View Full Version : What happened to the .mobi trustmark ?
Where did the mobi trustmark go?
Like a lot of you I am wondering what happened to the .mobi trustmark - the unique guarantee this extension gave to users that they would find mobile content at a .mobi address. This would give users a great advantage in finding content, it would help search engines know which sites to prefer, and it might reward forward thinking domain investors.
What I read was that to buy a .mobi you had to accept as a condition that the company behind .mobi - MTLD, now called Dotmobi - would be checking that all .mobi domains were compliant - each domain would have to have at least one page of mobile content, but could also have - in addition - non mobile content. We were told mobi registration fees must be higher in order to cover the cost of monitoring and enforcement: after repeated warnings a site could be "turned off" for sixty days, as I recall.
A while ago we had a discussion on here about how the compliance and enforcement policies were getting hard to find.
Almost three years after the launch of this special domain, there has never been an enforcement action by MTLD and so it could be a case of "anything goes" on a .mobi domain - nice for the individual who wants that but bad for .mobi collectively - search engines would stop whitelisting mobi sites in searches for mobile results. Worse, an application to set up a new TLD that did have and enforce a mobile trustmark could no longer be rejected on the grounds of similarity.
Well, maybe you know more about this than me and you can point me to an official announcement of an enforcement action, or a revision or revocation of the .mobi registration conditions so that my mobis are free to do what they like? Including being submitted to MTLD for a refund....
I would really, really like more info on this.
This thread in a way is a subtopic to the one about MTLD's solvency and viability here: http://mobility.mobi/showthread.php?t=38087
There is no standard without enforcement. mTLD shouldn't even be able to say they have a standard without the accompanying active enforcement. I call that lying.
If they made a decision to not enforce a standard after all, then that should go out in an announcement. That would actually boost registrations imo. But, for the record, I'm for standards enforcement.
Well if they enforce standards they have to have a budget for that... so where's the money going?
“We’ve used most of the revenue from the DotMobi domain to fund applications for businesses that help them use the mobile web,” Harvin, who is speaking at next week’s IIA Congress, told siliconrepublic.com.
Harvin said that with 1.2 million domains now sold, the DotMobi service is the 25th largest domain name provider in the world.
as reported in Silicon Republic 18 May 2009
http://www.businessandleadership.com/news/article/13675/marketing/mobile-internet-to-be-bigger-than-tv-and-pc-combined
coast
08-09-2009, 08:49 PM
In other words, the purchase of mowser, device atlas, instant mobilizer, and the mobile wordpress plugin is where the money went.
The longer they wait to enforce compliance, the more compliance they are going to have to enforce if and when they ever decide to put the hammer down. A stitch in time saves nine, Ben Franklin used to say.
Well, whatever they do now, they are going to lose (even more) credibility. Either they waffled or pussyfooted the issue. It will take a clever strategy to get back to their vision.
I think that DT hit it with the idea of mTLD doing what the investors want by broadening the mobile web rather than cementing their brand on it. They stopped focusing on purely pushing the extension and the trustmark to becoming a player in the mobile web.
In other words, the purchase of mowser, device atlas, instant mobilizer, and the mobile wordpress plugin is where the money went.
The longer they wait to enforce compliance, the more compliance they are going to have to enforce if and when they ever decide to put the hammer down. A stitch in time saves nine, Ben Franklin used to say.
Scandiman
08-10-2009, 03:40 AM
There is no standard without enforcement.
:bingo:
Unfortunately though, IMO, it is too late for enforcement.
Turning off non-compliant sites (per today's compliance standards) would result in shutting off bofa.mobi, espn.mobi and many more high profile .mobi sites. That would be a PR disaster and likely result in significant abandonment of the TLD by existing end users..aka nightmare!
Imposing an Instant Mobilizer reroute on a non-compliant commerce site would be a tad better, but brings with it some serious legal issues with commerce sites...I doubt Bank of America would be happy that their traffic is passing through a server not under their control, especially important for their security protocols.
Enforcing standards only on new regs would create a distasteful double standard, but is a possibility.
The most I can really hope for from this discussion is to open clear channels of official discourse between the .mobi registry and its domain holders regarding policy changes like these, providing a voice to the domain owners regarding registry policies. MAG isn't the correct channel, as domain holders we've already paid our ante, another membership due shouldn't be required to participate with the registry regarding official policy changes that effect the domains we've already purchased. Plus MAG operates under a completely different agenda, making management decisions relevant to its success as a general mobile web industry association and not necessarily focused on the .mobi TLD.
One concept is each domain registration could represent a voting share of sorts for the domain owners regarding domain policy changes. I completely understand that mTLD wouldn't want such an accountability to navigate, but something needs to change to open up an official dialog between mTLD and the domain owners regarding domain registry policies like general compliance standards and enforcement.
Pivotal in this discussion is a definition of community....
http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/agreements/mobi/registry-agmt-mobi-19oct05.htm
Section 3.1 part G:
4. ensure, through published procedures, adequate opportunities for members of the sponsored TLD community to submit their views on and objections to the establishment or revision of standards, policies, procedures, and practices or the manner in which standards, policies, procedures, and practices are enforced.
Are domain owners considered "members of the sponsored TLD community" upon the registration of a .mobi domain? If so, what "adequate opportunities" exist for us to submit our "views on and objections to the establishment or revision of standards, policies, procedures, and practices or the manner in which standards, policies, procedures, and practices are enforced"?
Scandiman
08-10-2009, 04:28 AM
Are domain owners considered "members of the sponsored TLD community" upon the registration of a .mobi domain? If so, what "adequate opportunities" exist for us to submit our "views on and objections to the establishment or revision of standards, policies, procedures, and practices or the manner in which standards, policies, procedures, and practices are enforced"?
To answer my own question...
http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/agreements/mobi/registry-agmt-mobi-19oct05.htm
Section 3.1-d-i-B
Registry Operator shall establish procedures for the enforcement of applicable Charter restrictions on registration within the TLD as described in Appendix S, which Appendix shall also include the description of the sponsored community and the delegated authority with respect thereto.
Appendix S http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/agreements/mobi/mobi-appendixS-23nov05.htm
Appendix S
Part 3
Description of the sTLD Community
Subject to Registry Operator’s compliance with this Registry Operator TLD Registry Agreement, including all attachments and appendices thereto (the “Agreement”) and any Temporary Specifications or Policies or Consensus Policies as defined in the Agreement, and provided the scope of the Charter is not exceeded:
The Registry Operator TLD community will be defined as all self-identified participants that have a stake in the Charter of the sTLD as described in Part 1 of this Appendix S.
1. We anticipate the following to be the major beneficiaries and stakeholders in the community:
1. Mobile consumers, including both individual and business consumers of products, devises, and Internet based services, content and other items used or accessed while connected over mobile or wireless (“Consumers”) and organizations that represent such Consumers; and
2. Business and other providers (“Providers”) of those products, services, content, applications, and other items to Consumers and other Providers in connection with their use or access while connected over mobile or wireless, and organizations that represent such Providers. Providers include, without limitation:
i. Providers of content, services, devices, features, and applications for mobile consumption;
ii. Developers and distributors of mobile content, applications and other services that are designated to be usable while mobile;
iii. Mobile operators providing wireless two-way connectivity to Consumers on the move;
iv. Mobile equipment and device manufacturers, vendors, and/or distributors, including, without limitation, handset, networks, software and services vendors; and
v. Vendors of IT based technologies, hardware, clients, and servers dedicated to serving the mobility community by delivering products or services for Consumers or other Providers.
3. Representatives of Consumers and Providers and other interested parties (“Representatives”), including, without limitation:
i. Consumer advocacy organizations;
ii. Mobile technology, mobile media, mobile services and mobile entertainment stakeholder consortia;
iii. Standards and other technical bodies;
iv. Trade and other not-for-profit associations; and
v. Entrepreneurs, academia, university consortia, researchers, private sector non-governmental organizations.2. Registry Operator may modify and/or expand the description of the sTLD Community, consistent with the Agreement, to reflect evolution of the mobile industry and its consumers.It fascinates me that per this agreement .mobi domain registrants are not expressly described as stakeholders in the community. But clearly from this, the focus has been far beyond the .mobi TLD from the beginning.
I think if mTLD telegraphed their plan out far enough, they could achieve reasonable compliance. The trouble is, I fear, they have no intention of doing that.
Again for me it's a win either way. I am near even on my investment. Now I can build gigantic PC sites on my nice keyword names without fear of reprisal.
:bingo:
Unfortunately though, IMO, it is too late for enforcement.
Turning off non-compliant sites (per today's compliance standards) would result in shutting off bofa.mobi, espn.mobi and many more high profile .mobi sites. That would be a PR disaster and likely result in significant abandonment of the TLD by existing end users..aka nightmare!
Imposing an Instant Mobilizer reroute on a non-compliant commerce site would be a tad better, but brings with it some serious legal issues with commerce sites...I doubt Bank of America would be happy that their traffic is passing through a server not under their control, especially important for their security protocols.
I don't at all see it being too late for enforcement - the domain owners knew their legal obligations and risks when they bought the domains.
The truth is, the enforcement process is a sales opportunity.
What do I mean?
The compliance requirement is for just one page to exist suitable for all mobile devices, not just a particular make, class, or subset - and that page could even just say "sorry mate but you gotta upgrade to a smartphone to show you have enough money to bank with us". The compliant page is five minutes work - it is the will to provide it that is the issue.
So how can the bank know who gets that page/message? They subscribe to Dotmobi's Device Atlas. Sale closed.
The company needs advice on how to create the single holding page they need? They pay Dotmobi to install it for them - sale closed. Or they are steered by Dotmobi to a Dotmobi certified developer - commission received, own brand developer trustmark promoted once again.
They have been given repeated warnings but think they are too busy to do anything before being shutdown - they pay for a temporary "review extension" - sale closed.
Scandi posted MTLD / Dotmobi's definition of stakeholders and pointed out that it does not explicitly include domain owners.
Well, possibly, as "consumers". But look at this in their definition:
2. Business and other providers (“Providers”) of those products, services, content, applications, and other items to Consumers and other Providers in connection with their use or access while connected over mobile or wireless, and organizations that represent such Providers. Providers include, without limitation:i. Providers of content, services, devices, features, and applications for mobile consumption;
ii. Developers and distributors of mobile content, applications and other services that are designated to be usable while mobile;
For any premium sold with development requirements, the owner is automatically a developer and distributor of mobile content and explicitly included by Dotmobi in their definition of the stakeholder community.
Some of the stakeholders are looking out for vampires to pin down.
Scandiman
08-10-2009, 01:51 PM
The compliance requirement is for just one page to exist suitable for all mobile devices... That's the intention, but the code compliance requirements do not equal this, they merely provide a possible path in the right direction.
XHTML Mobile profile
with or without WWW resolve
no frames
The more I learned about coding for mobile it became clear that these 3 compliance standards alone do not equal suitability for all mobile devices.
Any discussion trying to revive enforcement needs to be prefaced by a technical discussion on the standards themselves.
That's the intention, but the code compliance requirements do not equal this, they merely provide a possible path in the right direction.
XHTML Mobile profile
with or without WWW resolve
no frames
The more I learned about coding for mobile it became clear that these 3 compliance standards alone do not equal suitability for all mobile devices.
So are you saying there are devices that cannot handle an XHTML mobile profile page?
such as this utterly basic page:
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?><!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//WAPFORUM//DTD XHTML Mobile 1.0//EN" "http://www.wapforum.org/DTD/xhtml-mobile10.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="application/xhtml+xml; charset=UTF-8" />
<title>sample page</title>
</head>
<body>
<p>
This is a basic, standards compliant page
</p>
</body>
</html>
The coding was discussed before the mobi compliance standard was set - that was the point of mobile xhtml - and it is w3 standard.
If you want to add complexity to the styling or content then that is a design matter, and some complicated CSS will not work. But you are building out from an agreed standard that works.
Scandiman
08-10-2009, 04:45 PM
So are you saying there are devices that cannot handle an XHTML mobile profile page?
:bingo:
The coding was discussed before the mobi compliance standard was set - that was the point of mobile xhtml - and it is w3 standard.
So? No phone manufacturer must comply, plus there are devices that predate and use other stuff like WML...
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<!DOCTYPE wml PUBLIC "-//WAPFORUM//DTD WML 1.3//EN" "http://www.wapforum.org/DTD/wml13.dtd">
<wml>
<card title="WML">
<p>Welcome to WML</p>
</card>
</wml>
Not to mention I could pack a 100,000 x 100,000 pixel image into a .mobi compliant site and it would still be compliant, but obviously not mobile friendly. This is where ready.mobi comes into play, providing a greater pool of metrics upon which to evaluate a page. But there is no correlation between a ready score and compliance.
coast
08-10-2009, 05:00 PM
I don't at all see it being too late for enforcement - the domain owners knew their legal obligations and risks when they bought the domains.
The truth is, the enforcement process is a sales opportunity.
What do I mean?
The compliance requirement is for just one page to exist suitable for all mobile devices, not just a particular make, class, or subset - and that page could even just say "sorry mate but you gotta upgrade to a smartphone to show you have enough money to bank with us". The compliant page is five minutes work - it is the will to provide it that is the issue.
So how can the bank know who gets that page/message? They subscribe to Dotmobi's Device Atlas. Sale closed.
The company needs advice on how to create the single holding page they need? They pay Dotmobi to install it for them - sale closed. Or they are steered by Dotmobi to a Dotmobi certified developer - commission received, own brand developer trustmark promoted once again.
They have been given repeated warnings but think they are too busy to do anything before being shutdown - they pay for a temporary "review extension" - sale closed.
Excellent points, Gogo, and a real opportunity for mTLD to raise more money.
Scandiman
08-10-2009, 05:04 PM
I think if mTLD telegraphed their plan out far enough, they could achieve reasonable compliance.
when a naming standard like mdot costs nothing and is free to use however you see fit, clamping down now on .mobi compliance would I think result in some migration away from .mobi. Slowly gaining market and mind share is difficult enough, losing market share is disastrous. Will belated compliance today bring end users to .mobi? Perhaps, but it would need to be accompanied by (and part of) a consumer focused marketing push like DT and others desire in order to help create demand and awareness.
The big difference between mdots and mobi is you have to have a bitchen dot to put the m on whereas mobi has a lot of nice hand reg and cheap aftermarkets. I think that NEW mobile sites are the target more than converting large brands.
Scandiman
08-10-2009, 06:44 PM
The big difference between mdots and mobi is you have to have a bitchen dot to put the m on whereas mobi has a lot of nice hand reg and cheap aftermarkets. I think that NEW mobile sites are the target more than converting large brands.Yes, I completely agree, but compliance enforcement efforts will have immediate effect on those large brands already using .mobi that through usage lend their brand power to the .mobi brand. Their potential abandonment of the TLD due to new enforcement policies would definitely have negative PR implications.
Scandi, I am not sure what point you are making.
Do you want to imply that nothing can be done, or to say that what compliance covers should be made more specific?
I know you are very straight and clear in what you say and you do not mean to obfuscate the issue, but I fear that - as we have seen in discussions on this forum - there are people who are in a great rush to do away with standards and compliance without ever really understanding what they are and what they do. Or, in the case of MTLD, understanding only too well - having been involved in drawing up standards.
re some of your coding points:
xhtml is the standard markup language for the web, so saying no phone manufacturer of new phones and browsers must support xhtml is like saying no user of the English language has to support the Roman alphabet that we use. Choosing to be unable to read is a valid choice, but limiting in the extreme.
Also XHTML mobile IS WAP 2.0 - and designed for backwards compatibility
XHTML MP (eXtensible HyperText Markup Language Mobile Profile) is the markup language defined in WAP 2.0. WAP 2.0 is the most recent mobile services specification created by the WAP Forum (now the Open Mobile Alliance [OMA] (http://www.openmobilealliance.org/)). The specification of WAP CSS (WAP Cascading Style Sheet or WCSS) is also defined in WAP 2.0. WAP CSS is the companion of XHTML Mobile Profile and they are used together. With WAP CSS, you can easily change and format the presentation of XHTML MP pages.
XHTML Mobile Profile is a subset of XHTML, which is the stricter version of HTML. XHTML Mobile Profile is XHTML Basic (http://www.developershome.com/wap/xhtmlmp/xhtml_mp_tutorial.asp?page=devWirelessMarkup#2.4.X HTML%20Basic%7Coutline) (also a subset of XHTML) plus some additional elements and attributes from the full version of XHTML.
The goal of XHTML Mobile Profile is to bring together the technologies for mobile Internet browsing and that for the World Wide Web. Before the coming out of XHTML Mobile Profile, WAP developers make use of WML and WMLScript to create WAP sites, while web developers use HTML / XHTML and CSS style sheets to build web sites.
With the announcement of XHTML Mobile Profile, the markup language of the wireless world and the wired world finally converges. XHTML Mobile Profile and WAP CSS give wireless Internet application developers more and better presentation control. The greatest advantage, however, is that the same technologies can now be used to develop both the web and wireless version of your Internet site. You can use any web browsers to view your WAP2.0 application during the prototyping and development process.
The previous version of WAP is 1.2.1. WAP 1.2.1 sites are developed using WML and WMLScript. WAP 2.0 is backward compatible to WAP 1.x. So, a WAP 2.0 wireless device can be used to visit both XHTML MP / WCSS and WML / WMLScript sites. If you are interested in learning WML or WMLScript, you may want to read our WML tutorial (http://www.developershome.com/wap/wml/) and WMLScript tutorial (http://www.developershome.com/wap/wmlscript/).
http://www.developershome.com/wap/xhtmlmp/xhtml_mp_tutorial.asp?page=introduction
:bingo:
So? No phone manufacturer must comply, plus there are devices that predate and use other stuff like WML...
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<!DOCTYPE wml PUBLIC "-//WAPFORUM//DTD WML 1.3//EN" "http://www.wapforum.org/DTD/wml13.dtd">
<wml>
<card title="WML">
<p>Welcome to WML</p>
</card>
</wml>
Not to mention I could pack a 100,000 x 100,000 pixel image into a .mobi compliant site and it would still be compliant, but obviously not mobile friendly. This is where ready.mobi comes into play, providing a greater pool of metrics upon which to evaluate a page. But there is no correlation between a ready score and compliance.
As said, people are free to make bad design decisions. Simply putting too much text on a page could make it unloadable while violating no standard.
All the compliance standard does is ask for a site to render a single page in the agreed standard language for the mobile web - design decisions can be made on top of that which can be very bad. Again, the point of this is to guarantee that users can find some content in a format suitable for mobile devices and that does involve going for an agreed lowest common denominator. That is defined as the Default Delivery Environment http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/CR-mobile-bp-20060627/#ddc which is a key reference point in the materials for the Dotmobi Certified Developer exam.
Yes, I completely agree, but compliance enforcement efforts will have immediate effect on those large brands already using .mobi that through usage lend their brand power to the .mobi brand. Their potential abandonment of the TLD due to new enforcement policies would definitely have negative PR implications.
Everyone, including me, has made assumptions about the form enforcement takes. Turning off is the last resort. Publishing factually critical lists of sites is another, as is providing (selling) staff training and examples of good practice.
I don't think a big company would risk being turned off just to avoid a five minute coding job.
Web development is bedevilled by the fact it is often done by untrained people working for companies with very mistaken approaches to the pc web, let alone the mobile web. They can be very stubborn; Dotmobi can help them learn.
Accent
08-10-2009, 08:41 PM
Is compliance, or better said, usability really a problem now with .Mobi websites? I don't know, but I haven't heard much about it if it is.
Perhaps the biggest problem of all is the decision made, often by low level techies with little knowledge of domains, to use subdomains, alternate pages or even strange .com concoctions instead of .Mobi even when they already own the .mobi of their domain. There is a critical lack there - either we are wrong in believing that .Mobi domains are the most user-friendly and search engine-friendly way to access and promote a mobile website, or the message is not getting where it needs to get.
I think the message is not getting through to the decision makers. Others have posted that on the tech forums .Mobi is not even discussed.
I am concerned that any compliance requirements at all will send developers away from .Mobi - the last thing employees want is nastygrams from the registry to their bosses finding fault with their work. CYA requires the path of least resistance. I believe that the rumor of compliance rules on .Mobi, despite nonenforcement, is a major major major reason developers avoid .Mobi.
Someone reported that Google is weighting mobile websites by usability. That is exactly the right place to do it. Google's customers prefer usable websites, Google has financial incentive to provide what their customers want, websites are motivated to rank well in Google, new technology is accounted for in real time. Carrot instead of stick, the free market wins this one.
Are there legal/tax problems with a second website, at least in some countries? I wonder if the folks at DotMobi have done a survey to see why developers choose alternatives to .Mobi.
I am concerned that any compliance requirements at all will send developers away from .Mobi - the last thing employees want is nastygrams from the registry to their bosses finding fault with their work. CYA requires the path of least resistance. I believe that the rumor of compliance rules on .Mobi, despite nonenforcement, is a major major major reason developers avoid .Mobi.
Do you have any evidence whatsoever for this repeated speculation?
This is like saying that asking people to be familiar with the rules of the road is a deterrent to driving, and that it would be even worse to require such a things as driving licences and road traffic signs. And that no professional should be asked to do the job right in case it might upset them.
The whole point about mobi from the start is that it came with an incredibly simple one page compliance requirement that anyone can meet, and hopefully exceed. Without that mobi is just a four letter word.
"Investors" pop up from time to time on this forum saying there should be no compliance standards, requirements, enforcement - why not buy another extension, or learn a bit about what the standards are and what it is they are trying to protect?
If you get rid of all standards you go back to the 1990's and sites only work on some browsers, and there are big development costs creating variant sites for different browsers. Expensive and unnecessary chaos. No thanks. Nice to try to avoid that and improve things in future on mobile. Which is exactly what Dotmobi have been involved in in trying to workd with W3C, the standards body, to set mobile standards. Which makes it doubly bizarre for them to try to ignore the very basic standards inbuilt to the mobi extension - just what are they playing at?
Andres Kello
08-11-2009, 12:59 AM
Folks, it's quite simple. Without the Trustmark, .mobi is fundamentally no different to any other 4-letter extension. The Trustmark is precisely what makes .mobi a unique extension.
A Trustmark is an all or nothing proposition. You can't "trust" something 75% or 85%. You either trust it or you don't. If consumers do not fully trust .mobi to produce mobile-compatible content, then the Trustmark is lost forever. As far as domains are concerned, .mobi without a Trustmark offers no real competitive advantage to consumers or end-users and is fundamentally nothing more than a .biz or .info. I see .mobi having a very difficult time becoming any kind of mobile standard when it itself does not enforce the very standard it is attempting to become. Therefore, the Trustmark must be preserved, and for that to happen, it must be enforced.
Let's face it, without the Trustmark, all of us proponents of .mobi would no longer be able to argue that the only thing that guarantees people a site designed for mobiles is .mobi, so we lose a huge marketing pitch without it (think "Why .mobi? Campaign"). Furthermore, as the Trustmark continues to weaken, we risk losing one of the very few advantages we have left: the automatic white-listing of .mobi domain names by Operators.
The only thing that could possibly make up for a weak Trustmark is heavy mass-marketing constantly drilling the ".mobi = mobile web" message to consumers and therefore masking the non-compliant problem, but that heavy marketing is nowhere to be seen as we very well know. Without heavy marketing and without a Trustmark, this extension is nothing and is only supported by a continued blind faith that a healthy ecosystem is being built. Once that faith is finally shattered and the remaining and most-loyal stakeholders realize that the inside of that very ecosystem they are helping to build is rotten to the core beyond any repair, the house of cards falls and the extension gets relegated to a mobile graveyard of wanna-be sites that couldn't afford a .com. Nobody wants to be a part of a losing team and a weakening Trustmark is a slow and silent killer within.
Don't ever forget: .mobi is not needed. It's of huge benefit to consumers and end-users if properly executed, but at the end of the day, the mobile web can and will exist without it. So if the value proposition of something that is not needed is not significant enough, then there is simply no point to it and it therefore cannot thrive. And .mobi without the Trustmark simply has no value proposition.
We're certainly not winning the "adoption" war, so we don't have the luxury of being able to rely on the market furthering the Trustmark or making .mobi any kind of standard. It's therefore up to the enforcement of the Trustmark to do the job. If enforcement drives some companies away, so be it. Do we really want them to be a part of a mobile-friendly ecosystem anyway? I'd be more than happy with them moving over to m-dots and plaguing them with their non-compliant content in order to keep .mobi clean, consistent, and predictable.
After all, the original beauty of the .mobi concept was its simplicity. You could explain the concept to any 8 or 80 year old just as easily: if a site ends with .mobi, it's optimized for your mobile phone. Without the Trustmark, the message gets mixed, blurry, and unclear: .mobi is intended for mobile sites, so you have a reasonable shot at finding mobile content there. Hardly the kind of sales pitch that will make something not needed successful.
