and only the two private parties know the facts.

Yes, it's a difficult situation for mTLD, I don't think it would benefit the .mobi ecosystem if they acted merely as bureaucrats here without taking full account of the individual facts. That being said, a few repo's would certainly send a message to pure speculators to stay away from the Premiums unless they intend to change their spots.

Very level headed analysis.

Looks like the "concerned" questioning has moved along to other place ;
http://dotmobi.typepad.com/dotmobi/2009/02/premium-name-compliance-update.html

Someone seems to be attempting to speak for all mobility members of as being all "anxious" about the premium name. That's not my position.

[youmo]

I received a non-compliance email the other day. I was quite surprised as the site in question had been partially developed. I was in contact with mtld, and after some back and forth the site was reclassified as compliant. However I was urged to do more development to the site as soon as possible. This kind of coaxing in great.

In this particular instance the live site doesn't look all that great but the functionality is quite sophisticated. This was because I had just put up the partially completed site whilst I actively develop it further offline.

I could put an even more complete version online now, but I would rather wait until the site is even more complete before people start visiting the site and finding bugs or just receiving what I consider to be a substandard experience. Not to mention I don't want to have to maintain the database with any content that may be added by users whilst the site is frequently being updated. And who knows you could get a premature review or mention of the site in a blog and before you know it you have bad press.

Some of our premium names require extensive development, meaning we will still be building years after any compliance date. This has to be taken into consideration. If you have great ambitions for a great premium name, then development should be a long road, not a race to finish at an arbitrary date that fits no business plan.

I think mtld are smart enough to see who making their best effort and who are taking the ****.

[Scandiman]

I received a non-compliance email the other day. I was quite surprised as the site in question had been partially developed. I was in contact with mtld, and after some back and forth the site was reclassified as compliant. However I was urged to do more development to the site as soon as possible. This kind of coaxing in great.

In this particular instance the live site doesn't look all that great but the functionality is quite sophisticated. This was because I had just put up the partially completed site whilst I actively develop it further offline.

I could put an even more complete version online now, but I would rather wait until the site is even more complete before people start visiting the site and finding bugs or just receiving what I consider to be a substandard experience. Not to mention I don't want to have to maintain the database with any content that may be added by users whilst the site is frequently being updated. And who knows you could get a premature review or mention of the site in a blog and before you know it you have bad press.

Some of our premium names require extensive development, meaning we will still be building years after any compliance date. This has to be taken into consideration. If you have great ambitions for a great premium name, then development should be a long road, not a race to finish at an arbitrary date that fits no business plan.

Thanks for sharing your personal experience, You're absolutely right that most sites are always ongoing, the launch is the start, not the finish.


I think mtld are smart enough to see who making their best effort and who are taking the ****.

Well said. :laugh:

[Gerry]

Jeez, can we clean out all the bannee's comments so I can get to the meat of this thread?

[Pred]

Jeez, can we clean out all the bannee's comments so I can get to the meat of this thread?

i agree. we delete spammers and trolls. this p.o.s was no different.

thanks for the assist 'friends' :stickyman:

[Scandiman]

i agree. we delete spammers and trolls. this p.o.s was no different.

thanks for the assist 'friends' :stickyman:

Soon enough it will be ancient history, besides it may prove useful to keep the evidence around.

[gogo]

I received a non-compliance email the other day. I was quite surprised as the site in question had been partially developed. I was in contact with mtld, and after some back and forth the site was reclassified as compliant.

Thanks for the info, that is helpful.

They don't seem to want to publish a list of the developed sites - perhaps that would make it easier to see which ones haven't been developed - but that and the experience you've just described leave a grey area:

At what point is a site deemed compliant? Is it then finally signed off?
Or is the compliance status subject to revision? Is it subject to revision in perpetuity?

I think you can see where this is going. Someone wanting to sell a developed site on one of these names can say it is currently compliant, but it would be better if they can state it is now out of its probationary period and is not subject to recall. Without MTLD publicly listing compliant sites how can a buyer verify the status of a site?

Someone buying a developed site may want to modify or develop it further without interference or fear of repossession.

So do the premium development terms apply in perpetuity, for a defined period, or just until a definitive evaluation is done and the site is signed off?