The credibility of the most fundamental element of this extension is at stake here. Without that credibility, no one will take this extension seriously and it will never reach critical mass. If you feel I'm over-dramatizing the significance of this, then take it as a sign of how important and urgent I feel this issue is to the original .mobi concept we all bought into.
And, for the record, I don't think the enforcement needs to be harsh or crippling in order to be effective.
However...
No Enforcement = No Trustmark = No Mobile Extension. Period.
So where is mTLD on this board with these discussions? Do we still have the ear of mTLD or are they on autopilot elsewhere?
PS. Am I going nutso or did Coast have a post about Nokia that disappeared?
ChineseDomain
08-11-2009, 01:34 AM
It seems that dotMobi itself lost the confidence on .mobi?!
(1) They abandon the mobile compatibility enforcement. .mobi will be as useless extention since lost the trustmark on mobile web, which is its original mission.
(2) Change its mission from .mobi domain to mobile internet services. A REALLY BAD MOVE
"dotMobi is a leading mobile Internet services company, helping businesses and individuals reach the world’s billions of mobile phone users." [http://mtld.mobi/company/about] (http://mtld.mobi/company/about%5D)
I don't think a small company as .mobi can beat MS, Google, Nokia, or even mobiSiteGalore in mobile internet services. No mobile phone OS, no enterprice mobile internet tools, no mobile browser, no mobile developtools, no mobile ads agency, no...
(3) Develop more and more tools to do automatic-detective to eliminate the .mobi value
"dotMobi spurs mobile industry innovation by giving content providers the tools they need – including the .mobi top level domain (http://mtld.mobi/domain/find) – to ensure the Web will work on mobile phones with speed, accuracy and relevant content. "[http://mtld.mobi/company/about] (http://mtld.mobi/company/about%5D)
What dotMobi do is to provide tools for content providers to ensure the web will work on mobile phones. It is Web not .mobi!
Indeed, .mobi is not a tool at all, only a name.
dotMobi's Wordpress Mobile pack is really a tool. Now .mobi is unnecessary for WordPress owner anymore. Why they need it since dotMobi's mobile pack already help to reach the mobile friendly requirement?!
One more, yesterday, find the RSS news:
"New Cellufun CEO Sets Growth Path (http://mobility.mobi/showthread.php?t=31059)". Who is the CEO? We are falimiar with him.
Neil Edwards, whose appointment to the CEO position was announced last week, joined the company back in February. After having served as the founding CEO of dotMobi, he had taken a year off to work as a consultant and look for the next opportunity.
What's the matter? Cellufun didn't register its .mobi at all! Does it mean that dotMobi previous CEO Edwards didn't see any benefits of .mobi at all?!
It is time for mobility to get some concerns and have a talk with dotMobi. Either leave .mobi domain, or get dotMobi focus on its original mission.
So where is mTLD on this board with these discussions? Do we still have the ear of mTLD or are they on autopilot elsewhere?
PS. Am I going nutso or did Coast have a post about Nokia that disappeared?
Do yo mean the sad news about Symbian.mobi. Symbian registered the symbian.mobi as trademark and then let it drop several days before.
Scandiman
08-11-2009, 02:51 AM
If enforcement drives some companies away, so be it. Do we really want them to be a part of a mobile-friendly ecosystem anyway? I'd be more than happy with them moving over to m-dots and plaguing them with their non-compliant content in order to keep .mobi clean, consistent, and predictable.
Some? I thought it might be useful to examine your why.mobi brands (http://why.mobi/brands.php) page in terms of compliance and ready score to see what we're actually dealing with:
Site URL / compliant (yes or no) / Ready score
DietCoke.mobi / no / 4
BMW.mobi / no / 4
ESPN.mobi / no / 3
Heineken.mobi / no / 2
Fox.mobi / no / 2
Marriott.mobi / no / 4
DHL.mobi / yes / 5
Disney.mobi / no / 2
Time.mobi / yes / 5
Ferrari.mobi / no / 1
DolceGabbana.mobi / no / 4
UniversalPictures.mobi / no / 1
Cisco.mobi / no / 2
FordCA.mobi / no / 3
Iberia.mobi / no / 2
ING.mobi / no / 3
Hertz.mobi / yes / 5
MSN.mobi / no / 3
NBA.mobi / no / 2
Maxim.mobi / no / 4
JaguarXF.mobi / no / 3
Purina.mobi / no / 4
Weather.mobi / no / 3
VolvoCars.mobi / yes / 5
TheTimes.mobi / no / 3
Xbox.mobi / no / 3
Fidelity.mobi / no / 3
FoxNews.mobi / no / 3
Lufthansa.mobi / no / 5
HSBCfrance.mobi / no / 4
Zagat.mobi / no / 4
Barclays.mobi / no / 2
Castrol.mobi / no / 4
WWF.mobi / no / 4
Deutsche-Bank.mobi / no / 4
BenettonPress.mobi / no / 4
AXA.mobi / no / 3
NYPost.mobi / yes / 4
Polo.mobi / (not sure, it won't function on ready.mobi so I'll simply say no) / ?
BusinessWeek.mobi / no / 4
Rolls-Royce.mobi / no / 4
Of these 41 corporate .mobi sites listed at why.mobi, 36 are non-compliant according to ready.mobi, that is 88% non-compliance. Yet many of us would deem most of these sites to be mobile friendly. This illustrates both the scale of the compliance problem as well as the scale of the potential for negative PR due to enforcement.
Again to draw attention to my earlier statement that any discussion of compliance enforcement needs to be prefaced by a discussion about the compliance standards themselves. Some want a change in the standards to avoid having to accommodate lower end phones, but that's not the issue here. The issue is simply that the existing compliance standards do not equal "mobile friendly".
And, for the record, I don't think the enforcement needs to be harsh or crippling in order to be effective.
You'll have to explain this one for me because my understanding of basic human nature is that often without serious consequences for bad behavior does that behavior change.
What exactly would you consider doing to make those 88% non-compliant sites listed above comply? Do you feel their departure from the .mobi extension would be inconsequential? If so then why bother listing them at why.mobi to begin with? Because their brands lend credibility to the .mobi brand.
Perhaps there is a compliance strategy (and a new approach to standards) I could support, but the original plan is deadly if applied today. It's time was at the beginning of the extension, that time has passed, a new approach is needed.
I don't think a big company would risk being turned off just to avoid a five minute coding job.
I think you're misunderstanding and underestimating the effort it can take to effect even small changes in large organizations.
Scandi, I am not sure what point you are making.
Do you want to imply that nothing can be done, or to say that what compliance covers should be made more specific?
I know you are very straight and clear in what you say and you do not mean to obfuscate the issue, but I fear that - as we have seen in discussions on this forum - there are people who are in a great rush to do away with standards and compliance without ever really understanding what they are and what they do. Or, in the case of MTLD, understanding only too well - having been involved in drawing up standards.
I'm not in a rush to do away with standards, I welcome them but they need to actually do something other than be rules for rules sake. Rather I'm simply pointing out the hazards of enforcement that I think are all too easy to overlook. If compliance results in a loss of over 80% of current end users, we have a serious problem.
Well... keep in mind that (in my opinion anyways), the Ready.mobi scoring system sucks. If I had to choose between having a nice-looking site that scored a 2/5 or a bland site that scored a 5/5, I'd go with a nice-looking site anyday. Yes, you 'could' make both... but let's face it, most companies aren't going to do this.
I'm sorry but no I'm not going to develop and promote a mobile site that looks like it was designed with a Tracfone in mind. That won't impress anyone. It's all about making it look sweet (think iPhone) and easy to use.
Aesthetic appeal trumps raw practicality.
coast
08-11-2009, 04:06 AM
.
Scandiman
08-11-2009, 04:07 AM
I'm sorry but no I'm not going to develop and promote a mobile site that looks like it was designed with a Tracfone in mind. That won't impress anyone. It's all about making it look sweet (think iPhone) and easy to use.
But will it be easy to use on a tracfone? The whole point behind .mobi is for its sites to be friendly to a wide spectrum of devices. As you pointed out, you could build multiple sites, but in reality you need to in order to maximize compatibility, even among the growing spectrum of high end phones. Mobile sites may be small but they're far from easy, especially if seeking to impress, make it look sweet and easy to use for a majority rather than a minority.
pcaero
08-11-2009, 04:22 AM
Some? I thought it might be useful to examine your why.mobi brands (http://why.mobi/brands.php) page in terms of compliance and ready score to see what we're actually dealing with:
Site URL / compliant (yes or no) / Ready score
DietCoke.mobi / no / 4
BMW.mobi / no / 4
ESPN.mobi / no / 3
Heineken.mobi / no / 2
Fox.mobi / no / 2
Marriott.mobi / no / 4
DHL.mobi / yes / 5
Disney.mobi / no / 2
Time.mobi / yes / 5
Ferrari.mobi / no / 1
DolceGabbana.mobi / no / 4
UniversalPictures.mobi / no / 1
Cisco.mobi / no / 2
FordCA.mobi / no / 3
Iberia.mobi / no / 2
ING.mobi / no / 3
Hertz.mobi / yes / 5
MSN.mobi / no / 3
NBA.mobi / no / 2
Maxim.mobi / no / 4
JaguarXF.mobi / no / 3
Purina.mobi / no / 4
Weather.mobi / no / 3
VolvoCars.mobi / yes / 5
TheTimes.mobi / no / 3
Xbox.mobi / no / 3
Fidelity.mobi / no / 3
FoxNews.mobi / no / 3
Lufthansa.mobi / no / 5
HSBCfrance.mobi / no / 4
Zagat.mobi / no / 4
Barclays.mobi / no / 2
Castrol.mobi / no / 4
WWF.mobi / no / 4
Deutsche-Bank.mobi / no / 4
BenettonPress.mobi / no / 4
AXA.mobi / no / 3
NYPost.mobi / yes / 4
Polo.mobi / (not sure, it won't function on ready.mobi so I'll simply say no) / ?
BusinessWeek.mobi / no / 4
Rolls-Royce.mobi / no / 4
Of these 41 corporate .mobi sites listed at why.mobi, 36 are non-compliant according to ready.mobi, that is 88% non-compliance. Yet many of us would deem most of these sites to be mobile friendly. This illustrates both the scale of the compliance problem as well as the scale of the potential for negative PR due to enforcement.
Again to draw attention to my earlier statement that any discussion of compliance enforcement needs to be prefaced by a discussion about the compliance standards themselves. Some want a change in the standards to avoid having to accommodate lower end phones, but that's not the issue here. The issue is simply that the existing compliance standards do not equal "mobile friendly".
You'll have to explain this one for me because my understanding of basic human nature is that often without serious consequences for bad behavior does that behavior change.
What exactly would you consider doing to make those 88% non-compliant sites listed above comply? Do you feel their departure from the .mobi extension would be inconsequential? If so then why bother listing them at why.mobi to begin with? Because their brands lend credibility to the .mobi brand.
Perhaps there is a compliance strategy (and a new approach to standards) I could support, but the original plan is deadly if applied today. It's time was at the beginning of the extension, that time has passed, a new approach is needed.
I think you're misunderstanding and underestimating the effort it can take to effect even small changes in large organizations.
I'm not in a rush to do away with standards, I welcome them. I'm simply pointing out the hazards of enforcement that I think are all too easy to overlook. If compliance results in a loss of over 80% of current end users, we have a serious problem.
Good Points both Paul and Andres..& others
I think we know that even lower end phones will soon be fully functioning smartphones (or some variation of)
To tackle this issue, looks like a complete overhaul is needed from the top down. What was considered non-compliant 2 or 3 years ago may be deemed appropriate today. Where are the iphone and blackberry skins for ready? Doesn’t most mobile traffic come from such devices..
3 years later several key issues are still up in the air? My neighbor has still never heard of mobi?
These are issues that MTLD should have been on top of from the start. Where is the foresight, vision? Where is the leadership?
I hate to sound like a broken record, but I see ship sailing off course.
Scandi, when you say the sites on your list are non-compliant, do you mean to say that ready.mobi has given the message "Your page does not use XHTML Mobile Profile" and from that message you have concluded that the page does not meet the basic .mobi standards? If so, none of the compliance ratings (below) can be assumed to be correct.
There is an annoying and longstanding issue with ready.mobi's "Your page does not use XHTML Mobile Profile" message - if a page in XHTML mobile profile fails almost any of their tests, they give you this message - really in that case it should be "Your page does not use valid XHTML Mobile Profile "
I may have missed something, but I haven't noticed any messages on the ready.mobi site explicitly evaluating whether a site meets the overall .mobi criteria - perhaps they could add that.
I hope everyone understands that ready.mobi is otherwise irrelevant to the discussion here - it gives a broad overall snapshot of site usability, but it is not there to test the very basic, easy, limited and specific compliance required of mobi sites.
I'd suggest discussion of ready.mobi belongs in another thread.
Some? I thought it might be useful to examine your why.mobi brands (http://why.mobi/brands.php) page in terms of compliance and ready score to see what we're actually dealing with:
Site URL / compliant (yes or no) / Ready score
DietCoke.mobi / no / 4
BMW.mobi / no / 4
ESPN.mobi / no / 3
Heineken.mobi / no / 2
Fox.mobi / no / 2
Marriott.mobi / no / 4
DHL.mobi / yes / 5
Disney.mobi / no / 2
Time.mobi / yes / 5
Ferrari.mobi / no / 1
DolceGabbana.mobi / no / 4
UniversalPictures.mobi / no / 1
Cisco.mobi / no / 2
FordCA.mobi / no / 3
Iberia.mobi / no / 2
ING.mobi / no / 3
Hertz.mobi / yes / 5
MSN.mobi / no / 3
NBA.mobi / no / 2
Maxim.mobi / no / 4
JaguarXF.mobi / no / 3
Purina.mobi / no / 4
Weather.mobi / no / 3
VolvoCars.mobi / yes / 5
TheTimes.mobi / no / 3
Xbox.mobi / no / 3
Fidelity.mobi / no / 3
FoxNews.mobi / no / 3
Lufthansa.mobi / no / 5
HSBCfrance.mobi / no / 4
Zagat.mobi / no / 4
Barclays.mobi / no / 2
Castrol.mobi / no / 4
WWF.mobi / no / 4
Deutsche-Bank.mobi / no / 4
BenettonPress.mobi / no / 4
AXA.mobi / no / 3
NYPost.mobi / yes / 4
Polo.mobi / (not sure, it won't function on ready.mobi so I'll simply say no) / ?
BusinessWeek.mobi / no / 4
Rolls-Royce.mobi / no / 4
Of these 41 corporate .mobi sites listed at why.mobi, 36 are non-compliant according to ready.mobi, that is 88% non-compliance. Yet many of us would deem most of these sites to be mobile friendly. This illustrates both the scale of the compliance problem as well as the scale of the potential for negative PR due to enforcement.
To tackle this issue, looks like a complete overhaul is needed from the top down. What was considered non-compliant 2 or 3 years ago may be deemed appropriate today.
There is nothing wrong at all with the inbuilt .mobi standards. You are being misled. This issue gets obfuscated by discussing ready.mobi - which is completely irrelevant to the inbuilt .mobi standard. (For info, the tests at ready.mobi are using another agree world standard to assess mobile usability http://www.w3.org/TR/mobileOK-basic10-tests/ - they are not whimsical at all)
Anyone is free to create multiple versions of a site for different devices, in fact in their design publications Dotmobi encourage that while pointing out the need to keep in mind and service the lowest common denominator http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/CR-mobile-bp-20060627/#ddc
Aside from uninformed "investors" another pressure against standards comes from untrained developers who don't put usability at the core of their work. An architect is supposed to produce a functioning building - their sense of aesthetics does not override the need for it to work, and in web development core functionality and content has to be defined first and a skin put on top of it. The more attractive the skin the better, but if you put a nice skin on a sofa made of toothpicks it collapses when someone sits on it.
I am sorry to have to use words like "mislead" and "obfuscate" but MTLD are absent from this discussion, and if they should join it you need to be sure you are not chasing red herrings in talking to them.
One concept is each domain registration could represent a voting share of sorts for the domain owners regarding domain policy changes. I completely understand that mTLD wouldn't want such an accountability to navigate, but something needs to change to open up an official dialog between mTLD and the domain owners regarding domain registry policies like general compliance standards and enforcement.
I agree, and as shown earlier, by MTLD's own definition premium domain holders (of domains sold with development reequirements) are "stakeholders" and as you can see from the ICANN info Scandi posted earlier, MTLD have an obligation to consult the stakeholders on changes to their standards etc.
So I have a question I'm sure someone here can answer:
What is the total value of the .mobi premium domains sold at auction?
What is the total value of the premium domains sold with development requirements? (This probably means those sold after a certain date.)
it would be interesting to know the number of people holding those premiums as well.
Scandi re my comment:
Originally Posted by gogo http://mobility.mobi/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://mobility.mobi/showthread.php?p=122606#post122606)
I don't think a big company would risk being turned off just to avoid a five minute coding job.
I think you're misunderstanding and underestimating the effort it can take to effect even small changes in large organizations.
The extreme scenario you keep presenting is that faced with a site being turned off a company would leave .mobi rather than spend five minutes fixing it. You are making a good pragmatic point about inertia and resistance in big organisations, but also - at a pragmatic level - leaving .mobi a that point would involve efforts and costs - much greater ones in fact.
Recoding sites, redirecting links, informing everyone, lost recognition and links, memos, meetings...
Bear in mind what we are looking at is something like this:
Standards > Monitoring > Communicate with site owners > Enforcement
where enforcement can be a whole range of choices.
Now we know MTLD has (had?) bots going around monitoring compliance.
Would they or someone else like to share those monitoring stats?
Andres Kello
08-11-2009, 11:19 AM
Some? I thought it might be useful to examine your why.mobi brands (http://why.mobi/brands.php) page in terms of compliance and ready score to see what we're actually dealing with:
Of these 41 corporate .mobi sites listed at why.mobi, 36 are non-compliant according to ready.mobi, that is 88% non-compliance.Excellent research Scandi, Rep+. If that statistic doesn't scare the heck out of people, then I don't know what will. It is a direct result of complete lack of enforcement and a problem going from bad to worse. If anything, it's a sign to start enforcing sooner rather than later before the problem gets completely out of hand.
It is important to point out, however, that the issue with most of the "no's" on that list is not with the "second level domain" or "no frames", but with the valid XHTML Mobile profile. That vast majority of the companies on that list are using XHTML Mobile profile, but their code just isn't 100% valid. If you ask me, most of those companies aren't even aware they don't have valid code, and I don't think many of them would be too happy to find out their sites aren't "valid". The good news is that, in most of those cases, it really is a 5-minute coding job as gogo pointed out. If we look at the first 3 on that list, here's all that would have to be fixed in order to make them 100% Compliant:
DietCoke.mobi
FAIL near line 49 column 121
The content of element type "body" must match "(h1|h2|h3|h4|h5|h6|ul|ol|dl|p|div|pre|blockquote|a ddress|hr|table|form|
BMW.mobi
WARN
Incorrect doctype specified:
-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN
ESPN.mobi
FAIL near line 13 column 123
Attribute "cellspacing" must be declared for element type "table".
FAIL near line 13 column 123
Attribute "cellpadding" must be declared for element type "table".
FAIL near line 13 column 449
Attribute "align" must be declared for element type "div".
FAIL near line 13 column 1398
Attribute "align" must be declared for element type "div".
FAIL near line 13 column 2526
Attribute "width" must be declared for element type "td".
FAIL near line 13 column 2757
Attribute "width" must be declared for element type "td".
FAIL near line 13 column 3219
The entity name must immediately follow the '&' in the entity reference.
Or even if we look at the mighty FoxNews.mobi:
FAIL near line 125 column 122
Attribute "border" must be declared for element type "img".
FAIL near line 127 column 96
Attribute "align" must be declared for element type "div".
FAIL near line 129 column 52
Attribute "align" must be declared for element type "div".
FAIL near line 129 column 137
The reference to entity "ad" must end with the ';' delimiter.
Those literally are 5-minute coding jobs which is what leads me to believe that the companies probably are not even aware that they don't have valid code. If you ask me, most of these companies would fix their code simply if made aware without any need to be harsh, just to be professional and not look like they're incapable of coding a site correctly. If a company is unwilling to do a 5-minute coding job to make their site with valid code, then again, I have no problem with them moving to an m-dot and leaving .mobi clean.
This illustrates both the scale of the compliance problem as well as the scale of the potential for negative PR due to enforcement.I don't think that simply because something is hard it shouldn't be done if it's the right thing to do. My problem is that the longer it takes to enforce, the harder it's going to be, so the sooner it takes place, the better.
Again, to draw attention to my earlier statement that any discussion of compliance enforcement needs to be prefaced by a discussion about the compliance standards themselves.I agree 100%.
The issue is simply that the existing compliance standards do not equal "mobile friendly". I agree, although the more rules that are added, the more difficult and confusing it gets for companies to comply, so a delicate balance needs to be struck between mobile compatibility and ease of implementation. You can create 50 rules to make a site ultra-compatible with every phone on the market, but then none will be fully compliant, or you can make it ridiculously easy to comply with just 1 rule, but then sites won't be very mobile-compatible. I can see a pagesize limit rule being useful, for example, but not a rule that limits the number of images that can be used. Regardless, the current rules are very easy to implement, so there is no excuse for non-compliance, particularly from large corporations that should have valid code in the first place.
You'll have to explain this one for me because my understanding of basic human nature is that often without serious consequences for bad behavior does that behavior change.I'm talking about the approach, not the ultimate consequences. Tell every company on that list that if they do not comply within 30 days they will have their site shutdown and yes, there probably would be a mass exodus to m-dots. This is another area that requires a fine balance and creative solutions, but I do think that the ultimate "stick" of shutting down a .mobi should still be used in extreme cases where companies were given repeated notice and plenty of time and they completely ignored it. Again, we wouldn't want them on the .mobi ecosystem anyway.
What exactly would you consider doing to make those 88% non-compliant sites listed above comply?I have a few ideas that include a public PR campaign by mTLD announcing the enforcement to make everyone aware (or at least as many people as possible since mTLD is not allowed to e-mail registrants of non-Premiums), a new WHOIS field stating whether the domain was compliant or not so that any domain owner could easily check whether they are compliant and to function as a sort of "seal of approval", a public "name and shame" list of non-compliant sites (I wouldn't do this immediately and would give sites plenty of time after the announcement in order to comply before naming and shaming the ones still non-compliant), plenty of more time for those on the list to comply, and then the ultimate stick in case they did not after being given more than enough time. The ultimate stick does not necessarily have to be shutting down the site, either. If it was technically feasible, I'd prefer a forced header, for example, that told visitors to the site that it was not compliant. If the non-compliant WHOIS field and public naming-and-shaming did not get their attention, that certainly would.
Do you feel their departure from the .mobi extension would be inconsequential? If so then why bother listing them at why.mobi to begin with? Because their brands lend credibility to the .mobi brand.Do you really feel that FoxNews.mobi would abandon all their marketing for FoxNews.mobi because they had to fix 4 lines of code? I don't. But I do agree that the departure of big brands would be detrimental to .mobi, which is precisely why I feel that the enforcement process has to be delicate and not aggressive so as to not drive them away. Work with them, not against them, but reserve the use of the ultimate stick for those who have no intention of genuinely building the .mobi ecosystem.
Perhaps there is a compliance strategy (and a new approach to standards) I could support, but the original plan is deadly if applied today. It's time was at the beginning of the extension, that time has passed, a new approach is needed.I agree.
Again, folks, it's not just an issue of having a clean, consistent, and predictable .mobi ecosystem, it's also an issue of credibility. Without enforcement, there is no credibility with this extension, and without credibility, no one will take .mobi seriously and it will not thrive. Just look at what happened with the Premiums.
Scandiman
08-11-2009, 12:09 PM
Scandi, when you say the sites on your list are non-compliant, do you mean to say that ready.mobi has given the message "Your page does not use XHTML Mobile Profile" and from that message you have concluded that the page does not meet the basic .mobi standards? If so, none of the compliance ratings (below) can be assumed to be correct.
There is an annoying and longstanding issue with ready.mobi's "Your page does not use XHTML Mobile Profile" message - if a page in XHTML mobile profile fails almost any of their tests, they give you this message - really in that case it should be "Your page does not use valid XHTML Mobile Profile "
I may have missed something, but I haven't noticed any messages on the ready.mobi site explicitly evaluating whether a site meets the overall .mobi criteria - perhaps they could add that.
Yes, I think you are missing it, it is listed in the section headers, If you do not pass each of these "Dotmobi compliance tests" then you are failing compliance. And if you are not using valid markup per the profile listed then it does not pass, annoying as it may be.
http://sac.mobi/images/compliance.jpg
I hope everyone understands that ready.mobi is otherwise irrelevant to the discussion here - it gives a broad overall snapshot of site usability, but it is not there to test the very basic, easy, limited and specific compliance required of mobi sites.
You are correct that ready.mobi score is irrelevant to existing compliance, I've stated before that there is no correlation of the score to compliance. That is something I'd like to see changed. But I think the fact that there is no correlation illustrates that mTLD themselves don't heavily weigh their own compliance standards when evaluating overall mobile usability. The existing standards is sort of like judging someones ability to run in a race based on whether or not they have shoes. Those with shoes comply, regardless of whether or not they weigh 500 pounds, or whether not they have run in the Olympics in their bare feet, or whether or not those shoes are 4 inch stilettos. Just as the existence of shoes alone is a poor way to judge if someone is fit for a race, the compliance standards really prove little about a websites mobile readiness, and apparently mTLD realizes this because again there is no correlation with ready score and compliance.
What I think can work better is compliance equaling a ready score, such as 3 or more complies based on weighing multiple usability metrics as ready.mobi does now. This would allow site builders to weigh which elements are more important to them, for example an image intensive site could focus on other aspects of their markup to shore up their score. Also the overall metrics can shift over time. This would provide a minimum bar of site quality for the .mobi ecosystem, flexibility vs rigidity for the end user, and capacity for mTLD to evolve the scoring with progression of technology. Not until compliance is more than rules-for-rules-sake should any enforcement commence, because if the point of compliance is to have a trustmark of mobile usability, then the rules being imposed should meet those objectives rather than just forcing everyone to meet some seemingly pointless minimum standard.
If this idea of 'ready score of 3 or more is compliant' was used, the non-compliance rate of my previous list would go from 88% to a much easier to manage 22%, plus the rules would do a better job of delivering on the trustmark promise of ".mobi = mobile friendly site" as opposed to this inconsequential line item noted in the ready report for foxnews.mobi:
FAIL near line 125 column 122
Attribute "border" must be declared for element type "img".
Does this one line of code equal non-mobile friendly? No.
noonoo1
08-11-2009, 07:17 PM
If we are talking about compliance has anyone checked the sites for compliance from the first and second premium sales at sedo?
FAIL near line 125 column 122
Attribute "border" must be declared for element type "img".
Does this one line of code equal non-mobile friendly? No.
It equals not valid, so it fails the test. The problem with non-valid code is that you risk your site not displaying correctly, but you can't be sure because browsers are forgiving - they use a sort of fuzzy logic to try and guess what your code means when it isn't right. Phone browsers are less intelligent and less forgiving - they are much more likely to garble invalid code and display content incorrectly or not at all. Valid code does better with search engines, too.
Just an analogy for non-coders: if you are sending someone a message, if it is typed, has correct spelling, and is laid out in paragraphs with page headings, image captions etc, you can be confident they fully understand what you said. If you have spelling mistakes they can usually guess what you mean. If you have no paragraphs they can understand what you mean, but it is harder, and without punctuation it gets worse. If it is handwritten and the person knows you they can usually read it and guess at the missing letters... but if they don't know you and your handwriting is bad almost none of your message gets across.
So invalid code can be a dilemma - it may seems to display ok but you can't really trust it to perform under all circumstances.
So if you set validity as a criterion, you have to go for 100%. In php for example there is a function called tidy() that will make you code 100% valid for you - so valid output does not need to be some huge chore, it can be automated.
Accent
08-11-2009, 09:27 PM
Trustmarks are of little value if nobody has ever heard of them.
What you guys are talking about would only work with a continuing international advertising push to insure that decision makers - whatever level they are at - are familiar enough with .Mobi to have gained that trust. It would be a bold, expensive move, it just might work.
When I say any enforcement, or rumor of enforcement is a problem I am speaking as a businessman. I am speaking of the psychology of the decision by a manager or developer to choose .Mobi vs alternatives. He doesn't want to have his choices second-guessed by his superiors or clients. So he hears that there are extra rules on .Mobi and he decides "I don't need that". Basic survival.
I know little of the technical issues. Is the lack of standards an important problem for consumers? Would there be a significant advantage to compliant domains? To bring on a major change in a market a new innovation needs to be 5 - 10 times better. Compliant domains would have to be a whole lot better to use than (average) non-compliant domains to get people to recognize .Mobi as a trustmark. It is a steep mountain.
Actually, I thought the standards died with the intro of the Iphone. I think the mobile web will take off when Iphones are $50 and bandwidth is cheap. Are standards critical with the technology of 5 years from now?
As a businessman I want the simplest, easy to remember, easy to type, easy to advertise, most captivating, and yes, most trustworthy domain name I can afford. Mobi means intended for mobile. That's without any rules, that is what the extension says: "mobi(le)". Simple, to the point. If you go to Company.mobi then you know you are getting their mobile-friendliest endeavor. Simple, clear messages are the essence of advertising. I see this as .Mobi's main advantage going forward, and it is a big one.
Either way there has to be public familiarity with the brand. DotMobi cannot afford to neglect the extension's growth much longer. When the curtain goes up on $50 Iphones then those centerstage are the winners. This opportunity is much too great to accept a bit part.
A Trustmark is an all or nothing proposition. You can't "trust" something 75% or 85%. You either trust it or you don't. If consumers do not fully trust .mobi to produce mobile-compatible content, then the Trustmark is lost forever. As far as domains are concerned, .mobi without a Trustmark offers no real competitive advantage to consumers or end-users and is fundamentally nothing more than a .biz or .info. I see .mobi having a very difficult time becoming any kind of mobile standard when it itself does not enforce the very standard it is attempting to become. Therefore, the Trustmark must be preserved, and for that to happen, it must be enforced.
I completely agree.
If you want the standard altered, isn't the correct way for that to occur is for MTLD to hold a consultation and get people's recommendations? The current standard is that you must have a valid page in XHTML mobile profile; if you don't like that language or its validity rules you should raise that with http://www.w3.org/ who are the relevant standards body and periodically revise these languages. They really are consultative and genuinely seek input, even if they are very slow moving.
Redirecting this discussion onto what standards might or should be is a distraction from the central issue of whether MTLD enforce the existing standards, and gives them an easy out.
It's a bit like saying the drunk driving laws are not being enforced - so lets talk about what sort of other laws we'd like to have instead and initiating years of legislative wrangling - changing the subject from enforcing an adequate law now and saving lives.
Back on the topic of MTLD / Dotmobi and enforcement, MTLD promised and promoted a trustmark, and took domain payments registration payments which contained contributions towards monitoring and enforcement. No enforcement has occurred. Was enforcement ruled out at some point, or was it known to be impossible and at what point was that established? These questions and their answers have serious implications and a lot of money rides on them.
Some time ago it was said on here that they couldn't actually enforce compliance because the contractual relationship was between the registrant and registrar, not the registry. Does anyone have a link to that and did MTLD say it directly or imply it?
Lets look at that situation. Surely before launching the domain MTLD / Dotmobi looked carefully at the legality and mechanics of enforcement, and had in place legal agreements with registrars. If they later discovered that these legal agreements were unworkable, then they were incompetent or badly advised. Bad legal advice doesn't let them off the hook: they get sued and cleaned out, then sue their legal advisors for wrongly advising them.
On the other hand, if there were no mechanisms or contracts in place then they were not telling the truth when they said there would be enforcement and domains could be turned off. Since they took money based on those statements, that would be fraud.
And if it was discovered at some point enforcement was impossible or it was decided that there was to be no enforcement, MTLD would have to announce that to all potential registrants and existing registrants. Otherwise they would be committing fraud.
And as we have established, to decide to abolish the standards or rule out enforcment, they would first have to consult the stakeholders.
As a businessman I want the simplest, easy to remember, easy to type, easy to advertise, most captivating, and yes, most trustworthy domain name I can afford. Mobi means intended for mobile. That's without any rules, that is what the extension says: "mobi(le)". Simple, to the point. If you go to Company.mobi then you know you are getting their mobile-friendliest endeavor. Simple, clear messages are the essence of advertising. I see this as .Mobi's main advantage going forward, and it is a big one.
.
If you want people to believe that by going to a mobi they will find a mobile friendly site then you are saying that you want a trustmark. Without some form of compliance they can and probably will find a site there that does not work on their phone.
Scandiman
08-11-2009, 09:58 PM
Do you really feel that FoxNews.mobi would abandon all their marketing for FoxNews.mobi because they had to fix 4 lines of code? I don't. But I do agree that the departure of big brands would be detrimental to .mobi, which is precisely why I feel that the enforcement process has to be delicate and not aggressive so as to not drive them away. Work with them, not against them, but reserve the use of the ultimate stick for those who have no intention of genuinely building the .mobi ecosystem.
In the case of fox news, I doubt they would dump foxnews.mobi over this since they've done a lot of marketing and brand build, but their case is a good example where I honestly don't see the point of enforcement over 4 lines of code to meet the current compliance standards. If for whatever reason they did not fix these 4 lines of code, I think it would be a grave mischaracterization to suggest as a result that they have no intention of genuinly building the .mobi ecosystem. The site works fine on any mobile device I've seen it on (2 nokias, 2 blackberries, iphone, and few others I don't recall) and they run a perpetual .mobi ad on the hugely popular fox news cable TV channel.
Even delicate enforcement gets tricky in a giant company. Continuing with the foxnews example, here's the whois data:
Domain Name: FOXNEWS.MOBI
Sponsoring Registrar: MarkMonitor Inc
Registrant Name: Intellectual Property Department
Registrant Organization: Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation
So I guess mTLD would send notification of noncompliance to the registrar MarkMonitor, who in turn sends some communication to Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation. This communication goes to the Intellectual Property Department who in all likelyhood are non-technical folks. They forward the compliance notification (hopefully) to the IT dept who gets it to the web manager who then meets with the team dealing with the mobile website to ask them what is up with this notice from MarkMonitor and mTLD that foxnews will be ultimately turned off unless 4 lines of code are changed. The mobile web crew laughs their butts off, scoffing at this demand since they know the site works just fine.
Three months later these same people are pulled into a meeting about a new brand push for mobile and the tech people tell the story of getting notices of the .mobi site being shut off over a pissant line of code. Everyone is a little shocked, and then they ask, "how's things going with m.foxbusiness.com (http://m.foxbusiness.com)?" Everyone thinks its going fine, their sister company Wall Street Journal is doing swell with m.wsj.com, and they joke that the mdot gods don't issue any warnings over the code, so they opt to go with mdot for future projects leaving .mobi behind.
While the above story about foxnews.mobi enforcement is of my own making, it represents a plausible scenario. I certainly have my idealistic tendencies, but I'm also pragmatic enough to recognize and value the exposure foxnews has brought to the extension with its mobile friendly site that is perpetually marketed on cable TV. They embody what we'd love to see more of, risking that for 4 lines of inconsequential code is not a battle I would want to pick.
Again, folks, it's not just an issue of having a clean, consistent, and predictable .mobi ecosystem, it's also an issue of credibility. Without enforcement, there is no credibility with this extension, and without credibility, no one will take .mobi seriously and it will not thrive. Just look at what happened with the Premiums.
In principle I completely agree that credibility is on the line to some degree without clear standards and enforcement, but it's really hard to put the gennie back in the bottle. The best time for launching an enforcement strategy was day one so everyone knew whats up from the start, but unfortunately that is spilt milk. Where we go from here is not so clear.
Caroline Greer
08-11-2009, 11:19 PM
Good post Paul. Aside from the legal risks and implementation problems identified in connection with the original draft General Compliance policy (and which became clear during an extensive consultation period with our Registars) - eg having to rely on the Registrars to collect and push through multiple warning notices, problems with inaccurate or outdated Registrant contact details, complex reseller networks, frequent changing status of some domains - the example situation that Paul illustrated is the very one that we want to avoid. Why would we penalize someone who in all other respects has made good efforts to advance our objectives around producing quality mobile web content but then congratulate another Registrant who has simply stuck up a compliant parking page? That's a question we came to ask ourselves as we evaluated what was really important for the growth of the mobile web.
As you have seen from the last number of years, dotMobi has instead focused on education, encouragement and enablement through the provision of free tools and services. Brandishing a big stick and getting wrapped up in complicated processes that keep Registrants - and Registrars- away in droves and expose dotMobi to risk is just not the right approach.
As for Premium Name Compliance, that one is much easier as we have a direct contract with Registrants (the Auction Agreements or the RFP contracts). And we have had great success with that project - two batches have now been successfully closed out. Anyone with a premium name will be well aware that we do a lot of hounding and we don't let up until we see positive results ;-). Thankfully, everyone seems to be playing ball and we have not had to take any serious action to date although we were warming up to it in one or two cases before compliance was met.
Scandiman
08-12-2009, 12:40 AM
Good post Paul. Aside from the legal risks and implementation problems identified in connection with the original draft General Compliance policy (and which became clear during an extensive consultation period with our Registars) - eg having to rely on the Registrars to collect and push through multiple warning notices, problems with inaccurate or outdated Registrant contact details, complex reseller networks, frequent changing status of some domains - the example situation that Paul illustrated is the very one that we want to avoid. Why would we penalize someone who in all other respects has made good efforts to advance our objectives around producing quality mobile web content but then congratulate another Registrant who has simply stuck up a compliant parking page? That's a question we came to ask ourselves as we evaluated what was really important for the growth of the mobile web.
As you have seen from the last number of years, dotMobi has instead focused on education, encouragement and enablement through the provision of free tools and services. Brandishing a big stick and getting wrapped up in complicated processes that keep Registrants - and Registrars- away in droves and expose dotMobi to risk is just not the right approach.
I understand the shift from the original compliance program, but perhaps there is the possibility for another approach, the trustmark concept is still very much worth pursuing. And at the risk of sounding redundant, it needs to be preceded by another approach to the standards so they are meaningful to the goals they are intended to support...".mobi = mobile friendly site".
As for Premium Name Compliance, that one is much easier as we have a direct contract with Registrants (the Auction Agreements or the RFP contracts). And we have had great success with that project - two batches have now been successfully closed out. Anyone with a premium name will be well aware that we do a lot of hounding and we don't let up until we see positive results ;-). Thankfully, everyone seems to be playing ball and we have not had to take any serious action to date although we were warming up to it in one or two cases before compliance was met.
These Premium name holders would be direct beneficiaries of a revised approach to compliance, what can be done to modify the standards so they are meaningful? How can we as vested stakeholders in the .mobi sponosred TLD community exchange ideas in a formal manner with mTLD about these issues that seriously impact us as .mobi domain registrants in general, and Premium names specifically? MAG isn't the answer IMO, it has a completely different agenda from these pressing issues.
I get the analogy, Paul and I understand your point too, Caroline. But it is definitely a shift in policy. The longer you wait, the further away the standard. Just say that you "encourage" mobile content and be done with it. The watered down message doesn't do anything to .mobi credibility.
Scandiman
08-12-2009, 01:47 AM
Just say that you "encourage" mobile content and be done with it. The watered down message doesn't do anything to .mobi credibility.Yea, there is certainly a disconnect between the language and the actions on this issue.
DomainTalker
08-12-2009, 02:38 AM
Domain Name: FOXNEWS.MOBI
Sponsoring Registrar: MarkMonitor Inc
Registrant Name: Intellectual Property Department
Registrant Organization: Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation
So I guess mTLD would send notification of noncompliance to the registrar MarkMonitor, who in turn sends some communication to Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation. This communication goes to the Intellectual Property Department who in all likelyhood are non-technical folks. They forward the compliance notification (hopefully) to the IT dept who gets it to the web manager who then meets with the team dealing with the mobile website to ask them what is up with this notice from MarkMonitor and mTLD that foxnews will be ultimately turned off unless 4 lines of code are changed. The mobile web crew laughs their butts off, scoffing at this demand since they know the site works just fine.
Sadly, Paul's right, imo....That's exactly how the process would play out in large corporates, in practice. It'd be a redundant, counter-productive, exercise.
The irony here is that Andres' logic is impeccable. No question that if the implementation of a Trustmark for every .mobi domain (beyond the Premiums) had been possible & practical - right from the beginning - then, it would have been a phenomenal competitive edge for the .mobi brand (provided, of course, that both content providers - and consumers - knew & understood exactly what .mobi was, and what a .mobi Trustmark meant!)....But, that horse has bolted.
I think we now have to think about the .mobi Trustmark issue in a different way.
As things stand now, smartphone & new browser technology are/will largely circumvent the mobile resolution issue on mobile phones....Wont be long before cheap smartphones will be totally ubiquitous - with cheap broadband plans providing mobile access/use - and every site resolves well, regardless of mobile-specific upfront coding....And, corporate IT departments know it - so, Dotmobi prescriptive actions haven't a hope.
I feel the special tech tools focus for .mobi, per se, is largely now yesterday's issue.
.....ie tech mobile delivery issues from now on, are, and will be, solved 'out there' (by smartphones, by browser technology, by what the corporates are actually doing) - not by Dotmobi. ie Dotmobi has lost control of the process - they can offer support tools, but cannot control the agenda.
The Trustmark issue for .mobi can now only be solved by corporates seeing hugely rising USE of their .mobi sites by the consumers of mobile content......ie, as they see their .mobi site traffic increase, they will invest more themselves in making sure their mobile sites work on all mobile phones, to take advantage of that demand, and so as not to disappoint their customers with a poor experience.
...In short, huge consumer .mobi usage will solve the .mobi Trustmark issue. That's how markets work.
Its too late now to do it in any other way.
So, the real issue today is:
'How do we get VAST numbers of people to use .mobi to access mobile content?'
.mobi has ONE last chance, imo....To paraphrase Bill Clinton: "Its marketing, stupid..."
...Dotmobi should lead the charge....Massively divert resources & expenditure - NOW - from tech tools to markets.....Get front-of-house in the marketplace....Compete in the wider market for general .mobi brand recognition - with the simple message:
'.mobi = mobile. Use it!'
...Tell the corporate .mobi site owners you are doing this - Show them how it will benefit them - Encourage them to promote their (eg FoxNews) .mobi in parallel. Work with them...
...Get people visiting any .mobi site, as a first option. Thereby supporting the corporate .mobi site owners we do have. And watch those corporates (and others) make sure their .mobi site is a Trustmark, so their customers are not disappointed. And watch them greatly increase their own .mobi site promotion, too...
...Get LIFE back into this thing...!!
Oh...and, it just might save the .mobi extension, as well.
.
DT you always post such intersting and thoughtful things but mobi is a second rate extension without that distinguishing characteristic. It's a pipe dream, a hail mary to put everything on mass adoption via marketing.
coast
08-12-2009, 04:21 AM
There is one other alternative: forced compliance. When a domain name is up for renewal, there is a new legal contract. A line or paragraph could require any site that does not meet basic usability standards, say a 3/5 ready score - to be automatically subject to transcoding via instant mobilizer at the registrar's current price. Require a checkbox "I agree to these additional terms" to complete the registration or renewal.
As you have seen from the last number of years, dotMobi has instead focused on education, encouragement and enablement through the provision of free tools and services. Brandishing a big stick and getting wrapped up in complicated processes that keep Registrants - and Registrars- away in droves and expose dotMobi to risk is just not the right approach.
Any questions?
There is one other alternative: forced compliance. When a domain name is up for renewal, there is a new legal contract. A line or paragraph could require any site that does not meet basic usability standards, say a 3/5 ready score - to be automatically subject to transcoding via instant mobilizer at the registrar's current price. Require a checkbox "I agree to these additional terms" to complete the registration or renewal.
mTLD has just pulled the rug out from under the .mobi trustmark. The trustmark is now a SKIDMARK...over a cliff.
Scandiman
08-12-2009, 05:09 AM
There is one other alternative: forced compliance. When a domain name is up for renewal, there is a new legal contract. A line or paragraph could require any site that does not meet basic usability standards, say a 3/5 ready score - to be automatically subject to transcoding via instant mobilizer at the registrar's current price. Require a checkbox "I agree to these additional terms" to complete the registration or renewal.
Initially I was a big fan of an Instant Mobilizer solution for compliance enforcement, but here's the major problem I see... Imagine for a moment that Chase.mobi does not meet compliance and is forced to Instant Mobilizer. As best I can tell, Instant Mobilizer is run through mTLD's own systems. So I visit Chase.mobi and am served up the site but rerouted through mTLD's servers. What risk am I now taking by entering in my account data? Does mTLD have the same security protocols on their servers as Chase? By imposing this reroute of a banking site, mTLD is likely assuming certain responsibilities/liabilities for the data. Trying to hide behind some clause in a domain registration agreement won't stop the complaints, lawsuits and negative reports, resulting in banks and other financial institutions or anyone with sensitive client data (like credit card numbers in a m-commerce site) to run like a bat out of hell from the .mobi extension. It's a no win proposition. What seems like a cool technology trick is actually a likely road to disaster.
Good post Paul. Aside from the legal risks and implementation problems identified in connection with the original draft General Compliance policy (and which became clear during an extensive consultation period with our Registars) - eg having to rely on the Registrars to collect and push through multiple warning notices, problems with inaccurate or outdated Registrant contact details, complex reseller networks, frequent changing status of some domains - the example situation that Paul illustrated is the very one that we want to avoid.
When specifically did you identify "problems" with your Compliance Policy and when was the consultation with registrars held?
Did you consult any other parties on this?
Great question.
When specifically did you identify "problems" with your Compliance Policy and when was the consultation with registrars held?
Did you consult any other parties on this?
Caroline,
In light of your abandonment of the trustmark benefit of .mobi, are you planning on revising your sales literature to reflect this change?
Although mobile devices and the networks that support them are improving, it seems like the mobile Web is almost a secret these days because sites can be hard to locate and have little content when you find them.
Yet, with more than four mobile phones purchased for every personal computer that's bought, there’s a world of people whose main access point to the Internet is a mobile device.
The .mobi domain is the answer.
.mobi is the first – and only – top-level domain designed to let consumers know "This site will work on my phone."
.mobi is revolutionizing the use of the Internet on mobile devices.
When a site ends with a ".mobi" address – like maxim.mobi or espn.mobi – mobile users can be sure that they will access a site that works on their phone.
.mobi gives consumers like you:
Choice on how and when you access the internet
Freedom from desktops & laptops, and the freedom to take the net wherever you go.
The ability to stay connected wherever you are because .mobi sites work on all mobile phones.
Access to information you need, where and how you need it.
dotMobi also gives consumer access to "big business." We have the ear of the most prominent mobile and Internet players in the world. The very same companies who have delivered the promise of today's information society are the same companies who are investors in dotMobi, including Ericsson, Google, GSM Association, Hutchison (3), Microsoft, Nokia, Orascom Telecom, Samsung Electronics, Syniverse, T-Mobile, Telefonica Moviles, TIM, Visa and Vodafone.
Most importantly, dotMobi is poised to meet the expectations of Internet and mobile users like you.
dotMobi. Internet made mobile.
Good post Paul. Aside from the legal risks and implementation problems identified in connection with the original draft General Compliance policy (and which became clear during an extensive consultation period with our Registars) - eg having to rely on the Registrars to collect and push through multiple warning notices, problems with inaccurate or outdated Registrant contact details, complex reseller networks, frequent changing status of some domains - the example situation that Paul illustrated is the very one that we want to avoid. Why would we penalize someone who in all other respects has made good efforts to advance our objectives around producing quality mobile web content but then congratulate another Registrant who has simply stuck up a compliant parking page? That's a question we came to ask ourselves as we evaluated what was really important for the growth of the mobile web.
As you have seen from the last number of years, dotMobi has instead focused on education, encouragement and enablement through the provision of free tools and services. Brandishing a big stick and getting wrapped up in complicated processes that keep Registrants - and Registrars- away in droves and expose dotMobi to risk is just not the right approach.
As for Premium Name Compliance, that one is much easier as we have a direct contract with Registrants (the Auction Agreements or the RFP contracts). And we have had great success with that project - two batches have now been successfully closed out. Anyone with a premium name will be well aware that we do a lot of hounding and we don't let up until we see positive results ;-). Thankfully, everyone seems to be playing ball and we have not had to take any serious action to date although we were warming up to it in one or two cases before compliance was met.
Trying to hide behind some clause in a domain registration agreement won't stop the complaints, lawsuits and negative reports, resulting in banks and other financial institutions or anyone with sensitive client data (like credit card numbers in a m-commerce site) to run like a bat out of hell from the .mobi extension.
that info is encrypted / decrypted at their server and at your browser. everywhere in between it is not accessible to anyone.
I'm puzzled at the comments here making it sound as if no company would ever respond positively to constructive inputs about their site - it really does seem we are being told "nothing can be done" and enforcement should never be attempted if we suspect a minority might not comply. Great thinking, lets get rid of the police since they do not get rid of 100% of crime.
I agree with you 100%. It seems like it is a foregone conclusion that there will never be an enforced mTLD mobile compliance standard and now reasons for such are being shopped around to see which will stick.
How about you do the job you said you would do when we lifted you up and supported you in the face of B L I S T E R I N G opposition. We did that because mTLD said there would be a T R U S T M A R K to rely on; to sell; to market. Without that strict guarantee .mobi is a far less product than what was sold to us.
that info is encrypted / decrypted at their server and at your browser. everywhere in between it is not accessible to anyone.
I'm puzzled at the comments here making it sound as if no company would ever respond positively to constructive inputs about their site - it really does seem we are being told "nothing can be done" and enforcement should never be attempted if we suspect a minority might not comply. Great thinking, lets get rid of the police since they do not get rid of 100% of crime.
Caroline Greer
08-12-2009, 09:49 AM
To be clear - we have not changed our objective: quality content that meets basic formatting rules. But along the road to meeting that objective, we have come across major rocks and we have had to change track slightly. We have to listen to our Registrars and what they are telling us. And yes, we listen to Registrants too and domainers are one (important) part of that group.
What we are trying to do is demonstrate the importance of building content that looks good on a phone and providing tools and services to enable Registrants to do just that. Anyone sitting back and shrugging and saying - hey I'll just stick any old thing up there or I'll use a PC site until someone comes and beats me with a big stick - will only lose out in the end through diminishing traffic. Registrants need to take a little responsibility themselves.
We continue to look at all possibilities in relation to this issue, including the use of Instant Mobilizer. Its not an easy one however and Paul has been good at identifying some of the practical realities.
dotMobi is about so much more than compliance and the things that we are working on right now will truly help build the extension. We have several big projects bubbling up which will add ten times the value to the domain. We hope to share some of that with you shortly. In fact, we are planning a Mobility webinar soon and I will talk to Andres about organizing that sooner rather than later.
You have to remember that we are all in this together and your dreams are our dreams. However. as the Registry, we see all the moving parts and have many different considerations to weigh up. Nonetheless, we are all working towards the same goal and that should not be forgotten.
newdomainer
08-12-2009, 11:16 AM
Without prejudice
This thread is certainly warming up and this may be an opportunity to pose a question?
I recently acquired the domain FWC.mobi and the dotcom owner is Foster Wheeler Corporation.
The FWC UK HQ is actually a few hundred yards from my parents house in Reading, Berkshire... I was at the opening of the building (pre Foster Wheeler) in the Queens Jubilee year of 1977.
Having this personal 'connection' with the building I felt that on balance, it was worth introducing myself to Foster Wheeler.
FWC is an acronym and therefore has multiple potential end users but nevertheless, still a risky option.. however; notwithstanding the legal 'risks' of contacting an end user directly with an identical domain to their own, I rang them & then sent them an email - very polite, in fact I'd go as far as to say it was even 'generous in spirit'.
This is the (brief) email reply that I received;
Thank you very much for your interest in Foster Wheeler and offer but
currently we have no interest in the Web address FWC.Mobi.
Regards ***** *****
Divisional Director Information & Communications Technology
Foster Wheeler Energy Ltd
Shinfield Park
Reading
RG2 9FW
Now, this is somewhat off-topic for this thread but it is relevant
.... Because they were handed a premium LLL dotmobi domain on a plate yet they point blank turned it down, this worries me because; -
Either:
Foster Wheeler have no idea what dotmobi is? Which is a bad thing for a 3 year old gTLD extension & one has to ask why?
Or:
Foster Wheeler know about dotmobi but have no interest in it regardless... Which is maybe even worse than the 1st option?
Or:
The people at Foster Wheeler are just dumb in not taking the opportunity to acquire the domain?
(I am not suggesting the third option has any merit - I include it only because it must be considered an option)
Can this observation / query be shoe-horned into this thread?
Somewhere along the line I feel that it might reflect on how dotmobi is being perceived out in the 'real world' and that might have something to do with the trustmark / compliance or marketing?
A billion $ company reject their dotmobi domain when handed it on a plate? Think about it.... this cannot bode well can it?
I might ask them what their thinking was behind their decision if I can think of a diplomatic way of wording the question?
Andres Kello
08-12-2009, 11:24 AM
In the case of fox news, I doubt they would dump foxnews.mobi over this since they've done a lot of marketing and brand build, but their case is a good example where I honestly don't see the point of enforcement over 4 lines of code to meet the current compliance standards. If for whatever reason they did not fix these 4 lines of code, I think it would be a grave mischaracterization to suggest as a result that they have no intention of genuinly building the .mobi ecosystem. The site works fine on any mobile device I've seen it on (2 nokias, 2 blackberries, iphone, and few others I don't recall) and they run a perpetual .mobi ad on the hugely popular fox news cable TV channel.Then you adapt your rules to make such cases "compliant", you don't just completely abandon or ignore your unique selling proposition. Again, it's a question of credibility. If such "real world" cases are "good enough", then adapt your compliance rules to reflect that so instead of wasting resources going after companies that just have 4 lines of code wrong, go after the ones scoring only 1 or 2 on Ready.mobi.
I don't care what the Compliance Rules are as long as 1) they result in mobile-compatible sites, and 2) they are enforced.
In fact, most of us seem to be in agreement that the Compliance Rules themselves need updating, so perhaps that is one place to start. I just hope we're all also in agreement that .mobi's unique selling proposition must also be preserved if this extension is to differentiate itself enough in order to attract significant new business and thrive. Like I said before, a huge marketing push could possibly make up for a weak Trustmark, but in the absence of that, enforcement of the Trustmark is all we've got left to deliver the ".mobi = mobile site" message.
As for the rules, perhaps they should simply be "a minimum Ready.mobi score of 3", something I've seen suggested several times. Easy to verify, and the tool itself even tells you what you need to fix. Seems like a good balance.
However, whatever new rules are decided, they would still need to be enforced in order to preserve the credibility of the Trustmark, which brings us to:
Even delicate enforcement gets tricky in a giant company. Continuing with the foxnews example, here's the whois data:
Domain Name: FOXNEWS.MOBI
Sponsoring Registrar: MarkMonitor Inc
Registrant Name: Intellectual Property Department
Registrant Organization: Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation
So I guess mTLD would send notification of noncompliance to the registrar MarkMonitor, who in turn sends some communication to Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation.mTLD is not allowed to communicate directly with Registrants as they are technically the clients of the Registrars. So any communication from mTLD needs to be channeled via the Registrars, something that gets increasingly complicated when you consider resellers, and something the Registrars themselves aren't too keen to do as it could affect their relationship with their clients. This is why I think a more public enforcement option that bypasses the Registrars to a large degree, as I loosely described before, makes more sense.
While the above story about foxnews.mobi enforcement is of my own making, it represents a plausible scenario. I certainly have my idealistic tendencies, but I'm also pragmatic enough to recognize and value the exposure foxnews has brought to the extension with its mobile friendly site that is perpetually marketed on cable TV.This is a double-edged sword. Here's another plausible scenario. Forget FoxNews.mobi for a minute which scores an "acceptable" 3/5. What if a massive global brand launches a .mobi site only for the iPhone with a Ready.mobi score of 1/5. Yes, great exposure for .mobi as their global marketing campaign unfolds. Or is it? The vast majority of consumers don't have an iPhone, so they'd be putting that .mobi address on their phone and seeing a completely garbled site. Is that exposure really valuable to .mobi? What does the .mobi message become then? I think this is also a plausible scenario if the Trustmark is not preserved, and one that might generate a lot of excitement at first, but one that would also give consumers without iPhones (the majority) a very bad impression of .mobi as they visited a supposedly "made for mobile" site they saw advertised on TV that simply did not work on their mobile phones.
Exposure is great, but only if it's in line with the message you're trying to deliver. In the case of .mobi, its ".mobi = mobile site". If the message is contradictory or mixed, then exposure isn't necessarily that great.
-----
Folks, at the end of the day, ask yourselves this (and feel free to answer it here): How do you sell ".mobi" (the concept, the extension) to an entrepreneur or company considering developing a mobile site, when there is no need for it, with no consumers awareness, with no Trustmark or unique selling proposition, with backers whose silence is deafening (for the most part) or whose actions are contradictory to the message, and with 800,000+ of the best domains already taken?
I have debates such as these all the time with friends here in Barcelona, and it is getting more and more difficult to defend the .mobi position and answer the question above with each passing day. That is not a trend we want, particularly in light of recent cases such as this (http://mobility.mobi/showthread.php?t=34423&highlight=alliance.ag) and this (http://mobility.mobi/showthread.php?t=38405). The Trustmark is one of the last weapons we have left in our shrinking arsenal.
Mobitunist
08-12-2009, 11:52 AM
Without prejudice
This thread is certainly warming up and this may be an opportunity to pose a question?
I recently acquired the domain FWC.mobi and the dotcom owner is Foster Wheeler Corporation.
The FWC UK HQ is actually a few hundred yards from my parents house in Reading, Berkshire... I was at the opening of the building (pre Foster Wheeler) in the Queens Jubilee year of 1977.
Having this personal 'connection' with the building I felt that on balance, it was worth introducing myself to Foster Wheeler.
FWC is an acronym and therefore has multiple potential end users but nevertheless, still a risky option.. however; notwithstanding the legal 'risks' of contacting an end user directly with an identical domain to their own, I rang them & then sent them an email - very polite, in fact I'd go as far as to say it was even 'generous in spirit'.
This is the (brief) email reply that I received;
Thank you very much for your interest in Foster Wheeler and offer but
currently we have no interest in the Web address FWC.Mobi.
Regards ***** *****
Divisional Director Information & Communications Technology
Foster Wheeler Energy Ltd
Shinfield Park
Reading
RG2 9FW
Now, this is somewhat off-topic for this thread but it is relevant
.... Because they were handed a premium LLL dotmobi domain on a plate yet they point blank turned it down, this worries me because; -
Either:
Foster Wheeler have no idea what dotmobi is? Which is a bad thing for a 3 year old gTLD extension & one has to ask why?
Or:
Foster Wheeler know about dotmobi but have no interest in it regardless... Which is maybe even worse than the 1st option?
Or:
The people at Foster Wheeler are just dumb in not taking the opportunity to acquire the domain?
(I am not suggesting the third option has any merit - I include it only because it must be considered an option)
Can this observation / query be shoe-horned into this thread?
Somewhere along the line I feel that it might reflect on how dotmobi is being perceived out in the 'real world' and that might have something to do with the trustmark / compliance or marketing?
A billion $ company reject their dotmobi domain when handed it on a plate? Think about it.... this cannot bode well can it?
I might ask them what their thinking was behind their decision if I can think of a diplomatic way of wording the question?
Gary, I believe the mistake that everyone is making is expecting every Co in this world to have the need for a "Mobile Presence".
If that need does not exist (I do not know anything about FCW, so cannot comment on their need) why should they bother??
Some Co's / brands will need to get out there on mobile devices and others not -- that is just how it is. We should never forget this and realise that our aspirations (and appreciation of the posibilities) as domainers are way different to that of big corporations.
I still believe that "new m-commerce initiatives" will drive dotMobi adoption and we can all play a part in that buy building new applications for which PC sites did not make sense (eg PubCrawling.mobi makes more "mobile sense" than PubCrawling.com??)
newdomainer
08-12-2009, 12:03 PM
Gary, I believe the mistake that everyone is making is expecting every Co in this world to have the need for a "Mobile Presence".
If that need does not exist (I do not know anything about FCW, so cannot comment on their need) why should they bother??
Some Co's / brands will need to get out there on mobile devices and others not -- that is just how it is. We should never forget this and realise that our aspirations (and appreciation of the posibilities) as domainers are way different to that of big corporations.
I still believe that "new m-commerce initiatives" will drive dotMobi adoption and we can all play a part in that buy building new applications for which PC sites did not make sense (eg PubCrawling.mobi makes more "mobile sense" than PubCrawling.com??)
Agreed, in this instance I believe that FWC use subdomains for their country based headquarters; fwuk.fwc.com so I think this may explain their lack of interest on this occasion.
However, many dotcoms are using the relevant countrycodes for there companies based in each country.... this is where I'd like to see dotmobi adopted; to help dotmobi stay up there with the countrycodes..
Andres: PM sent....
newdomainer
08-12-2009, 01:08 PM
Here is a genuine and fantastic opportunity to explain what dotmobi is and why dotmobi should be considered for adoption...
I sent a personal email to the Foster Wheeler Corporation; they have replied and explained what their domain use policy is, however the last sentence of their reply offers an opportunity to 'sell' the dotmobi extension to Foster Wheeler...
So, all of you 'experts' are invited to post (or pm) your marketing of dotmobi
- today please -
I will edit everything you want to say into a single email and send it back to FWC....
This is a $billion dollar multi-national... you don't get many opportunities to 'sell' to these guys.. this will bbe an exercise in reminding ourselves and everyone else what dotmobi is and answer WHY.mobi!!!
This invite is open to anyone - including Caroline from mTLD - (if you wish to PM me that would be fine).
The email from FWC is as follows;
The FWC domain design requires single points of clear entry to our
customers and staff.
Because of the wealth of variants of dotanything names I believe major organisations will avoid any other dotprefixes for fear of misuse or misrepresentation. As an example we could have
FWC.FWUK.co.uk rather than .com. We choose not to so that we can ensure a clear path to the actual company.
I'd be happy to read your thoughts on why you feel a dotmobi extension would benefits us.
The invite to sell 'dotmobi' is underlined above..... can we sell 'dotmobi' to these guys or not?
I will respond to FWC in around 24hrs from the time of this post..... so please reply or pm me within that time.
Thank you.
Mobitunist
08-12-2009, 01:33 PM
.mobi implies a message of "connect with us right now" ,,, not later when at home or the office.
So when someone sees a brand.mobi displayed, it will prompt the reader of the message to pull out that phone and connect.
The key to me is that when people put up their brand in public (billboards, side of trucks, television) and are seeking instant (not all might) or "on the go" contact, then .mobi MUST be part of it.
Obviously not the full academic story, but one that I use frequently to explain the significance of the extension to others.
Scandiman
08-12-2009, 01:55 PM
Then you adapt your rules to make such cases "compliant", you don't just completely abandon or ignore your unique selling proposition. Again, it's a question of credibility. If such "real world" cases are "good enough", then adapt your compliance rules to reflect that so instead of wasting resources going after companies that just have 4 lines of code wrong, go after the ones scoring only 1 or 2 on Ready.mobi.
I don't care what the Compliance Rules are as long as 1) they result in mobile-compatible sites, and 2) they are enforced.
In fact, most of us seem to be in agreement that the Compliance Rules themselves need updating, so perhaps that is one place to start. I just hope we're all also in agreement that .mobi's unique selling proposition must also be preserved if this extension is to differentiate itself enough in order to attract significant new business and thrive. Like I said before, a huge marketing push could possibly make up for a weak Trustmark, but in the absence of that, enforcement of the Trustmark is all we've got left to deliver the ".mobi = mobile site" message.
As for the rules, perhaps they should simply be "a minimum Ready.mobi score of 3", something I've seen suggested several times. Easy to verify, and the tool itself even tells you what you need to fix. Seems like a good balance.
However, whatever new rules are decided, they would still need to be enforced in order to preserve the credibility of the Trustmark, which brings us to:
I totally agree Andres, rules without any enforcement policy result in a complete lack of credibility of those rules. A speed limit on the highway is meaningless if I know there is and never will be a cop with gun on belt to pull me over.
mTLD is not allowed to communicate directly with Registrants as they are technically the clients of the Registrars. So any communication from mTLD needs to be channeled via the Registrars, something that gets increasingly complicated when you consider resellers, and something the Registrars themselves aren't too keen to do as it could affect their relationship with their clients. This is why I think a more public enforcement option that bypasses the Registrars to a large degree, as I loosely described before, makes more sense.
Because I point out serious flaws with different approaches to compliance doesn't mean I don't want compliance enforcement. To the contrary I agree it is an important value proposition for .mobi and a major reason I invested in the extension. On one hand I want to preserve the ideals, but on the other hand I'm left with a situation brought on by the complacency of mTLD on day one regarding enforcement where it feels like most any compliance strategy feels like someone is setting off a hand grenade in the room to kill the roaches. The problem is we are also in the room.
I'd like to hear more about your public enforcement option, at least for me it was too loosely described, such that I simply don't understand it.
And yes, as previously stated, I agree the rules themselves need to be examined and changed. Right now the compliance rules do little to nothing to ensure ".mobi = mobile friendly".
This is a double-edged sword. Here's another plausible scenario. Forget FoxNews.mobi for a minute which scores an "acceptable" 3/5. What if a massive global brand launches a .mobi site only for the iPhone with a Ready.mobi score of 1/5. Yes, great exposure for .mobi as their global marketing campaign unfolds. Or is it? The vast majority of consumers don't have an iPhone, so they'd be putting that .mobi address on their phone and seeing a completely garbled site. Is that exposure really valuable to .mobi? What does the .mobi message become then? I think this is also a plausible scenario if the Trustmark is not preserved, and one that might generate a lot of excitement at first, but one that would also give consumers without iPhones (the majority) a very bad impression of .mobi as they visited a supposedly "made for mobile" site they saw advertised on TV that simply did not work on their mobile phones.
Exposure is great, but only if it's in line with the message you're trying to deliver. In the case of .mobi, its ".mobi = mobile site". If the message is contradictory or mixed, then exposure isn't necessarily that great.
Yes, I agree it is not desirable for a .mobi site to be focused on one handset, but it is easy to do so and still be compliant. For example using device detection, iPhone users get the full site, and all other devices get the message, "This site is for iPhones only". Compliance is met, but the .mobi concept is basically missed. Thus compliance doesn't really solve this problem, rather I think the solution is found in educating the company of the value to their bottom line to support as many devices as possible.
Folks, at the end of the day, ask yourselves this (and feel free to answer it here): How do you sell ".mobi" (the concept, the extension) to an entrepreneur or company considering developing a mobile site, when there is no need for it, with no consumers awareness, with no Trustmark or unique selling proposition, with backers whose silence is deafening (for the most part) or whose actions are contradictory to the message, and with 800,000+ of the best domains already taken?
I have debates such as these all the time with friends here in Barcelona, and it is getting more and more difficult to defend the .mobi position and answer the question above with each passing day. That is not a trend we want, particularly in light of recent cases such as this (http://mobility.mobi/showthread.php?t=34423&highlight=alliance.ag) and this (http://mobility.mobi/showthread.php?t=38405). The Trustmark is one of the last weapons we have left in our shrinking arsenal.
If mTLD continues to provide tools that make it easier to go mobile on a .mobi domain then things can move forward. Device Atlas is a useful tool, but is available to use on any extension, ideally there should be a much stronger value proposition there for .mobi sites. Instant Mobilizer is a .mobi only play so it clearly supports the .mobi extension. What I'd like to see is a .mobi only CMS platform that transforms content using Device Atlas for a lot of devices, not only a mobile vs PC, but specific to a wide array of devices. Such a tool could do a lot to move .mobi forward with the most important market, content providers.
coast
08-12-2009, 02:06 PM
Here is a genuine and fantastic opportunity to explain what dotmobi is and why dotmobi should be considered for adoption...
I sent a personal email to the Foster Wheeler Corporation; they have replied and explained what their domain use policy is, however the last sentence of their reply offers an opportunity to 'sell' the dotmobi extension to Foster Wheeler...
So, all of you 'experts' are invited to post (or pm) your marketing of dotmobi
- today please -
I will edit everything you want to say into a single email and send it back to FWC....
This is a $billion dollar multi-national... you don't get many opportunities to 'sell' to these guys.. this will bbe an exercise in reminding ourselves and everyone else what dotmobi is and answer WHY.mobi!!!
This invite is open to anyone - including Caroline from mTLD - (if you wish to PM me that would be fine).
The email from FWC is as follows;
The invite to sell 'dotmobi' is underlined above..... can we sell 'dotmobi' to these guys or not?
I will respond to FWC in around 24hrs from the time of this post..... so please reply or pm me within that time.
Thank you.
Newdomainer, you're right, this is a fantastic opportunity. How about opening another thread so it doesn't get lost in this one, with a link to the new thread?
Accent
08-12-2009, 02:19 PM
... The FWC domain design requires single points of clear entry to our customers and staff.
When Coca-Cola introduced Diet Coke back in the stone age they realized that two brands equal more customers.
"Almond Joy has nuts, Mounds don't".
When they built a transit tunnel in downtown Seattle it allowed a number of stores to open new retail space and entrances in their former basements, greatly expanding their business with little cost. That is what mobile offers. It is not a blurring of message, it is a focusing on different needs. The mobile web is not a side road to the Internet, it is expected to surpass it.
Scandiman
08-12-2009, 03:54 PM
Anyone sitting back and shrugging and saying - hey I'll just stick any old thing up there or I'll use a PC site until someone comes and beats me with a big stick - will only lose out in the end through diminishing traffic. Registrants need to take a little responsibility themselves.
Without any rules that are enforced, people will do whatever they please, and often what they decide to do is simply the familiar. The ultimate responsibility registrants have is to their bottom lines and with decades worth of PC website development tools and resources available, it can be far simpler, convenient and cost effective to develop a revenue generating PC site vs a mobile site. Recrimination isn't an effective compliance tool.
dotMobi is about so much more than compliance... ...I agree, but I think it is fair to say now that other than with Premiums, dotMobi is not about compliance, since rules without any enforcement are merely suggestions....
.... and the things that we are working on right now will truly help build the extension. We have several big projects bubbling up which will add ten times the value to the domain. We hope to share some of that with you shortly. In fact, we are planning a Mobility webinar soon and I will talk to Andres about organizing that sooner rather than later.
I look forward to learning more about these projects.
You have to remember that we are all in this together and your dreams are our dreams. However. as the Registry, we see all the moving parts and have many different considerations to weigh up. Nonetheless, we are all working towards the same goal and that should not be forgotten.
Similarly I hope you don't forget that with major policy shifts by the registry regarding initial value propositions such as compliance enforcement that many people who invested their money in the extension feel significantly let down by the registry. So I'm glad to hear that other projects are coming that you believe will add value to the .mobi extension specifically, that will do a lot to help rebuild the damaged trust from your customers and demonstrate the shared goals towards a brighter future for the .mobi extension.
To be clear - we have not changed our objective: quality content that meets basic formatting rules.
This softened content objective is a total switch from the strict standards enforcement that peppers your early sales literature. Can you imagine ISO saying that after a company spends $XXXXX on certification? mTLD has fundamentally changed the product without notice. It has failed to perform according to its own words.
But along the road to meeting that objective, we have come across major rocks and we have had to change track slightly.
Using a dimmer switch slightly changes the light in a room. A light switch only goes on and off. You have turned off the trustmark. There is no slightly in that concept. Give me a break with this softening language.
We have to listen to our Registrars and what they are telling us. And yes, we listen to Registrants too and domainers are one (important) part of that group.
One would think that with a DEDICATED FORUM and MEMBERS OF MAG that there would have been TWO WAY COMMUNICATION about the core sales point of your product. If you did in fact listen you would have heard the word trustmark thousands of times in debates; you would have heard the blind calls for standards enforcement over the years. Further, if we (dedicated domainers) were so important, you would have included us in your nifty little pow wow about ABANDONING ENFORCEMENT!
What we are trying to do is demonstrate the importance of building content that looks good on a phone and providing tools and services to enable Registrants to do just that. Anyone sitting back and shrugging and saying - hey I'll just stick any old thing up there or I'll use a PC site until someone comes and beats me with a big stick - will only lose out in the end through diminishing traffic. Registrants need to take a little responsibility themselves.
Straight up hypocracy. Look at the dedicated members of this forum and say that again. I dare you.
dotMobi is about so much more than compliance and the things that we are working on right now will truly help build the extension. We have several big projects bubbling up which will add ten times the value to the domain. We hope to share some of that with you shortly. In fact, we are planning a Mobility webinar soon and I will talk to Andres about organizing that sooner rather than later.
Compliance is how you acheive the trustmark that mTLD sold us on. without the trustmark .mobi is another .name in the .web space.
You have to remember that we are all in this together and your dreams are our dreams. However. as the Registry, we see all the moving parts and have many different considerations to weigh up. Nonetheless, we are all working towards the same goal and that should not be forgotten.
If you build your house on shifting sands, your house will fall.
DomainTalker
08-12-2009, 05:05 PM
Easy, Tim....You'll have a stroke....:eek2:
Many share your frustration.....But, certainly Dotmobi has enforced compliance on most of the Premiums they sold at Auction, from Oct/Nov 2007 onwards...So, that's something.
As for the rest....Only the doable can be done.....In the face of m.domain, iPhone et al (which weren't there in 2006) I suspect the .mobi compliance story simply hasn't proved convincing enough. So, it was largely ignored by the corporates - and .mobi marginalised along with it....The opportunity was then, not now.
Simple as that.
The real issue now, is where does brand .mobi go from here?
.
:laugh: Thanks, DT. I posted before my morning cereal :laugh:
As a previous ISO auditor I take standards serious. As an investor who saw the value in this distinguishing quality of the product I was disturbed to hear that mTLD has no intention of enforcing the very quality that I purchased. I'm sure you can understand my disappointment and attitude better now?
/edit This was my sadhappy 2,000th post...
In fact, we are planning a Mobility webinar soon and I will talk to Andres about organizing that sooner rather than later.
Caroline, could you please now answer the specific question I asked you before you posted the above?
My question was in post no. 51
http://mobility.mobi/showthread.php?t=38278&page=2#51
and I'll repeat it here for convenience:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caroline Greer http://mobility.mobi/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://mobility.mobi/showthread.php?p=122756#post122756)
"" Good post Paul. Aside from the legal risks and implementation problems identified in connection with the original draft General Compliance policy (and which became clear during an extensive consultation period with our Registars) - eg having to rely on the Registrars to collect and push through multiple warning notices, problems with inaccurate or outdated Registrant contact details, complex reseller networks, frequent changing status of some domains - the example situation that Paul illustrated is the very one that we want to avoid."
gogo's question:
When specifically did you identify "problems" with your Compliance Policy and when was the consultation with registrars held?
Did you consult any other parties on this?
__________________also, will a transcript of any webinar be made available?
Caroline Greer
08-12-2009, 07:52 PM
Formal consultation with our Registrars took place in 2007 but has continued ever since on an ad hoc basis as new thoughts and ideas arose and needed to be discussed. The issue was also discussed extensively with MAG and PAB throughout 2008, right through to this summer.
We need to arrange the webinar details Gogo, please give us a little time to do so and we will be back with details. Thank you for your patience.
Formal consultation with our Registrars took place in 2007 but has continued ever since on an ad hoc basis as new thoughts and ideas arose and needed to be discussed. The issue was also discussed extensively with MAG and PAB throughout 2008, right through to this summer.
We need to arrange the webinar details Gogo, please give us a little time to do so and we will be back with details. Thank you for your patience.
Could we please have the minutes of MAG and PAB for 2007 to the present?
Caroline Greer
08-12-2009, 08:36 PM
I am afraid not Gogo, minutes are for members only.
Caroline Greer
08-12-2009, 08:41 PM
I should add that we don't run MAG and we don't write the MAG minutes but I imagine that is the response you will get since membership is on a paid basis.
Thanks.
I should add that we don't run MAG and we don't write the MAG minutes but I imagine that is the response you will get since membership is on a paid basis.
Thanks.
Do you not agree minutes of your meetings with them?
So you are saying MAG and PAB are free to disclose their minutes to whoever they choose?
Caroline Greer
08-12-2009, 09:11 PM
MAG is an independent industry forum, it is not run by dotMobi but it is dotMobi sponsored organisation. They issue their own meeting minutes although as a paid member ourselves, we get to see the minutes of meetings that we attend of course.
PAB on the other hand is our own Policy Advisory Board - not the dotMobi Board - made up of 10 members. Those meeting minutes are confidential.
I am signing off for the night now as it has been a long day but the compliance discussion will continue on the webinar no doubt. Stay tuned for details.
Thanks.
I am signing off for the night now as it has been a long day but the compliance discussion will continue on the webinar no doubt. Stay tuned for details.
Thanks.
Good night.
I think the compliance dialogue will continue on this thread.
Stay tuned... yes the previous webinar was essentially a broadcast, presubmitted questions were addressed by Pinky and Caroline and sadly it was not possible to ask questions live or comment. It was conveniently timed to pep us up for renewals, as it appears the one proposed now will be. Of course, should you feel inspired to attend to listen to an hour long sales pitch for Dotmobi, I'd suggest using mobility's chat facility to make relevant comments as it unfolds.
No doubt a transcript will be available for those unable to attend.
Re MAG, is anyone on here a member? what I would like to know is what .mobi related topics Dotmobi has consulted MAG about in 2007-2009.
DomainTalker
08-13-2009, 04:31 AM
:laugh: Thanks, DT. I posted before my morning cereal :laugh:
As a previous ISO auditor I take standards serious. As an investor who saw the value in this distinguishing quality of the product I was disturbed to hear that mTLD has no intention of enforcing the very quality that I purchased. I'm sure you can understand my disappointment and attitude better now?
Congrats on the 2000 post, Tim...:D
Oh, I understand your disappointment, allright...
Compliance, .mobi - and, what's gone wrong?
A failure of strategy. Flawed assumptions. Complacency. And slow reaction to changed market forces.
Here's what it looks like:
(i) Assumption - .mobi Compliance standards would make .mobi the default standard for mobile. The Trustmark.
It didn't.
(ii) In 2006, there was no iPhone (smartphone) + m.domain was in its infancy, if it existed at all - no real competition for .mobi's mobile concept.
When these did emerge, they emerged fast, and with force....It meant the corporates had a viable alternative to .mobi that did NOT require a .mobi duplicate brand strategy for mobile.
Dotmobi failed to understand this threat to its initial assumptions & strategy - and, if it did, it failed to counter these threats effectively.
(iii) Assumption - mTLD thought the provision of tools to assist compliance would make compliance adoption easy....And, probably thought (complacently) that the logic of .mobi compliance (a Trustmark) would be self-evident - resulting in large (voluntary) implementation by corporates & domain owners.
It wasn't - and, it didn't.
(iv) Assumption - mTLD focused on a B2B strategy that (they assumed) would result in widespread .mobi use, compliance, and promotion, of .mobi by the big corporates....and, therefore, establish the .mobi brand & Trustmark in the market.
Dotmobi has failed in its B2B strategy (and, failed to convince the corporates to adopt .mobi compliance) - and, has been slow to accept this failure....Those corporates that did adopt .mobi, largely haven't complied all along - and, most corporates didn't bother with .mobi at all.
Basically, Dotmobi failed to convince the corporates of the merits of the .mobi compliance Trustmark concepts....The Trustmark concept withered as a consequence.
(v) Assumption - That, widespread adoption of complying .mobi sites by the large corporates - heavily promoted by these corporates - would establish global .mobi mobile brands.....This would establish the .mobi brand, itself - and secure consumer awareness of .mobi, too.
It didn't. The large corporates - for the most part - have not widely adopted, complied with .mobi standards, nor promoted, their .mobi brands....the .mobi brand has not been established in this way.
(vi) Assumption - That B2C (consumer awareness) .mobi marketing was unnecessary.
In early 2008 - when it was becoming clear to many that the corporates were largely NOT adopting, complying with .mobi standards, & promoting .mobi brands....and, that they were NOT going to (collectively) establish .mobi global awareness....it became obvious to many that Dotmobi needed to change strategy to a B2C campaign, to establish .mobi awareness.
Dotmobi appeared paralysed. They failed to respond, and refused to do this - despite repeated urgings to do so, going back well over a year.
(vii) Assumption - that Registrars could/would encourage/enforce .mobi compliance(!).
A structurally flawed assumption....This was never going to happen. It is not a Registrar's core business to engineer second-stage use of a domain....Registrars were never going to pressure their own customers.
(viii) Additionally, Premium domain release compliance enforcement - which could be directly enforced by Dotmobi (auction contracts).
This has happened.
In short,the key core assumptions upon which .mobi strategy has been based have turned out to be wrong (or failed to be convincing). The Trustmark concept has withered on the vine. And, Dotmobi has failed (actually, refused) to adapt its .mobi brand strategy to overcome fast-changing market imperatives.
The result is that almost 3 years into brand .mobi, we have:
(a) A .mobi Compliance strategy that has failed.
(b) A B2B .mobi strategy that has failed.
(c) An invisible .mobi brand - that neither the corporates - nor Dotmobi - will promote to the market!
If that outcome is not a wake-up call - I don't know what is!
Btw...All this is why I think that the .mobi Trustmark horse has (sadly) bolted - and, why I've been pushing so hard for a B2C strategy for .mobi for over a year.
As I said immediately after the last Dotmobi Webinar (in 2008):
"....mobi is at the crossroads.....I hope we don't look back one day, and wish .mobi had turned right, instead of left, at the crossroads, right now...."
(Please note: I have no inside information. These are my thoughts only, from what I've observed).
.
DT: Your posts are so eloquent. They articulate the heavy thud of my points and go well beyond that to reach each failure of mTLD as it applies to the .mobi TLD.
I think, sans a few don't give a hoots here, that most of us are very disappointed with the chasm between perceived benefits and delivered benefits of .mobi ownership. So who failed us? Is there a who or is it a what? There's enough blame to go around to the two advisory groups plus mTLD management plus us domainers. But who decided not to pursue standards enforcement, media defense, marketing campaigns, et. al?
We all know that as .mobi owners we should be building sites. I have about a dozen or so and more will come, but that can't be the only thing that propels .mobi. That's a lame excuse if it's being used. Where is the marketing? Where is the leadership?
GetSmart
08-13-2009, 05:13 AM
It's disappointing the key promise that made dotMobi unique has been broken. (And the tricky thing about trust is it's not easy to find once you've lost it.) Hopefully, some compromise can be reached on this.
dotMobi is about so much more than compliance and the things that we are working on right now will truly help build the extension. We have several big projects bubbling up which will add ten times the value to the domain. We hope to share some of that with you shortly. In fact, we are planning a Mobility webinar soon and I will talk to Andres about organizing that sooner rather than later.Very good to hear--looking forward to the webinar.
http://www.christinaquick.com/blog/wp-content/uploads//2009/04/1107charlie_brown_lucy_football.jpg
Soundtrack (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGGxRTmdczo)
Okay, yes, we bought into the dotMobi Trustmark believing it was something written in stone--it's disappointing the key promise that made dotMobi unique cannot be successfully implemented. I understand the frustration with the handling of this important issue, but this kind of disappointment happens all the time--who ever lives up to expectations? It's how you deal with it that makes life good or bad. DotMobi investors can either throw in the proverbial towel (or dump a whole truckload of towels in mTLD's lobby) or we can be content with the policing of the premiums and try to build the best sites we can on the best extension since dotCom.
dotMobi is about so much more than compliance and the things that we are working on right now will truly help build the extension. We have several big projects bubbling up which will add ten times the value to the domain. We hope to share some of that with you shortly. In fact, we are planning a Mobility webinar soon and I will talk to Andres about organizing that sooner rather than later.This is great news, and right now I think it's encouraging to focus on the positive.
newdomainer
08-13-2009, 08:33 AM
http://www.christinaquick.com/blog/wp-content/uploads//2009/04/1107charlie_brown_lucy_football.jpg
Soundtrack (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGGxRTmdczo)
You saved yourself a 1,000 words there Tim! point very well made :adore:
Work In Progress
08-13-2009, 04:07 PM
Thanks (and rep) to gogo for starting what I feel to be one of the most important threads in Mobility's history.
Many great responses as well.
You can put me in the category of feeling swindled. The trustmark was by far the biggest thing .mobi had going for it. That's the main reason I "bought into" .mobi. Seemed pretty simple at the time. Comply or lose it. Issues with policing this should have been common knowledge well before launch. Obviously, it wasn't. Now, it seems, that's been chucked down the drain for good.
Now, we're forced to pay these high renewal / transfer fees should we choose to stay in the .mobi game. It's time to look long and hard at lowering these fee's as we certainly did not get what we paid for. We should all get partial refunds for the broken promises this TLD was built on, but never came through with.
Looks like a new slogan is in order:
.mobi- Just another .com alternative
Not to mention, a re-write of why.mobi
There is only one standard that guarantees you a site specifically designed for your mobile phone and that's .mobi. Just like how sites ending in .gov (such as IRS.gov) guarantee you a legitimate government site, sites ending with the .mobi "trustmark" guarantee you a legitimate mobile site.
Consider it a seal of approval that the site is mobile certified. Why waste time shooting in the dark? Now, I find myself asking....why .mobi? :dontknow:
You can put me in the category of feeling swindled. The trustmark was by far the biggest thing .mobi had going for it. That's the main reason I "bought into" .mobi. Seemed pretty simple at the time. Comply or lose it. Issues with policing this should have been common knowledge well before launch. Obviously, it wasn't. Now, it seems, that's been chucked down the drain for good.
Chucked down the drain for good?
I invite Dotmobi CEO Trey Harvin to come to this thread and give a definitive statment on this topic, either formally and finally abandoning Dotmobi's standards and enforcement - or reaffirming that they are still in place and by forming the .mobi trustmark are at the core of Dotmobi's existence.
If Mr Harvin does not want to come here to address the issue, no doubt the matter can be raised with the board of directors as well as regulatory authorities in Ireland - and certain issues about Dotmobi may be of interest to the wider media world.
A key point we have established here from the ICANN source material that Scandi posted is that Dotmobi must consult their stakeholders. Stakeholders in their definition includes those developing mobi domains.
Has anyone on here been "consulted" about .mobi abandoning the trustmark?
Or have Dotmobi quietly consulted a puppet forum that rubberstamped their decisions so that they could then turn around and later tell ICANN "Oh yes we consulted, everything is in order" ?
hence my interest in the MAG minutes. I'm still digging, but I'll share this from MAG (not covered by a NDA) with you for now:
mobi Compliance Task Force - Scope
DRAFT
Purpose of the Scope Document
The Scope Document sets the framework for each task force outlining its main purpose and what the expectations of the Chair, Co-Chair and MAG Secretariat are. This document does not look to answer any of the questions that the Task Force asks, but more importantly ask the questions. These questions highlight the scale of the work to be done, the deliverables expected and the lifetime and life cycle of the Task Force.
What is the role of the Task Force Chair and Co-Chair?
To embrace the role of Chair and Thought Leader and work closely with the dotMobi Advisory Group Secretariat to actively launch the task force;
Create the initial scope for the task force, to be refined with task force members;
In conjunction with the dotMobi Advisory Group Secretariat, draft a workable timetable and project plan, that will be followed as closely as possible;
Assist in selling the position of Secretary for the task force (as required). The Secretariat will undertake all logistics for messaging and any hand-over and tools as required;
Lead all Task Force meetings;
Be impartial. Chairs are accepted into these roles because they have vision and ability, so it is important that Chairs lead and manage the Task Force debates allowing all members to be heard and all views considered;
Work with the Secretariat to assess the deliverables and how they are being achieved;
Keep in regular contact, primarily by email and phone, with the following parties to ensure that as thought leader the ecosystem is kept up-to-date:
dotMobi executives/liaison to the Task Force
dotMobi Advisory Group Chair
dotMobi Advisory Group Steering Committee as necessary
Task Force Secretary
dotMobi Advisory Group Secretariat
Other parties as deemed necessary
Ensure that the task force stays focused on discovery and deliverables;
Each task force meeting is goal oriented defining objectives at the start of each meeting and confirming what the action points are at the end of each meeting;
To be cautious where deliverables have an associated cost. MAG has a limited budget and members must be aware that any deliverables will require sponsorship to be delivered.
The Scope
Purpose of Compliance - Highlight the purpose and importance of .mobi compliance to the value of the .mobi extension and the mobile web as a whole
Non-compliance process – Review dotMobi’s proposed compliance procedures and provide feedback and recommendations. This could include advice on “policing” best practice.
Compliance criteria – review the 3 current compliance criteria and data gathered around the domains. Consider the impact of additional mobile content services such as advertising, commerce, messaging and search. Provide possible recommendations for changes, additions and/or deletions to the compliance criteria to better reflect its purpose.
Compliance awareness – Identify and provide input on the unique compliance awareness issues for various mobile internet industry segments, including but not limited to:
Registrants and Developers - raise awareness of the requirements, their purpose, and available development tools and resources to help achieve compliance.
Registrars – provide advice on compliance issues at the point of sale as well as educate registrars on increased value of domains as directly relational to increased compliance.
Mobile Content (for example Parking Services, Ad Networks and Content Providers) - raise awareness of the need and opportunity in providing compliant services for .mobi websites.
Search Engines - Identify value opportunities for mobile search providers to enhance search result ranking for sites that achieve code compliance.
Carriers – Raise awareness for on-deck/off-deck carrier requirements
Domain segments – Address all .mobi domains with content, including but not limited to Premium names, Reserved names, General Registration names and Trademark Sunrise names.
Ready.mobi – provide recommendations to dotMobi on Ready.mobi scores and how they relate to compliance.
Carriers - Consider opportunities to align .mobi compliance with the compliance standards of major carriers.
Timetable and deliverables
Q3/2008: A white paper addressing all the topics of this Scope, with recommendations, to be revised and updated on a regular basis for the purposes of continuous refinement and improvement.
Q4/2008: A position paper endorsed by key industry representative companies from Carriers, Search Engine, Registrants, Developers and Registrars.
Regular reviews must be written into the activity plan for the Task Force and conducted with the Chair and Co-Chair, to assess progress within the Task Force lifecycle.
Lifecycle - This task force will continue to exist for as long as there are .mobi compliance issues to consider.
Resources available to the Task Force
In order to that the task force can progress its work effectively, other than email, the following tools are available
MAG discussion forum – This is one vehicle for the Task Force to manage its day-to-day discussions.
Conference calls – A series of calls must be worked into the activity plan in advance. Regular calls with the dotMobi liaison, members and between officers of the Task Force should take place to keep the momentum of activity flowing. The MAG has a conference call line that can be used as required and scheduling with the Secretariat is required to use this.
Webinars – A tool is available for use by the Task force to educate, perform a members review, conduct a hot topic roundtable, as required. Scheduling to use this tool is required with the Secretariat.
Face-to-face meetings – This is an alternative to on-line meetings and will only be used if a cost effective opportunity arises. It is recommended that at least one face-to-face take place with in the Task Force lifecycle. The MAG has a Series of 3 events throughout the year “The Mobile Web Series” that could be used as an opportunity. The series is as follows:
Mobile Web Europe, London, UK – September 2008
Mobile Web Asia, Hong Kong – October 2008
Mobile Web USA, San Francisco – January 2009
PS just to be clear, that is Dotmobis Draft Compliance Policy - it was widely circulated by MAG but they did not write it.
youmo
08-14-2009, 01:30 AM
Registrants need to take a little responsibility themselves.
We are flogging a dead horse here, compliance didn't work for all the reasons Caroline has pointed out. Didn't work and cannot be enforced. And as noted compliance doesn't necessarily value the correct attributes of a site to truly differentiate a good mobile site from a mediocre one. For me a bad mobile site is also a compliant site with low quality content, waste of time, a negative experience is as bad as no experience. So we should be discussing VALUE not compliance.
My example would be that I am building certain sites and to date have not bothered to check their ready score. There are so many other issues to deal with if you want to build a serious site. Device compatibility, design, architecture, usability, business model, monetization, marketing, SEO, understanding your market, knowing the tech trends, etc. We are currently testing sites on multiple handsets and making constant refinements to architecture, code and css etc. When the site is working perfectly (provides the intended services in a useful and seamless way), looks great on multiple handsets, loads well... then it will be 'compliant' in my book. And thus adding VALUE to the mobi ecosystem. Additionally, I and many others are taking into account SEO issues and building google site maps etc, not because we are forced to by google but because we want these projects to be successful.
So at the end of the process my sites may not be compliant for some technical reason, perhaps too slow to load?, however, my main barometer is whether the site is functioning correctly and traffic is flowing and growing.
There is a lot of discussion around here about directory sites, wordpress pluggins and compliance. This is not going to help .mobi succeed. Of any group, mobility members should be leading by example, carrots not sticks. We need great sites with awesome content. In my book these can be compliant or almost compliant (which is all we can practically hope for anyway).
Maybe they should add some new features to ready.mobi-
boring factor
useful factor
appearance factor
Then some compliant sites would become uncompliant!
With all due respect, you are wrong.
The trustmark was a key selling point that boosted registration and sought to distinguish the product by giving a 100% assurance that all .mobi sites would conform to the same set of standards. Whether or not you personally find this sales benefit - beneficial is irrelevant to the argument of a company changing a key benefit of their product while never notifying anyone that they were doing so. Further, since we don't know the exact timeline, it's unsure whether or not the company continued to sell the key benefit while knowing it was either not going to work or not going to be implemented.
There are many here who bought into the seriousness of an enforced set of standards surrounding this product. I was an ISO auditor. I appreciate standards and their enforcement. I find particular value in a product that conforms to a set standard. It has a quality that distinguishes it from its competitors. In addition, in the field of mobile websites, there was not another product on the market that made the same claim so there was an exclusiveness to the sales benefit.
I'm just laying it out there as I bought it and now as I puke it out. I'm ****** at being tricked and left uninformed. I want answers, accountability, and reparations. I'm not looking for handouts, I want what I bought and if I can't have it, I want to be made whole.
Don't try to tell me I have to develop to make .mobi work. I beleive I was one of THE FIRST people to have a live .mobi site, lyp.mobi. It wasn't pretty, but it was out there FIRST within this group.
I was the FIRST to get booted from crapfest.np while defending this product. So, don't try to lay the responsibility of this trickery at my doorstep. I acted like a responsible shareholder.
We are flogging a dead horse here, compliance didn't work for all the reasons Caroline has pointed out. Didn't work and cannot be enforced. And as noted compliance doesn't necessarily value the correct attributes of a site to truly differentiate a good mobile site from a mediocre one. For me a bad mobile site is also a compliant site with low quality content, waste of time, a negative experience is as bad as no experience. So we should be discussing VALUE not compliance.
My example would be that I am building certain sites and to date have not bothered to check their ready score. There are so many other issues to deal with if you want to build a serious site. Device compatibility, design, architecture, usability, business model, monetization, marketing, SEO, understanding your market, knowing the tech trends, etc. We are currently testing sites on multiple handsets and making constant refinements to architecture, code and css etc. When the site is working perfectly (provides the intended services in a useful and seamless way), looks great on multiple handsets, loads well... then it will be 'compliant' in my book. And thus adding VALUE to the mobi ecosystem. Additionally, I and many others are taking into account SEO issues and building google site maps etc, not because we are forced to by google but because we want these projects to be successful.
So at the end of the process my sites may not be compliant for some technical reason, perhaps too slow to load?, however, my main barometer is whether the site is functioning correctly and traffic is flowing and growing.
There is a lot of discussion around here about directory sites, wordpress pluggins and compliance. This is not going to help .mobi succeed. Of any group, mobility members should be leading by example, carrots not sticks. We need great sites with awesome content. In my book these can be compliant or almost compliant (which is all we can practically hope for anyway).
Maybe they should add some new features to ready.mobi-
boring factor
useful factor
appearance factor
Then some compliant sites would become uncompliant!
youmo
08-14-2009, 02:23 AM
I was an ISO auditor. I appreciate standards and their enforcement. I find particular value in a product that conforms to a set standard. It has a quality that distinguishes it from its competitors.
But as already stated it cannot be enforced without damaging the TLD as a whole. Reality.
I'm ****** at being tricked and left uninformed.
No one is tricking you.
I am sure mtld wanted this policy to be effective too. it isn't effective so time to re-strategize.
Don't try to tell me I have to develop to make .mobi work.
I am not telling you to do anything!
So, don't try to lay the responsibility of this trickery at my doorstep.
I wasn't.
I was promoting the carrot not a stick method of encouragement!
sorry if you are personally offended by my post.
MTLD is evolving, market conditions are evolving, mobi usage patterns are evolving... time for us all to evolve.
Sorry if I took things personally. I do believe this was corporate trickery.
Bait and switch is not evolution. A slight variance in the standard would be evolution. To never enforce any standard is going back on your word.
It would not damage anyone to enforce the standards that are a part of the TOS you agree to at the time of registration. That is total speculation. It is up to the company to ensure that the product they sold remains whole and it's also up to the company to minimize the impact of enforcement. It is not up to the shareholders to make it easy on the company. That's backwards.
No one is asking for the impossible here. mTLD simply needs to do what it said it would do to ensure the distinguishing trustmark of a quality product survives.
youmo
08-14-2009, 03:32 AM
Sorry if I took things personally. I do believe this was corporate trickery.
Bait and switch is not evolution. A slight variance in the standard would be evolution. To never enforce any standard is going back on your word.
It would not damage anyone to enforce the standards that are a part of the TOS you agree to at the time of registration. That is total speculation. It is up to the company to ensure that the product they sold remains whole and it's also up to the company to minimize the impact of enforcement. It is not up to the shareholders to make it easy on the company. That's backwards.
No one is asking for the impossible here. mTLD simply needs to do what it said it would do to ensure the distinguishing trustmark of a quality product survives.
Like it or not enforcement is dead. So whats left?
marketing!
Social media marketing
Viral marketing
Besides the existing .coms there are a myriad of new, amazing, and potentially ubiquitous mobile services, sites and apps being launched everyday. These new companies probably don't even know that they don't have to except names like- blippa, flagr, dopplr, flickr.com...
For these new companies, being compliant, providing an excellent mobile experience to their users is their reason for existing.
Sponsorship of a few mobile and startup conferences would probably yield better results, boost awareness/adoption.
Like it or not enforcement is dead. So whats left?
I don't like it and I don't think it has to be dead. mTLD has to perform to its own TOS. I agree that it would be great if they marketed their product better too, but let's first make sure that the product they market is the product they sell/sold.
Found this just tooling 'round the net today:
On 05.24.06 Neil Edwards, CEO, dotMobi (http://dotmobi.typepad.com/) said: Will dotMobi hold back the mobile web? We certainly don’t think so. Will dotMobi kick start the use of the mobile web? We certainly *do* think so! To be more correct, dotMobi provides — for the first time — an internet address that focuses on mobility and interoperability across networks and phones.
Could you in theory do the same thing with another domain name? The answer is yes, BUT other domain names cannot enforce standards for mobility in their license agreements and other domain names do not provide industry certification and open source coding libraries to developers for the mobile web. dotMobi does all of these things.
In fact, dotMobi works very closely with the W3C’s Mobile Web Initiative to make sure an open standards approach and best practices are followed. More and more product initiatives involving W3C and other relevant standards groups will be revealed in the coming year where dotMobi provides a valuable service to the mobile developer community — beyond just another domain name. This is why dotMobi is not just another internet address which by itself might confuse the community. dotMobi is an internet address with standards and software to make mobile work.
You could literally write a book on internet address and device detection capabilities with arguments for and against an internet address for the mobile phone. The facts are that the largest mobile competitors in the world came together to form dotMobi as their common platform for internet addressing and web identity. They must have had some common problem to solve that dotcom and other mobile technologies have not solved for the past 10 years.
I actually agree with many of the points in this post. I think the wrong attention is on dotMobi versus looking at how the industry solves the problem as a whole. dotMobi is one part of the solution that helps consumers easily find and use trustable mobile content from their phones. The other part of how the whole developer community does it in a common way must be addressed from many different perspectives. Fortunately, dotMobi will be providing some solutions that are free.
This is the message that was being pushed by top level management. Who would have ever guessed that this key element that the CEO is STANDING on would be abandoned. Further, who would ever have guessed that some would think it doesn't matter. It DOES matter.
Accent
08-14-2009, 04:32 AM
... The facts are that the largest mobile competitors in the world came together to form dotMobi as their common platform for internet addressing and web identity. ...
Here, also, the reality was far behind the promise.
We are flogging a dead horse here, compliance didn't work for all the reasons Caroline has pointed out. Didn't work and cannot be enforced.
Are you are believing what they tell you? Look at their document above - it was sent to MAG and widely distributed. If compliance is impossible and irrelevant why did MTLD prepare such a detailed document to prepare the specifics?
Are their attempts to back away from it about saving money?
If you feel the standards and compliance are irrelevant to your experience that is your privilege, but .mobi was launched solely to offer everyone a trustmark and without that, well, there is no trust. In fact there is a something worse: a violation of trust.
On your points about the standard, really what it is asking for is a single page in valid XHMTL mobile profile. That is very little to ask - a bit like asking that someone should communicate with you in Microsoft .doc format and their spelling must be correct - which can be taken care of by the spellcheck. You are right to say that does not guarantee any content or usability, and there are some constructive suggestions in this thread on how to ADD measures of usability on top of the existing requirement for valid code. Everything can be improved. But that risks diverting us from the core topic in this thread - the promised trustmark and its current status.
Pitchman101
08-14-2009, 06:05 AM
(vi) Assumption - That B2C (consumer awareness) .mobi marketing was unnecessary.
In early 2008 - when it was becoming clear to many that the corporates were largely NOT adopting, complying with .mobi standards, & promoting .mobi brands....and, that they were NOT going to (collectively) establish .mobi global awareness....it became obvious to many that Dotmobi needed to change strategy to a B2C campaign, to establish .mobi awareness.
Dotmobi appeared paralysed. They failed to respond, and refused to do this - despite repeated urgings to do so, going back well over a year.
I had to comment about this. I actually contacted dotmobi about 4 months ago and offered the sides of my vans, ( I own three) for free advertisement around the Denver Metro/Colorado area.
These vans get many miles each day and have an audiance of 2.5 million potential viewers allong the major hiways of colorado.
I told them they could have the top two thirds of the vans to promote .mobi free of charge, if I could have my local .mobi's advertised in the body wrap allong the bottom 1/3 of my trucks.
I did recieve a responce back that informed me that this type of advertisment was not in there budget and that the audiance I sudgested was to small for them to consider. ( TO F***ING SMALL?)
I firmly believe that getting the .mobi extention in front of the general public on a daily basis is important!.
My trucks are still available and get daily exposure. Anyone want to go in on a body wrap for a few trucks to generate awarness, lets talk. I got the vans here in Denver.
I am considering advertisment of local.mobi sights I own. Just have not developed enough local sites to justify the ad cost currently.
Pitchman101
youmo
08-14-2009, 07:32 AM
Are you are believing what they tell you?
Yes!
Compliance would be great, I fully support it, but as already stated it cannot be enforced without damaging the TLD as a whole. We are deep into a recession, domains are being dropped left and right, domain prices are in the toilet and the 'difficult to enforce' requirements would annoy a lot of people if enforced. Any annoyance caused could result in bad press, thus negatively affecting us further.
If you feel the standards and compliance are irrelevant to your experience that is your privilege
I feel it is irrelevant after the fact, it would be better to have it, but it can't be enforced effectively, and somewhat of a flawed measure of a site's worth anyway, so time to move on, we have bigger problems. Like no body knows what .mobi is! Just yesterday I was in a conversation with a graphic designer in New York City and they had never heard of .mobi. This is someone working in the creative digital field, someone tech savvy and owning a smartphone, in the semi-progressive city of NY. Forget compliance lets get all mtld staff focused on marketing, asap.
Beyond this please remember we are entering the mobile age, meaning that quite soon, more people will be accessing the web via their phones than via their pcs. Soon there may potentially be more money to be made on the mobile web than on the regular web. When this happens we get NATURAL ENFORCEMENT. It wont make sense to put an underperforming pc site on a .mobi address.
Yes!
Compliance would be great, I fully support it, but as already stated it cannot be enforced without damaging the TLD as a whole. We are deep into a recession, domains are being dropped left and right, domain prices are in the toilet and the 'difficult to enforce' requirements would annoy a lot of people if enforced. Any annoyance caused could result in bad press, thus negatively affecting us further.
.
Press would bring attention to .mobi and the trustmark it offers. Publicising enforcement is one of the ways to achieve successful enforcement. Once again, what is the agenda here behind making it sound like all enforcement leads to disaster? It can lead to improvement and constructive dialogue and, as said, opportunities for MTLD to offer training and other services.
The leading web usability expert Jakob Nielsen at http://www.useit.com/ is a recognised resource and widely read author and many visit his site - where they are bombarded with messages about his paid seminars and consultancy. He is an absolutely scathing critic of poor usability and that is something people go to him for.
We can have BOTH marketing AND the trustmark, and marketing of the trustmark.
Domains being dropped means domainers do not trust this extension to make money for them - dropped domains are there for entry level end-users, who then do not need to go to domainers, who in turn do not then buy domains from each other. (What was the name of Michael Jackson's pet chimp ?)
You didn't answer my question about why MTLD drew up a detailed enforcement implementation strategy in 2008 and put it out for a (closed) consultation, then tried to back away from it. I think they need to explain that.
Registrars can enforce what they like. Godaddy is the biggest; their TOS give them blanket powers to do more or less what they like, including cancelling names. Perhaps the problem was MTLD not wanting to honour an agreement to cover Registrar admin costs? It would be interesting to obtain the correspondence between MTLD and registrars on this and see what it really says.
look again at post 39 in this thread on this very point:
Lets look at that situation. Surely before launching the domain MTLD / Dotmobi looked carefully at the legality and mechanics of enforcement, and had in place legal agreements with registrars. If they later discovered that these legal agreements were unworkable, then they were incompetent or badly advised. Bad legal advice doesn't let them off the hook: they get sued and cleaned out, then sue their legal advisors for wrongly advising them.
On the other hand, if there were no mechanisms or contracts in place then they were not telling the truth when they said there would be enforcement and domains could be turned off. Since they took money based on those statements, that would be fraud.
And if it was discovered at some point enforcement was impossible or it was decided that there was to be no enforcement, MTLD would have to announce that to all potential registrants and existing registrants. Otherwise they would be committing fraud.
http://mobility.mobi/showthread.php?t=38278&page=2#39
newdomainer
08-14-2009, 09:35 AM
I'll pitch in with my 2 cents...
Compliance is / was all about ensuring end users (consumers) can view site x, y or z on a mobile handset... that's all...
Ok... caveat; self regulation didn't work in the financial sector... BUT in this market you have a website with the most motivated party sharing the same position as the party in control of the site..
That is; the owner of the site will want the site to work... for it to work it must be in some way "compliant" because otherwise the site is a waste of time.
So... enter "self-regulation" - surely this will work - those wanting to build a mobile brand may (for whatever reasons) want to target iphones & similar only.. forgetting about the crappy 2 dime handsets..
Let them! - if that's their strategy, who are we to stop them...
Even worse; if we try to stop them, will that be good or bad for the extension?
I'd say bad... indeed, VERY bad...
The only people motivated to build big unwieldy sites on dotmobi are those who wish to see dotmobi fail... and conspiracy theories aside.. what % of dotmobi sites do you think will fit into that category?
the standards were set before the iphone hit us... technology is advancing weekly.. are we going to change the compliance targets every week to suit? or every month?
I say, let the dotmobi brand do the talking..... dotmobi = for mobile.
Coupled with self-regulation and a whole gammut of helpful advice, guidelines and site building tools and tips from mTLD and I think that's the best we can hope for..
There is nothing & I mean NOTHING to stop an arms length body associated with mTLD from policing the mobisphere & contacting sites that simply don't work on a small screen device... a simple, standard email advising the site that it isn't as good as it could be plus a link to a 'help' site (tools & tips) would suffice..
Better than taking the hard-line in my opinion.. site owners want their sites to work; trust them to be the best judge of that & leave mTLD to build the branding & to getting the word out...
In fact... why doesn't mTLD go a step further and instead of policing sites & scoring each one before deciding whether to 'confront' the owner... why don't they send a monthly email out to every single registrant via the holding registrars with helpful tips for building better mobi sites... that would kick-start self regulation for sure.. Even the holding registrars can't complain as they can be seen to be 'adding value' to their own service
Pitchman101
08-14-2009, 10:03 AM
Amen newdomainer.
My problem with dotmobi lies in getting the word out. They lack conviction in general public information.
I do not believe prior domains were ever held to the standards .mobi is being accussed of lacking, but I believe there product stands alone in what/how they, as a company should aproach or market to the masses.
They hold the key, but have yet to start the engine. To the best of my thinking, I do not believe any top level domain has been in there position.
The mobile asspect makes it unique and I'm not sure dotmobi understood the ramafacations by leaving past history regarding prior tld's non advertisment track record, and actually taking steps to make .mobi main stream like asap in 2007 when the getting was very good.
.mobi will be the mobile access to the internet, I have no dought. In my opinion, they need to advertise to the public. ( unconventional for a top level domain?,yes) practical for the day we live in?, I say yes!.
dotmobi needs to get the word out that they are here to stay, and that when accessing the internet on mobile, there realy is no other place to start or end your search. I start my day mobile. I end my day mobile. This will be 100% compliant in the neer future.
Who ever cannot figure that out should start aquiring life insurance. becouse there death in this market is fortold.Pitchman101
blitzpotz
08-14-2009, 10:58 AM
I invite Dotmobi CEO Trey Harvin to come to this thread and give a definitive statment on this topic, either formally and finally abandoning Dotmobi's standards and enforcement - or reaffirming that they are still in place and by forming the .mobi trustmark are at the core of Dotmobi's existence.Thinking about my upcoming renewals I would like Dotmobi to settle this with a statement here before I decide.
Not knowing at all is the worst case for me. Sure dot.mobi may have a future as the mobile internet will be there. But I dislike to continue investing in an extension,
- that people don´t know after three years of existence in a booming market (the Mobilenet),
- with a registry and backers, whose presence could become more and more virtual (besides nice words in a post about a 10-fold value soon. Still listening to similar promises by new media firms 10 years ago).
Scandiman
08-14-2009, 01:41 PM
The only people motivated to build big unwieldy sites on dotmobi are those who wish to see dotmobi fail...
I think that's a naive perspective ND, as I mentioned before, it's far easier to build a PC site today, grab a free copy of wordpress, joomla, modx, drupal, MyBB etc, load it on your server and you've got the structure for a great site that is PC focused since that's the default templates. And even if you use a mobile template, the admin side of things typically remains PC focused. Domain.mobi + open source CMS/forum/blog = easy dev, PC style. The recently announced MarksAndSpencer.mobi is a prime example, I don't think they have a deathwish for .mobi, but they are completely ignorant of or are ignoring the mobile focused purpose of .mobi websites and are providing only full PC content to their .mobi visitors.
Scandiman
08-14-2009, 01:47 PM
Found this just tooling 'round the net today:
On 05.24.06 Neil Edwards, CEO, dotMobi (http://dotmobi.typepad.com/) said: Will dotMobi hold back the mobile web? We certainly don’t think so. Will dotMobi kick start the use of the mobile web? We certainly *do* think so! To be more correct, dotMobi provides — for the first time — an internet address that focuses on mobility and interoperability across networks and phones.
Could you in theory do the same thing with another domain name? The answer is yes, BUT other domain names cannot enforce standards for mobility in their license agreements and other domain names do not provide industry certification and open source coding libraries to developers for the mobile web. dotMobi does all of these things.
In fact, dotMobi works very closely with the W3C’s Mobile Web Initiative to make sure an open standards approach and best practices are followed. More and more product initiatives involving W3C and other relevant standards groups will be revealed in the coming year where dotMobi provides a valuable service to the mobile developer community — beyond just another domain name. This is why dotMobi is not just another internet address which by itself might confuse the community. dotMobi is an internet address with standards and software to make mobile work.
You could literally write a book on internet address and device detection capabilities with arguments for and against an internet address for the mobile phone. The facts are that the largest mobile competitors in the world came together to form dotMobi as their common platform for internet addressing and web identity. They must have had some common problem to solve that dotcom and other mobile technologies have not solved for the past 10 years.
I actually agree with many of the points in this post. I think the wrong attention is on dotMobi versus looking at how the industry solves the problem as a whole. dotMobi is one part of the solution that helps consumers easily find and use trustable mobile content from their phones. The other part of how the whole developer community does it in a common way must be addressed from many different perspectives. Fortunately, dotMobi will be providing some solutions that are free.
This is the message that was being pushed by top level management. Who would have ever guessed that this key element that the CEO is STANDING on would be abandoned. Further, who would ever have guessed that some would think it doesn't matter. It DOES matter.
Thanks for digging this up Tim, we need more examples like this to factually illustrate the details we remember but didn't expect to be removed from mTLD's website. The whole compliance enforcement policy used to be on their website and then it was gone.
There's a lot more examples out there. I'll PM you some info. I know you like research too. You will be a good one to pull out measured info for the debate.
Thanks for digging this up Tim, we need more examples like this to factually illustrate the details we remember but didn't expect to be removed from mTLD's website. The whole compliance enforcement policy used to be on their website and then it was gone.
Scandiman
08-14-2009, 03:40 PM
There's a lot more examples out there. I'll PM you some info. I know you like research too. You will be a good one to pull out measured info for the debate.
It might be best if you share your research with the whole community. For one I'd prefer that credit for your work is given to whom it is due, and also you may inspire additional research from other people that can provide a fuller picture.
It might be best if you share your research with the whole community. For one I'd prefer that credit for your work is given to whom it is due, and also you may inspire additional research from other people that can provide a fuller picture.
I'll share my sources. PM me.
youmo
08-14-2009, 06:55 PM
I'll pitch in with my 2 cents...
Compliance is / was all about ensuring end users (consumers) can view site x, y or z on a mobile handset... that's all...
Ok... caveat; self regulation didn't work in the financial sector... BUT in this market you have a website with the most motivated party sharing the same position as the party in control of the site..
That is; the owner of the site will want the site to work... for it to work it must be in some way "compliant" because otherwise the site is a waste of time.
So... enter "self-regulation" - surely this will work - those wanting to build a mobile brand may (for whatever reasons) want to target iphones & similar only.. forgetting about the crappy 2 dime handsets..
Let them! - if that's their strategy, who are we to stop them...
Even worse; if we try to stop them, will that be good or bad for the extension?
I'd say bad... indeed, VERY bad...
The only people motivated to build big unwieldy sites on dotmobi are those who wish to see dotmobi fail... and conspiracy theories aside.. what % of dotmobi sites do you think will fit into that category?
the standards were set before the iphone hit us... technology is advancing weekly.. are we going to change the compliance targets every week to suit? or every month?
I say, let the dotmobi brand do the talking..... dotmobi = for mobile.
Coupled with self-regulation and a whole gammut of helpful advice, guidelines and site building tools and tips from mTLD and I think that's the best we can hope for..
There is nothing & I mean NOTHING to stop an arms length body associated with mTLD from policing the mobisphere & contacting sites that simply don't work on a small screen device... a simple, standard email advising the site that it isn't as good as it could be plus a link to a 'help' site (tools & tips) would suffice..
Better than taking the hard-line in my opinion.. site owners want their sites to work; trust them to be the best judge of that & leave mTLD to build the branding & to getting the word out...
In fact... why doesn't mTLD go a step further and instead of policing sites & scoring each one before deciding whether to 'confront' the owner... why don't they send a monthly email out to every single registrant via the holding registrars with helpful tips for building better mobi sites... that would kick-start self regulation for sure.. Even the holding registrars can't complain as they can be seen to be 'adding value' to their own service
:bingo:
Exactly!
Excellent post newdomainer. This is the most realistic proposition. Lets use carrots not sticks. Lets indeed contact all registrants and offer them the great dotmobi tools, and explain how to use them with video tutorials etc.
:party:
youmo
08-14-2009, 07:01 PM
You didn't answer my question about why MTLD drew up a detailed enforcement implementation strategy in 2008 and put it out for a (closed) consultation, then tried to back away from it. I think they need to explain that.
IMO they have explained why. After the consultation and in light of the changing nature of smartphone etc, mtld found that enforcement was impractical and counter-productive. So instead of flogging the horse further they decided to drop this policy.
IMO they have explained why. After the consultation and in light of the changing nature of smartphone etc, mtld found that enforcement was impractical and counter-productive. So instead of flogging the horse further they decided to drop this policy.
Can you point to a quote from them supporting that?
AFAIK until I posted their consultation paper, they had never even admitted that a consultation had occurred. And they have not posted since then, so I don't see comments from them on the consultation, yet. So I look forward to their comments. And to their statement on the status of compliance and enforcement.
Could you explain what you mean here about smartphones?
coast
08-14-2009, 08:14 PM
It's now officially the weekend in Dublin. There is nobody from mTLD who is going to be answering posts until the workweek, so while this discussion continues, let's try not to get it to a boiling point while the people who can answer it are not here.
aaaaannd S T O P! phew - thanks, Holly :)
http://www.marieclaire.com/cm/marieclaire/images/Sc/clock-watcher-sm.jpg
may I suggest a movie for you tonight?
http://www.kaboodle.com/hi/img/2/0/0/e1/b/AAAAAojkON4AAAAAAOG9YQ.jpg
youmo
08-14-2009, 08:32 PM
Can you point to a quote from them supporting that?
AFAIK until I posted their consultation paper, they had never even admitted that a consultation had occurred. And they have not posted since then, so I don't see comments from them on the consultation, yet. So I look forward to their comments. And to their statement on the status of compliance and enforcement.
Could you explain what you mean here about smartphones?
What kind of quote?
Caroline explained that they spoke to registrars and other bodies- thats your consultation. I don't believe we have any reason to suspect that this did not occur or that mtld is anything but a 100% truthful company and as open as they can be, they are a for-profit company don't forget. I am content with there efforts and can see the reality of the situation. Hence I would rather spend my energy and direct my criticism towards the marketing efforts that I find are not effective.
What I mean by smartphones, is that certain phones suck and certain screen sizes will almost always display an inferior version of a site, such that a web developer may wish to not serve that handset audience. Thus the site may not format well for those phones and cause the site to perform poorly overall on ready.mobi. Meanwhile the site could target one particular platform such as iphone or android for which the user receives an excellent experience optimized for their handset.
Also, as is with my situation, as development takes so long, the development occurs in phases, and optimization for certain handsets may occur in later phases. I find it more important to get the application working first and tweak the css later.
But beyond this , I am simply advocating design, content and experience being the driver and compliance as a plus (assuming that the non-compliant site is still formatted for the mobile user). If I want to put a full screen image in the background of my site, if that is a key feature to the site, then I should be allowed to even if that screws up download times and my ready.mobi score. If I don't want to serve screen sizes sub 176px wide, I should be allowed to. If I just want to build a site for iphones I should be able to. If I want to build something in flash lite even though it is not widely supported I should be able to.
We need awesome sites not compliant sites.
(hopefully both)
newdomainer
08-14-2009, 08:39 PM
I've sent Marks and Spencers a brief email to enquire why they have built a desk-top site on a dotmobi!!!
I have accessed the site from my Blackberry and it is a case of zoom and scroll, zoom & scroll!
Dumb b*****ds.... you would expect a company like that to get it right or at least
half right! - wouldn't you?
one step forward..... 2 steps back! lol
blitzpotz
08-14-2009, 08:46 PM
It's now officially the weekend in Dublin. There is nobody from mTLD who is going to be answering posts until the workweek, so while this discussion continues, let's try not to get it to a boiling point while the people who can answer it are not here.Could we expect more passion by the staff of dot.mobi? I mean they are payed for mobis and enjoy their well-served weekend. We here pay for mobis and don´t know the difference between labor days and weekends.
I mean, many Mobility members live passion, idealism and identification with dot.mobi. Could we expect a little part of this, only a few, by staff of mTLD? So if Caroline or Trey or anybody of them is interested would give five minutes of his/her time to look into the thread and, eventually, answer?
Hence I would rather spend my energy and direct my criticism towards the marketing efforts that I find are not effective.
they also think they are doing well marketing too. What, you disagree?
Hi Youmo
thanks for posting the info about your personal experience with designing, which many will find very interesting.
What I had asked you about was this:
Originally Posted by youmo http://mobility.mobi/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://mobility.mobi/showthread.php?p=123238#post123238)
IMO they have explained why. After the consultation and in light of the changing nature of smartphone etc, mtld found that enforcement was impractical and counter-productive. So instead of flogging the horse further they decided to drop this policy.
You are attributing a view to MTLD about smartphones. Let me share their views:
the iPhone – and every other smartphone – fails to change very much for mobile Web accesshttp://mtld.mobi/resource/is-the-iphone-the-end-of-the-mobi-domain
Scandiman
08-14-2009, 09:05 PM
We need awesome sites not compliant sites.
(hopefully both)
Agreed, compliance will never be a measure of awesomeness, and awesomeness is a big part of what is needed to move .mobi forward.
But on the flip side we have the publicized MarksAndSpencer.mobi sending the completely wrong message about .mobi by serving up a PC site to mobile users.
Should these things simply go ignored or should something be done about it? There are no easy answers here.
If I want to put a full screen image in the background of my site, if that is a key feature to the site, then I should be allowed to even if that screws up download times and my ready.mobi score. If I don't want to serve screen sizes sub 176px wide, I should be allowed to. If I just want to build a site for iphones I should be able to. If I want to build something in flash lite even though it is not widely supported I should be able to.
You are allowed to do all those things. No one is stopping you.
All you have to do is have a single page for the non-supported devices with any message you like - even just saying sorry, but we don't support your device.
That takes five minutes to create and makes complete sense - you don't respect users by serving them content they can't handle, so you at least acknowledge them. What business wants to say to customers that they are ignoring them? It's a basic imo - like having an answerphone.
This was covered thoroughly earlier in this thread.
(As was the agreed world standard for the lowest common denominator phone for which you need to supply that one basic page that takes you under five minutes to create http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/CR-mobile-bp-20060627/#ddc)
It's now officially the weekend in Dublin. There is nobody from mTLD who is going to be answering posts until the workweek, so while this discussion continues, let's try not to get it to a boiling point while the people who can answer it are not here.
Do you speak for them?
No one is making personal comments about MTLD staff, we are discussing the company and its policies in a civil way so I really do not know why you are worrying about boiling point.
newdomainer
08-14-2009, 09:52 PM
I'd missed your point earlier... this is indeed fair comment!
You are allowed to do all those things. No one is stopping you.
All you have to do is have a single page for the non-supported devices with any message you like - even just saying sorry, but we don't support your device.
That takes five minutes to create and makes complete sense - you don't respect users by serving them content they can't handle, so you at least acknowledge them. What business wants to say to customers that they are ignoring them? It's a basic imo - like having an answerphone.
This was covered thoroughly earlier in this thread.
(As was the agreed world standard for the lowest common denominator phone for which you need to supply that one basic page that takes you under five minutes to create http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/CR-mobile-bp-20060627/#ddc)
coast
08-14-2009, 10:52 PM
Do you speak for them?
No one is making personal comments about MTLD staff, we are discussing the company and its policies in a civil way so I really do not know why you are worrying about boiling point.
Gogo, I'm writing out of common courtesy. I don't have a clue what Caroline is really thinking, but I've seen her name all over this thread. How is that not personal? She is a person, and not a "company." And that person has seen this thread, almost all of it, I believe. I don't know what kind of constraints have been put on her ability to answer by her supervisor or the legal team at mTLD. Do you? Does anyone honestly think we are going to get answers over the weekend? That's all I am saying. I didn't say "stop talking." And I wasn't talking to anyone in particular. Not everyone is as level-headed as you are, and yes, I am concerned about the kind of a frenzy people on forums and twitter can get into when they ask questions that don't get answered right away.
Some of our members have lost thousands or even hundreds of thousands of dollars on a gamble on .mobi that so far has not paid off. That is cause to get very angry. Anger escalates without answers. All I am saying is there will likely not be any answers forthcoming this weekend. Is that ok with you? Because I feel like it needed to be said.
Gogo, I'm writing out of common courtesy. I don't have a clue what Caroline is really thinking, but I've seen her name all over this thread. How is that not personal? She is a person, and not a "company."
Caroline Greer
dotMobi Director of Policy & Industry Relations
Caroline is the Director of Policy at the company, mTLD. We are talking about the keystone policy of the .mobi TLD. How should we term Caroline when responding to her posts, Holly? Further, I doubt she needs protection. Caroline seems quite on top of her game.
This softened content objective is a total switch from the strict standards enforcement that peppers your early sales literature. Can you imagine ISO saying that after a company spends $XXXXX on certification? mTLD has fundamentally changed the product without notice. It has failed to perform according to its own words.
Using a dimmer switch slightly changes the light in a room. A light switch only goes on and off. You have turned off the trustmark. There is no slightly in that concept. Give me a break with this softening language.
One would think that with a DEDICATED FORUM and MEMBERS OF MAG that there would have been TWO WAY COMMUNICATION about the core sales point of your product. If you did in fact listen you would have heard the word trustmark thousands of times in debates; you would have heard the blind calls for standards enforcement over the years. Further, if we (dedicated domainers) were so important, you would have included us in your nifty little pow wow about ABANDONING ENFORCEMENT!
Straight up hypocracy. Look at the dedicated members of this forum and say that again. I dare you.
Compliance is how you acheive the trustmark that mTLD sold us on. without the trustmark .mobi is another .name in the .web space.
If you build your house on shifting sands, your house will fall.
The only time I raised my voice was when Caroline said that .mobi stakeholders should take some responsibility in the context of adoption and complaince. I found that quite hypocritical, rude, and a little out of touch with our forum.
I agree with gogo, we are having a very serious, thoughtful, and civil conversation about losing a keystone quality of the .mobi tld.
You haven't had to censor my potty mouth once, Ms. G.
youmo
08-14-2009, 11:13 PM
Agreed, compliance will never be a measure of awesomeness, and awesomeness is a big part of what is needed to move .mobi forward.
But on the flip side we have the publicized MarksAndSpencer.mobi sending the completely wrong message about .mobi by serving up a PC site to mobile users.
Should these things simply go ignored or should something be done about it? There are no easy answers here.
For sure something should be done, promoting a mobi site as a success story when it redirects to a pc site is pretty much pathetic. It suggests and confirms my feeling that some people over at mtld are just doing their job and not questioning enough. I see this over and over, even the last webinar and this proposed one, it was 90% slickness and 10% new info. We just need action and results.
youmo
08-14-2009, 11:16 PM
You are allowed to do all those things. No one is stopping you.
All you have to do is have a single page for the non-supported devices with any message you like - even just saying sorry, but we don't support your device.
That takes five minutes to create and makes complete sense - you don't respect users by serving them content they can't handle, so you at least acknowledge them. What business wants to say to customers that they are ignoring them? It's a basic imo - like having an answerphone.
This was covered thoroughly earlier in this thread.
yes I was responding to gogo's question about smartphones.
youmo
08-15-2009, 05:49 AM
OK, just grabbed the list of sold names from the premium auction in Oct 2007. Below are the 50 names from the top of the list, and a description of what is located on each site. As you can see, its pathetic. Nearly all the names are compliant (they resolve to a mobile site) but they are mostly a waste of space. Most likely owned by domainers. So lets stop flogging this dead compliance horse. Domainers will do the minimum to pass the mark and nothing more.
http://Hosting.mobi $ 101,000 USELESS HOLDING PAGE - EURODNS
http://Free.mobi $ 31,500 USELESS HOLDING PAGE - EURODNS
http://DomainName.mobi $ 15,000 USELESS HOLDING PAGE - EURODNS
http://Atm.mobi $ 10,100 USELESS HOLDING PAGE - EURODNS
http://Payment.mobi $ 10,100 USELESS HOLDING PAGE - EURODNS
http://Index.mobi $ 8,100 USELESS HOLDING PAGE - EURODNS
http://E-mail.mobi $ 7,194 USELESS HOLDING PAGE - EURODNS
http://Domain.mobi $ 7,100 USELESS HOLDING PAGE - EURODNS
http://DomainRegistration.mobi $ 6,100 USELESS HOLDING PAGE - EURODNS
http://Chat.mobi $ 42,000 USELESS HOLDING PAGE
http://Traffic.mobi $ 36,008 USELESS HOLDING PAGE - SAME REGISTRANT
http://Books.mobi $ 33,510 USELESS HOLDING PAGE - SAME REGISTRANT
http://Stockmarket.mobi $ 6,750 USELESS HOLDING PAGE - SAME REGISTRANT
http://Stockprices.mobi $ 6,000 USELESS HOLDING PAGE - SAME REGISTRANT
http://Alerts.mobi $ 5,250 USELESS HOLDING PAGE - SAME REGISTRANT
http://Casa.mobi $ 5,200 USELESS HOLDING PAGE - SAME REGISTRANT
http://Dinero.mobi $ 5,100 USELESS HOLDING PAGE - SAME REGISTRANT
http://FreeDownloads.mobi $ 4,300 USELESS HOLDING PAGE - SAME REGISTRANT
http://Finanza.mobi $ 3,433 USELESS HOLDING PAGE - SAME REGISTRANT
http://Bank.mobi $ 51,501 DOES NOT RESOLVE
http://Currency.mobi $ 47,000 DOES NOT RESOLVE
http://Marketing.mobi $ 26,100 DOES NOT RESOLVE
http://Creditcard.mobi $ 25,500 DOES NOT RESOLVE
http://Colleges.mobi $ 7,500 DOES NOT RESOLVE
http://Pet.mobi $ 6,750 PARKED
http://Trade.mobi $ 5,200 PARKED
http://Bills.mobi $ 5,100 PARKED
http://Mutualfunds.mobi $ 3,305 PARKED
http://Insurance.mobi $ 42,005 BORING STATIC TEXT SITE
http://Loans.mobi $ 30,000 BORING STATIC TEXT SITE
http://Credit.mobi $ 10,600 BORING STATIC TEXT SITE
http://Cricket.mobi $ 8,100 BORING STATIC TEXT SITE
http://Pension.mobi $ 5,100 BORING STATIC TEXT SITE
http://Pumps.mobi $ 3,200 BORING STATIC TEXT SITE
http://Get.mobi $ 3,100 BORING STATIC TEXT SITE
http://Download.mobi $ 51,500 LIVE SITE - NOKIA
http://Images.mobi $ 3,500 LIVE SITE - Deutsche Telekom AG
http://Voip.mobi $ 20,500 LIVE SITE
http://Telephone.mobi $ 4,305 LIVE SITE
http://Cellphone.mobi $ 5,250 LIVE SITE
http://Rent.mobi $ 21,000 LIVE SITE - BORING
http://Creditcards.mobi $ 20,500 LIVE SITE - LINKS TO NON-MOBILE CREDITCARDS.COM
http://Book.mobi $ 5,250 LIVE SITE - BORING DIRECTORY SITE
http://Forum.mobi $ 3,101 LIVE SITE - BORING FORUM SITE
http://Webcam.mobi $ 16,000 PORN AD LINKS
http://Webcams.mobi $ 4,500 PORN AD LINKS
http://Advertising.mobi $ 12,100 USELESS HOLDING PAGE
http://Downloads.mobi $ 11,185 USELESS HOLDING PAGE
DomainTalker
08-15-2009, 06:47 AM
Um...Mods...
This thread is in the News & Discussion section of Mobility....Its being picked up for all the world to see...
[/URL][URL]http://www.google.com.au/search?q=%22+What+happened+to+the+.mobi+trustmark+ %3F+%22&hl=en&filter=0&cts=1250319380212 (http://www.google.com.au/search?q=%22New+mTLD-Mobility+Webinar:+What+issues+would+you+like+to+di scuss%3F+%22&hl=en&filter=0&cts=1250320088286)
Shouldn't it be moved to the Private Discussions section, so its a private matter?
.
...Better if this thread - and the Webinar questions thread - be transferred to Private Discussions?
.
I started this thread in the public section because it is a public issue - MTLD announced .mobi and its standards and publicly promoted them. It is important that any possible retraction of the trustmark should be as widely publicised as possible. There are many stakeholders.
We are waiting for MTLD / Dotmobi CEO to come here and give a definitive statement on the trustmark - reaffirming it, or formally and finally abandoning it so ALL mobi users can know their obligations.
If MTLD staff come here and create logins with their names rather than just job titles that is their choice. No blog or newsletter discussing MTLD or its postholders feels the need to hide the name of the company or its staff from search engines.
Most of us know that if you act in public in a way that really harms your company's reputation you may get dismissed - if you post online revealing pix of you reclining undressed in the CEO's chair for example - but that is a risk you take, it isn't the responsibility of the site where you post the pix.
DomainTalker
08-15-2009, 07:40 AM
Technically right, gogo - Tactically wrong, imo...
The objective of discussions like this is not flagellation of dotmobi, for the sake of it. Its to air issues - and, hopefully, get a resolution, or change of direction.
If this frank & fearless discussion of the issues results in a clear strategy to pursue the Trustmark concept, after all, then many of the things said in this thread need never be seen by vast numbers of potential .mobi users.
Mud sticks - even if, later, the things said become no longer relevant, or true. All that would have been achieved by not having a private 'sort out' is damage to the brand.
If, later, on the other hand, no satisfactory resolution is arrived at, then, it could go public.
Your thread. Just my opinion.
.
Some of our members have lost thousands or even hundreds of thousands of dollars on a gamble on .mobi that so far has not paid off. That is cause to get very angry. Anger escalates without answers.
That is a very good point Coast. Losing money always hurts - more so if you feel deceived - and sometimes even more so if you feel you have let yourself down or embarrassed yourself with poor judgment.
But investing means, should mean, making rational judgments about risk and setting your limits. And understanding the product, and reevaluating when necessary. And identifying the worst case scenario and the point at which you will cut losses and leave. No matter how painful and embarrassing it may be, this thread and the one about the solvency of MTLD are looking at essential questions and information we have to look at as investors. If we don't, are we investors or just horse racing enthusiasts?
But anger can turn to denial, too. Humans have an inbuilt truth bias - we assume others are telling the truth until proven otherwise and are uncomfortable when we wonder if people we want to trust are not telling the truth. And we are very uncomfortable with seeing our own mistakes. Look at how the banking crisis developed - everyone trusting bad financial products they did not understand. Groupthink.
So it would be very easy, natural even, to say there are no problems with .mobi and things will get better, and react angrily to any messages bearing bad news. Or to to blame other factors, anything whatever.
I've noticed how few people have ever taken the time to understand what the standard set by .mobi is. It is incredibly simple, fits in a paragraph, and stops no one from developing whatever super site they like. It just guarantees that a basic mobile page is available on the site for anyone - a pretty sensible position for a business. So if you buy mobis without understanding this are you an investor or a gambler?
OK let's go investing now, everybody investing now, come on a safari with me!
You run a small business and want a new office and want to spend more time with your family. Where you live the state controls what can be built and where with a planning permission system, so office blocks do not get built in residential neighbourhoods. But a nice new category of development is allowed due to teleworking trends: the OfficeHome. Your friend the property broker pitches the idea to you and you are so sold on it you order one to be built for you, and twenty others on spec as an investment. You don't tell your wife since she hates risk and wants your money to stay in the bank. She'd also prefer to wait until the SmartHome becomes available, with its integrated sensors for cleaning and climate control.
Your OfficeHome is built and you go to inspect it with the builder. It's great. You go round the back and inspect the garden. There seems to be on oversized hose reel on the wall by the steps leading to the back door to the office area. You query this and the builder demonstrates that it is a fold down ramp that turns the back steps into wheelchair access.
You say you did not want that, it serves no purpose and makes your office look bad. The builder points out that it was required by the regulations for the Officehome and and was specced in the plans you saw and the contract you signed. You don't like his attitude and you tell him it has to go from this and all your properties and if he won't remove it someone else will. You say no client would accept it and if you asked them to they'd just go for a conventional office block instead. You say no serious business would have visitors in wheelchairs, except possibly the expensive high-tech ones that can climb stairs. You start shouting that he is stopping people from investing in your properties and your wife is embarrassed and retreats to the end of the garden. The builder is her brother. He leaves.
You are very, very angry. You pace around the garden shouting into your phone to your broker friend about how SmartHomes will destroy your investment if the wheelchair access is not removed. He says it is out of his hands. You ring your friend in the legislature to try and get the law changed. Then you ring your friend the newspaper editor, who is sympathetic and agrees to run a number of articles and opinion pieces about how self-selection and self-enforcement should be the norm for wheelchair access, and there should be no enforcement of the existing law.
Now you feel better and turn to talk to your wife. She is gone. You hadn't noticed that she had left, very very upset. So upset she had a traffic accident and ended up in wheelchair.
Andres Kello
08-15-2009, 10:45 AM
IMO they have explained why. After the consultation and in light of the changing nature of smartphone etc, mtld found that enforcement was impractical and counter-productive. So instead of flogging the horse further they decided to drop this policy.Correction: mTLD found that enforcement as originally intended was impractical and counter-productive. That does not mean there isn't a solution out there that is both practical and productive.
youmo, I'm not sure when you started investing in .mobi, but I can assure you that the vast majority of the people who invested in .mobi during landrush did so because of the promise of the Trustmark. I don't think even half the people who invested in .mobi during landrush would have done so without the Trustmark. You can add me to that list. This is why I believe people feel so strongly about this issue. The other reason is because people realize that without the Trustmark, .mobi is "just another extension", which is precisely why they wouldn't have invested in it had there been no promise of a Trustmark.
Perhaps those who invested later in .mobi when the Trustmark was already suffering did not (and do not) care so much about it as they assessed other issues when investing.
We need awesome sites not compliant sites.Actually, we need both. Do you honestly believe a .mobi ecosystem made up of sites such as MarkAndSpencers.mobi would be beneficial to consumers? If so, then why do we need .mobi? If not, then how will .mobi be successful without compliance?
This is the same point I was trying to make when I wrote the following earlier in this thread:
This is a double-edged sword. Here's another plausible scenario. Forget FoxNews.mobi for a minute which scores an "acceptable" 3/5. What if a massive global brand launches a .mobi site only for the iPhone with a Ready.mobi score of 1/5. Yes, great exposure for .mobi as their global marketing campaign unfolds. Or is it? The vast majority of consumers don't have an iPhone, so they'd be putting that .mobi address on their phone and seeing a completely garbled site. Is that exposure really valuable to .mobi? What does the .mobi message become then? I think this is also a plausible scenario if the Trustmark is not preserved, and one that might generate a lot of excitement at first, but one that would also give consumers without iPhones (the majority) a very bad impression of .mobi as they visited a supposedly "made for mobile" site they saw advertised on TV that simply did not work on their mobile phones.
Exposure is great, but only if it's in line with the message you're trying to deliver. In the case of .mobi, its ".mobi = mobile site". If the message is contradictory or mixed, then exposure isn't necessarily that great.Ideally, .mobi sites should be enforced to always offer compatibility with the lowest-common denominator of internet-enabled phones. That's the only way you can market this extension as being truly mobile and viewable on EVERY mobile device. That does not mean site-owners can't offer an additional version specific to the iPhone or more advanced smartphones, it just means they must always offer at least one basic version that'll work on all phones (which we all know is not difficult to do as it is the absolute simplest version of a site). If you look at the Ready.mobi score, a score of 5/5 pretty much guarantees a site optimized and viewable on the vast majority of mobile phones. If your pagesize is too large, your score goes down (which makes sense since older phones don't have enough memory to display large sites). Realistically, perhaps requiring at least a 3/5 instead of a 5/5 might be a better balance as discussed earlier. I think that's what .mobi needs in order to ensure it is truly THE "mobile extension" as opposed to an extension that will work on some mobiles, maybe. The message has to be clear, simple, and consistent in order for it to be effective. Don't forget, consumers already have enough difficulty understanding what a domain extension is, so don't confuse the message as well.
Andres Kello
08-15-2009, 11:24 AM
Folks, allow me to be purposefully provocative. I don't know if everyone is aware of this, but .mobi was not the first "mobile" extension. .mp (the ccTLD of the Northern Mariana Islands) came first (http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/12-15-2004/0002632105&EDATE=) through a clever play on its two letters: .mp = mobile phone. It had no Trustmark and no marketing. Look at how it ended up (http://get.mp/). That's right, it's now a monkey (http://chi.mp/):
http://www.devilgraphics.com/monkey/Funny-MonkeyReaction.jpg
.mobi without the Trustmark and without marketing is fundamentally just a .mp with the disadvantage of 2 more letters.
I did not invest in a monkey. Did you?
"Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." -George Bernard Shaw
vikrantjain22
08-15-2009, 11:52 AM
Um...Mods...
This thread is in the News & Discussion section of Mobility....Its being picked up for all the world to see...
[/URL][URL]http://www.google.com.au/search?q=%22+What+happened+to+the+.mobi+trustmark+ %3F+%22&hl=en&filter=0&cts=1250319380212 (http://www.google.com.au/search?q=%22New+mTLD-Mobility+Webinar:+What+issues+would+you+like+to+di scuss%3F+%22&hl=en&filter=0&cts=1250320088286)
Shouldn't it be moved to the Private Discussions section, so its a private matter?
.
All the discussions and uniqueness of .Mobi names have been in the public domain, this should too be in the public domain. Scaling back on your key objective is detrimental to the core objective itself.
GOGO is very right in his objective of bringing it to the forefront and letting people decide for themselves what would decide at this juncture.
MTLD has never given specific answers to specific questions, always hiding behind the veil of corporate confidentiality.
Maybe its time to give this issue a bigger thrust and bring it out in the open for the end user to decide what they want to do now, since the mobi core, the trustmark is not being adhered to anymore.:mad2:
Caroline Greer
08-15-2009, 12:28 PM
So, I am reading and what I suggest is that we channel all of this energy and passion into coming up with a succint list of issues / questions for the webinar which we will be hosting week after next - date TBD as Trey wants to attend and needs to shift a few things in his diary.
Andres made a good point. Compliance as you all understood it is not possible because of certain parameters that we face. However, if Tim or Gogo or anyone else wants to come up with a constructive solution that we can work through and discuss on the webinar, we are happy to do that.
I mentioned to Andres that it would be helpful to see the list of issues/questions by Monday so that we can start preparing and sourcing the appropriate staff and resources on our end. And yes, we will aim to make the webinar as interactive as possible. We need to get an idea of numbers however to organise things so please sign up with Andres and agree a suitable time for the webinar amongst yourselves.
Thank you and have a good weekend. I'm going to ask Holly to help me make my way out of here now ;-)
Caroline.
Andres Kello
08-15-2009, 12:40 PM
So, I am reading and what I suggest is that we channel all of this energy and passion into coming up with a succint list of issues / questions for the webinar which we will be hosting week after next - date TBD as Trey wants to attend and needs to shift a few things in his diary.
I mentioned to Andres that it would be helpful to see the list of issues/questions by Monday so that we can start preparing and sourcing the appropriate staff and resources on our end. And yes, we will aim to make the webinar as interactive as possible. We need to get an idea of numbers however to organise things so please sign up with Andres and agree a suitable time for the webinar amongst yourselves.Hi Caroline, I'm keeping an updated list of the issues here: http://mobility.mobi/showpost.php?p=122987&postcount=1
As for the time, we're aiming for a PST Morning time like the last Webinar, but a recording of the Webinar would be imperative for those who cannot make it.
Thank you and have a good weekend.Thanks for popping in on your weekend. Have a good one. :)
Andres made a good point. Compliance as you all understood it is not possible because of certain parameters that we face. However, if Tim or Gogo or anyone else wants to come up with a constructive solution that we can work through and discuss on the webinar, we are happy to do that. Folks, let's create a Private Compliance Task Force here on Mobility to tackle this issue. I have something we can use as a starting point. Let me know if you want to be a part of this Compliance Task Force and I'll set it up.
Scandiman
08-15-2009, 12:59 PM
OK, just grabbed the list of sold names from the premium auction in Oct 2007. Below are the 50 names from the top of the list, and a description of what is located on each site. As you can see, its pathetic. Nearly all the names are compliant (they resolve to a mobile site) but they are mostly a waste of space. Most likely owned by domainers. So lets stop flogging this dead compliance horse. Domainers will do the minimum to pass the mark and nothing more.
http://Hosting.mobi $ 101,000 USELESS HOLDING PAGE - EURODNS
http://Free.mobi $ 31,500 USELESS HOLDING PAGE - EURODNS
http://DomainName.mobi $ 15,000 USELESS HOLDING PAGE - EURODNS
http://Atm.mobi $ 10,100 USELESS HOLDING PAGE - EURODNS
http://Payment.mobi $ 10,100 USELESS HOLDING PAGE - EURODNS
http://Index.mobi $ 8,100 USELESS HOLDING PAGE - EURODNS
http://E-mail.mobi $ 7,194 USELESS HOLDING PAGE - EURODNS
http://Domain.mobi $ 7,100 USELESS HOLDING PAGE - EURODNS
http://DomainRegistration.mobi $ 6,100 USELESS HOLDING PAGE - EURODNS
http://Chat.mobi $ 42,000 USELESS HOLDING PAGE
http://Traffic.mobi $ 36,008 USELESS HOLDING PAGE - SAME REGISTRANT
http://Books.mobi $ 33,510 USELESS HOLDING PAGE - SAME REGISTRANT
http://Stockmarket.mobi $ 6,750 USELESS HOLDING PAGE - SAME REGISTRANT
http://Stockprices.mobi $ 6,000 USELESS HOLDING PAGE - SAME REGISTRANT
http://Alerts.mobi $ 5,250 USELESS HOLDING PAGE - SAME REGISTRANT
http://Casa.mobi $ 5,200 USELESS HOLDING PAGE - SAME REGISTRANT
http://Dinero.mobi $ 5,100 USELESS HOLDING PAGE - SAME REGISTRANT
http://FreeDownloads.mobi $ 4,300 USELESS HOLDING PAGE - SAME REGISTRANT
http://Finanza.mobi $ 3,433 USELESS HOLDING PAGE - SAME REGISTRANT
http://Bank.mobi $ 51,501 DOES NOT RESOLVE
http://Currency.mobi $ 47,000 DOES NOT RESOLVE
http://Marketing.mobi $ 26,100 DOES NOT RESOLVE
http://Creditcard.mobi $ 25,500 DOES NOT RESOLVE
http://Colleges.mobi $ 7,500 DOES NOT RESOLVE
http://Pet.mobi $ 6,750 PARKED
http://Trade.mobi $ 5,200 PARKED
http://Bills.mobi $ 5,100 PARKED
http://Mutualfunds.mobi $ 3,305 PARKED
http://Insurance.mobi $ 42,005 BORING STATIC TEXT SITE
http://Loans.mobi $ 30,000 BORING STATIC TEXT SITE
http://Credit.mobi $ 10,600 BORING STATIC TEXT SITE
http://Cricket.mobi $ 8,100 BORING STATIC TEXT SITE
http://Pension.mobi $ 5,100 BORING STATIC TEXT SITE
http://Pumps.mobi $ 3,200 BORING STATIC TEXT SITE
http://Get.mobi $ 3,100 BORING STATIC TEXT SITE
http://Download.mobi $ 51,500 LIVE SITE - NOKIA
http://Images.mobi $ 3,500 LIVE SITE - Deutsche Telekom AG
http://Voip.mobi $ 20,500 LIVE SITE
http://Telephone.mobi $ 4,305 LIVE SITE
http://Cellphone.mobi $ 5,250 LIVE SITE
http://Rent.mobi $ 21,000 LIVE SITE - BORING
http://Creditcards.mobi $ 20,500 LIVE SITE - LINKS TO NON-MOBILE CREDITCARDS.COM
http://Book.mobi $ 5,250 LIVE SITE - BORING DIRECTORY SITE
http://Forum.mobi $ 3,101 LIVE SITE - BORING FORUM SITE
http://Webcam.mobi $ 16,000 PORN AD LINKS
http://Webcams.mobi $ 4,500 PORN AD LINKS
http://Advertising.mobi $ 12,100 USELESS HOLDING PAGE
http://Downloads.mobi $ 11,185 USELESS HOLDING PAGE
Rep+ for doing this research, this highlights the significant need for a new approach to the enforcement of the dotMobi Auction End User Agreement (http://mtld.mobi/system/files/Auction_End_User_Agreement.pdf) that reads in section 8. Participant Commitments:
"Use Your best efforts to create, launch, and operate a live website related to and primarily containing content relevant to the commonly held and widely shared understanding of the meaning of the Domain Name to replace the parking page within six (6) months of the transfer of the Authorization Code by mTLD."
Are most of these best efforts? Not even close. But it's all dependent on how best efforts is being interpreted by mTLD, and the evidence above suggests it is interpreted extremely loosely when a higher bar could be set.
While Premium name compliance enforcement isn't the topic of this thread, this list does well illustrate the limits of what general code compliance can accomplish. But that is not to say code compliance is useless, the recent example of MarksAndSpencer.mobi well illustrates what compliance in a basic sense can help to combat.
Scandiman
08-15-2009, 01:04 PM
Folks, let's create a Private Compliance Task Force here on Mobility to tackle this issue. I have something we can use as a starting point. Let me know if you want to be a part of this Compliance Task Force and I'll set it up.
I'm in Andres, but it is unreasonable to expect us to solve mTLD's compliance problems in a weekend, we need to work on this for a while. As such I think there should be a dedicated webinar/meeting with mTLD to discussing the compliance issue by itself, there's plenty to discuss other than compliance in the upcoming webinar, namely the coming initiatives from mTLD.
Compliance as you all understood it is not possible because of certain parameters that we face.
However, if Tim or Gogo or anyone else wants to come up with a constructive solution that we can work through and discuss on the webinar, we are happy to do that.
Caroline, can you please explain what precisely are "the certain parameters" you refer to? Otherwise we have no idea what those parameters are, and whether they are valid or exist at all.
As for your suggestion that others should come up with a solution: MTLD /Dotmobi staked their whole project on the enforceable trustmark and said they had the power to enforce it. If they want to find a different method of enforcement, let them propose one - that is not the job of others.
The correct place to discuss this is in this thread - not a dubious proposed webinar - please be so kind as to remind your boss, Dotmobi CEO Mr Trey Harvin, that his presence is expected in this thread to make an announcement either reaffirming the trustmark or formally and finally abandoning it, with all the legal consequences that will bring.
a recording of the Webinar would be imperative for those who cannot make it.
It is imperative that any webinar has as an absolute condition that a transcript is made available - on the web and within 48 hours - the burden of transcription must not be put on us.
As said in the webinar thread, the last one was pretty useless and just giving written answers to questions would be better.
Correction: mTLD found that enforcement as originally intended was impractical and counter-productive.
yes, they found that to be the case in their own undisclosed terms of reference - which might include effect on staff bonuses, future employment prospects at sponsoring companies, desire to be able to mention brands like M&S, budgets...
without knowing their terms of reference we don't know much - we are asked once again to take things on faith and wait for glowing future projects that will make everything ok.
Scandiman
08-15-2009, 02:14 PM
As for your suggestion that others should come up with a solution: MTLD /Dotmobi staked their whole project on the enforceable trustmark and said they had the power to enforce it. If they want to find a different method of enforcement, let them propose one - that is not the job of others.
I completely agree with you on this gogo, but I don't mind helping if it moves things along to a solution (and abandoning compliance altogether isn't a good solution). This is a serious problem that requires a solution implemented by mTLD and I accept the invitation to participate in getting us all there. Emphasis on participate, what I don't want is to invest hours/days/weeks of my unpaid time only to hear from mTLD, "We'll take it under advisement" and then silence thereafter. I'm committed to finding a solution if I know mTLD is committed also. Otherwise it is simply a giant waste of my precious time.
What say ye mTLD? Are you committed to finding a solution to compliance enforcement or is it something you simply want to go away? Actions suggest the latter but it's time to clearly state your position on enforcement so we can move in an appropriate direction.
DomainTalker
08-15-2009, 02:31 PM
Folks, let's create a Private Compliance Task Force here on Mobility to tackle this issue.
I'm in, Andres.
it is unreasonable to expect us to solve mTLD's compliance problems in a weekend, we need to work on this for a while. As such I think there should be a dedicated webinar/meeting with mTLD to discussing the compliance issue by itself...
I agree with Scandi.
(i) What I'm hearing is that dotmobi is out of ideas on compliance, now that so many organisations with .mobi's have non-complying sites (M&S is just one).
Its a critical area, with many facets - it needs new solutions - and a well thought-through recommendation(s) to dotmobi. That'll take a bit of time to hammer out, to get the best outcome.
...And, I think the ensuing discussion with Dotmobi on Compliance will be detailed, and lengthy - so, it deserves its own dedicated interactive Webinar, as Scandi said....Perhaps a little after the first Webinar.
(ii) I agree, too, that there are quite a few other VERY key (non-compliance) issues that we need to discuss with dotmobi.
...So, perhaps the (first) scheduled interactive Webinar should address those issues only.
A second, dedicated, Webinar could address the Compliance issue.
(edit):
I don't want is to invest hours/days/weeks of my unpaid time only to hear from mTLD, "We'll take it under advisement" and then silence thereafter.
Absolutely agree....We need some kind of assurance beyond: 'We'll consider any proposals...'
Another reason we'll need more time, if we go down this road.
.
MyWebSearches
08-15-2009, 03:09 PM
Andres made a good point. Compliance as you all understood it is not possible because of certain parameters that we face. However, if Tim or Gogo or anyone else wants to come up with a constructive solution that we can work through and discuss on the webinar, we are happy to do that.
As the owner of hundreds of mobi domains, this is not the way to go :mad2:. The only reason I invested in this extension was because of the TRUSTMARK, without giving a 100% to this compliance makes our domains obsolete. We only have to read a little bit of history to see what the end result will be if not followed.
While I do undestand that is not easy, it is NOT IMPOSSIBLE to enforce the trustmark 100%.
So the question is
Will you enforce the trustmark 100%?
The answer is
a) YES
b) NO
Pesonally, I will not accept other excuses than that above answers. If your answer is YES, I will continue investing and promoting this extension.
If your answer is NO, I stop buying and developing domains immediately . There are other domain extensions instead of .mobi that I can use to accomplish my goal.
I will also have to agree with the popular opinion that mobi was dead from the beginning. You don't know how many times I had to write positive comments about .mobi and how it will change the way we access the internet using wireless phones.
WHAT A DREAM, Thanks for waking me up.
---------
This is probably my last post guys/girls, so enjoy life as much as you can.
coast
08-15-2009, 03:39 PM
Count me in on the Compliance Task Force, Andres. There HAS to be a solution - let's find one or make one. Furthermore, let's invite the developer side of mTLD to participate, too. They built the tools, maybe they have some ideas on how to make this work for everyone.
This is probably my last post guys/girls, so enjoy life as much as you can.
Andres has just proposed a Task Force to come up with solutions. In an ideal world, mTLD would have already come up with the answers, but since they haven't, it's time for a new approach. Please don't give up hope just yet. Come back and see us in a month or two and maybe we'll have arrived at a better solution.
Did I see Scandiman volunteering to be on the task force, too? I hope so, your thoughts on usability and not just compliance ought to be important elements for new standards.
coast
08-15-2009, 03:48 PM
Folks, allow me to be purposefully provocative. I don't know if everyone is aware of this, but .mobi was not the first "mobile" extension. .mp (the ccTLD of the Northern Mariana Islands) came first (http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/12-15-2004/0002632105&EDATE=) through a clever play on its two letters: .mp = mobile phone. It had no Trustmark and no marketing. Look at how it ended up (http://get.mp/). That's right, it's now a monkey (http://chi.mp/):
http://www.devilgraphics.com/monkey/Funny-MonkeyReaction.jpg
.mobi without the Trustmark and without marketing is fundamentally just a .mp with the disadvantage of 2 more letters.
I did not invest in a monkey. Did you?
"Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." -George Bernard Shaw
Wow. Just wow.
I'm glad to see we are having this discussion, and let's hope we're on the correct side of history with mobile domain names when it's all over.
Wow. mTLD is stuck and it is up the the stakeholders to get them out of it. Only, as gogo so clearly illustrates, we must do it blindfolded (and unpaid) because they will not discuss the terms and timelines in which they abandoned compliance, but let there be no doubt that mTLD has chucked its key quality factor without notice to anyone.
Caroline, I appreciate you finally acknoweledged I exist in this thread, but I refuse to do your work for you. I think you misinterpreted the crux of this thread; it is mTLD do what you said you would do. Not, tie up the idea of compliance in a bunch of uninformed domainers until it dies.
Accent
08-15-2009, 04:00 PM
We certainly need more than one webanar per year to resolve this. The compliance issue is so emotional - people feel mislead about what they consider the central value of their investments - that keeping it out of the first session would lead to a lot of frustration. But if DotMobi agrees to some kind of compliance then the discussion becomes quickly technical and the rest of us can move on.
Compliance or no, .Mobi is shrinking at the time that it should be moving to centerstage. Few people outside of domainers have heard of .Mobi, and without a major change of course, .mobi will continue as a minor extension. It would take a ten-fold value increase to return the auctioned premiums listed above to their original value.
Scandiman
08-15-2009, 04:05 PM
Folks, allow me to be purposefully provocative. I don't know if everyone is aware of this, but .mobi was not the first "mobile" extension. .mp (the ccTLD of the Northern Mariana Islands) came first (http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/12-15-2004/0002632105&EDATE=) through a clever play on its two letters: .mp = mobile phone. It had no Trustmark and no marketing. Look at how it ended up (http://get.mp/). That's right, it's now a monkey (http://chi.mp/):
http://www.devilgraphics.com/monkey/Funny-MonkeyReaction.jpg
.mobi without the Trustmark and without marketing is fundamentally just a .mp with the disadvantage of 2 more letters.
I did not invest in a monkey. Did you?
"Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." -George Bernard Shaw
Timely, thought provoking and entertaining all in one. I think there's more than just standards at play with the shifting winds at .mp, but it's easy to imagine a future of .mobi blowing off course (http://marksandspencer.mobi) without some enforced standards at work to set at least some content presentation parameters.
domain2mobi
08-15-2009, 05:25 PM
if computers dont exist in the world
we wont build current pc site for mobile phone
the palm of the hand, your pocket of your shirt decide the mobile phone screen size
youmo
08-15-2009, 05:35 PM
they also think they are doing well marketing too. What, you disagree?
I don't know if they think they are doing a good job. Right now I want to see more effort, or rather more creativeness. But I will wait to hear what they say at the webinar/Q+A.
We have to bare in mind that an awareness campaign when there are no decent sites to visit is a bad thing. So maybe there is a strategy in there. Develop tools to allow mobile site creation.... wait.... then publicize the new sites?
That could be what is going on, but!
when I see cool videos produced by the .tel registry from the get go and see banal social media efforts by mtld, then I start to question. Not even start to question, but start to publicly question.
I feel that its time to go big guns on the PR. There is no audience without content and no content without an audience.
youmo
08-15-2009, 05:47 PM
Actually, we need both. Do you honestly believe a .mobi ecosystem made up of sites such as MarkAndSpencers.mobi would be beneficial to consumers? If so, then why do we need .mobi? If not, then how will .mobi be successful without compliance?
I think I wrote-
We need awesome sites not compliant sites.
(hopefully both)
or at least that is the tone from all my posts.
Also in an earlier post I was explicit about how counter productive promoting m+s.mobi is!
I am advocating keeping the trustmark, its a good thing, however I am saying if it can't be enforced than just let it sit there and prod the registrants as best we can. What more can you do. I am trying to be realistic about the situation.
Work In Progress
08-15-2009, 05:48 PM
Compliance as you all understood it is not possible because of certain parameters that we face.
Love the "as you all understood it" part.
We fully understood what compliance was as it was spelled out by YOUR COMPANY.
It WAS the value this TLD offered.
Again...no trustmark = just another Tld thrown into the large pot of crap that already exists.
I was yet another who bought into .mobi and continued to develop / promote .mobi as a unique TLD that offered this trustmark. Now, I'm being made out as a fool. :mad2:
It's like we've all purchased virtual fleets of cars (with real dollars) with promises of extreme gas efficiency that would revolutionize the way people drive. We seemed to have received cars that are no better than what's already been on the market for years and are now asked to come up with our own ways of making them more efficient? That's just not digesting very well.
However, if Tim or Gogo or anyone else wants to come up with a constructive solution that we can work through and discuss on the webinar, we are happy to do that. What if we can't make the webinar? Not all stakeholders will. Again, discussion through the private section of this forum would be a better overall solution, IMHO
The bottom line is, selling a product to us with clear guidelines as to how it was to perform (compliance), knowing good and well there was no way to enforce these guidelines is clearly troubling, if not criminal. I hope you prove me wrong.
The bottom line is, selling a product to us with clear guidelines as to how it was to perform (compliance), knowing good and well there was no way to enforce these guidelines is clearly troubling, if not criminal. I hope you prove me wrong.
As Tim pointed out Dotmobi are still making these claims that all .mobi sites are suitable for phones: http://mobility.mobi/showthread.php?t=38278&page=2#53
So anyone at all can make a complaint of false advertising here: http://www.asai.ie/ with more info here:
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/consumer-affairs/consumer-protection/consumer-rights/consumer_advertising
And that can be very serious - all the chiropractors websites in the UK had to be taken down because of complaints to the advertising standards authority - have a look at this fascinating article - http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2009/jul/29/simon-singh-science-chiropractic-litigation
It does seem to me unwise to get on the wrong side of domainers - they have so many domains and sites they can use to get across their views.
re criminal liability - see this http://mobility.mobi/showthread.php?t=38087&page=3#78
Step back from the keyboard ... take several real deep breaths.
This is really beginning to seem like the invasion of the budgiesnatchers.
Scandiman
08-16-2009, 12:05 AM
re criminal liability - see this http://mobility.mobi/showthread.php?t=38087&page=3#78
Stop the bus and let me off if this discussion is diving into issues of criminality. We need to build bridges, not destroy them. All I'm concerned with is figuring out a reasonable set of coding standards and implementing reasonable registry enforcement policies that give substance to the trustmark that was and should still be the foundation of the .mobi extension. Vengeance isn't my game and does absolutely nothing to move things forward.
coast
08-16-2009, 12:11 AM
Stop the bus and let me off if this discussion is diving into issues of criminality. We need to build bridges, not destroy them. All I'm concerned with is figuring out a reasonable set of coding standards and implementing reasonable registry enforcement policies that give substance to the trustmark that was and should still be the foundation of the .mobi extension. Vengeance isn't my game and does absolutely nothing to move things forward.
I completely agree. This has gone far beyond anything I want to be involved in.
DomainTalker
08-16-2009, 01:52 AM
Stop the bus and let me off if this discussion is diving into issues of criminality. We need to build bridges, not destroy them. All I'm concerned with is figuring out a reasonable set of coding standards and implementing reasonable registry enforcement policies that give substance to the trustmark that was and should still be the foundation of the .mobi extension. Vengeance isn't my game and does absolutely nothing to move things forward.
Absolutely agree.
As I said earlier, this should be about getting the Compliance train back on track, not flagellating dotmobi (although, people are rightly angry, and confused) - at this stage......If the Registry abandons Compliance, after our best efforts, then people can then consider their options, if they wish.
Getting Dotmobi on board, is one thing...But:
The questions at the heart of all this are simple ones:
"WHY have the Corporates (largely) resisted the simple Trustmark Compliance option?"
"WHY and HOW have the Corporates arrived at a position where they DO NOT VALUE the Trustmark?"
Has it been poor communication/salesmanship? Has it been lack of effort by Dotmobi?....Is it the notion of a duplicate brand marketing/promotion cost for their .mobi sites layered on top of their existing/original brand positioning, that has caused resistance to adoption?
To get Corporates adopting Compliance, we need to answer (and counter) these questions - Otherwise NO strategy will work.
Then, we need a strategy to get it done...
.
Andres Kello
08-16-2009, 02:03 AM
Let's get things back on track, folks.
We have a great opportunity here at Mobility to get the Trustmark itself back on track, so let's take full advantage of it.
So far, the following members have signed up for the Compliance Task Force:
Andres
Scandiman
DomainTalker
coast
Please let me know ASAP if you'd like to be a part of this group to make a formal recommendation to mTLD about .mobi Compliance and the Trustmark. We don't need to come up with an answer just yet, but at least we can get to work right away.
This is our one shot at preserving the Trustmark and I think we have mTLD's full attention.
youmo
08-16-2009, 04:20 AM
Count me in Andres.
At this point I am very inclined to side with the proposal outlined here-
http://mobility.mobi/showpost.php?p=123158&postcount=98
However I definitely see the value in a practical and workable compliance solution.
Work In Progress
08-16-2009, 04:35 AM
Stop the bus and let me off if this discussion is diving into issues of criminality. We need to build bridges, not destroy them. All I'm concerned with is figuring out a reasonable set of coding standards and implementing reasonable registry enforcement policies that give substance to the trustmark that was and should still be the foundation of the .mobi extension. Vengeance isn't my game and does absolutely nothing to move things forward.
I'm not a vengeful sort myself, but I will not lie down and be trampled upon if (that's the magic word) it turns out mTLD has abandoned compliance due to any excuse (ie: 'it's too late' sic or 'it's too hard to enforce' sic or 'it's the Registrars issue' sic, etc). I do hope that what I've read in Caroline's responses is skewed and that mtld (DotMobi) are going to stand by their original promises that were sold to us. Compliance is essential, plain and simple. It was promised and promoted. Mtld had the answer. They didn't follow up with enforcement, which has lead to loss in credibility. Can this change? Sure! But it will take steps Mtld may not wish to make. I can only hope they have an open mind and will decide that enforcement of some sort MUST take place.
As a refresher to those who weren't around (or who may have forgotten) here's a partial breakdown of what made .mobi so interesting, unique and worthy of my investment dollars:
(the provided link is now dead)
Per the mTLD (the global registry for the .mobi top level domain) dotmobi Switch On! Web Browsing Style Guide: http://pc.mtld.mobi/documents/dotmobi%20--%20Switch%20On!%20Web%20Browsing%20Style%20Guide.p df
2.2 Mandatory Rules Audit, Notification & Enforcement Process
Dotmobi domain name registrants agree to implement the mandatory registrant rules listed in this document whenever they publish a web site linked to a dotmobi name on the internet. It is strongly recommended that registrants also ensure that their applications also comply with the Highly Recommended Best Practices to improve the end-user experience. mTLD will audit all dotmobi domains for compliance to the mandatory rules. mTLD will audit these domains in whatever way or frequency decided by mTLD to be practical and reasonable. When a web site using a dotmobi name is not compliant with the mandatory rules, an exception report for the dotmobi name will be created by mTLD.
Dotmobi names not in compliance with mandatory rules will have 60 days to become compliant. mTLD shall send two notices to the registrant's registrar asking the registrar to contact the offending registrant with the exception report. The registrar will be required to provide a 60 day, then a 30 day notice of this non-compliance. If a name is not in compliance with 15 days left to go, then mTLD may chose to contact the registrant directly after making best efforts to make contact through their registrar.
Dotmobi names that are not brought back into compliance shall be removed from the zone file for resolution on the internet. The dotmobi names shall not be deleted from the registration system, but their name will be placed on hold until they are in compliance with the mandatory rules. Source (http://forums.emcwebhosting.com/index.php?PHPSESSID=a1627795c94df64493673a0061c90c 9b&topic=111%3Bprev_next=next)
Has anyone seen this exception report?
Here's some more from Network Solutions:
What type of content can I place on a .mobi website?
Because the intent of .mobi is to provide easily viewed content for mobile Internet users, there are some mandatory rules for developing a .mobi website. When registering a .mobi domain, the registrant is agreeing to follow the .mobi guidelines for website design and creation. The .mobi Web Developer Guide (http://www.networksolutions.com/help/mobi-guide.pdf) was developed by mTLD, the .mobi registry, to assist .mobi registrants in creating mobile-friendly websites. This guide includes both the mandatory rules and best practices to ensure that users can easily view and interact with the content from their mobile devices. Non-compliance with the mandatory rules may result in a service suspension.
Some of the mandatory rules include:
No frames should be used in the design of the website.
Visitors to a .mobi site must be able to view a page that is capable of being displayed in their browser. Website owners must use a format that mobile devices support or use an XHTML-Mobile Profile 1.0 or higher.
The .mobi site must work with or without the "www" in the domain name (e.g., www.your-website.mobi (http://www.your-website.mobi) and your-website.mobi).
AND
What happens if a .mobi website fails to comply with mTLD's mandatory rules?
mTLD will audit all .mobi domain websites for compliance with the mandatory rules. The .mobi registrant will be notified and given 60 days notice to update their website so it meets the compliance rules. If the .mobi website is not made compliant, then mTLD will put the domain in a "hold status", which means that the domain will not resolve to the Internet.
Source (http://www.networksolutions.com/support/setting-up-your-mobi-website/)
Well, we know the starting point. Now let's see where mTLD places their compliance program and examine the space betwixt.
It will be interesting to find out what was so objectionable at the time of first attempt. Was there a first attempt?
I'm not a vengeful sort myself, but I will not lie down and be trampled upon if (that's the magic word) it turns out mTLD has abandoned compliance due to any excuse (ie: 'it's too late' sic or 'it's too hard to enforce' sic or 'it's the Registrars issue' sic, etc). I do hope that what I've read in Caroline's responses is skewed and that mtld (DotMobi) are going to stand by their original promises that were sold to us. Compliance is essential, plain and simple. It was promised and promoted. Mtld had the answer. They didn't follow up with enforcement, which has lead to loss in credibility. Can this change? Sure! But it will take steps Mtld may not wish to make. I can only hope they have an open mind and will decide that enforcement of some sort MUST take place.
As a refresher to those who weren't around (or who may have forgotten) here's a partial breakdown of what made .mobi so interesting, unique and worthy of my investment dollars:
(the provided link is now dead)
Source (http://forums.emcwebhosting.com/index.php?PHPSESSID=a1627795c94df64493673a0061c90c 9b&topic=111%3Bprev_next=next)
Has anyone seen this exception report?
Here's some more from Network Solutions:
AND
Source (http://www.networksolutions.com/support/setting-up-your-mobi-website/)
I completely agree with you on this gogo, but I don't mind helping if it moves things along to a solution (and abandoning compliance altogether isn't a good solution). This is a serious problem that requires a solution implemented by mTLD and I accept the invitation to participate in getting us all there. Emphasis on participate, what I don't want is to invest hours/days/weeks of my unpaid time only to hear from mTLD, "We'll take it under advisement" and then silence thereafter. I'm committed to finding a solution if I know mTLD is committed also. Otherwise it is simply a giant waste of my precious time.
What say ye mTLD? Are you committed to finding a solution to compliance enforcement or is it something you simply want to go away? Actions suggest the latter but it's time to clearly state your position on enforcement so we can move in an appropriate direction.
I think without an MTLD commitment first to compliance and enforcement, a task group could well, as you say, find it achieved nothing - after considerable effort. So until MTLD commit themselves here to compliance and enforcement there is no point.
A group like that requires time, discussion, proposals, compromise and consensus. And it needs to have full access to all the compliance proposals made to date by all parties, and the reasons why MTLD have chosen not to implement them. Otherwise it may just waste its time reinventing the wheel, only to be told that was not what was wanted, a square wheel is required which must also be hexagonal.
And there is another issue in a group like this. If you are seriously interested please reread this entire thread first. I think you will see that a number of incorrect and very emotive assumptions have been made about compliance and enforcement, particularly at the technical level, even by people with real interest in the issue. Those issues have been clarified with some patience, but I think you can see that one does need to make a commitment to actually understanding the factual basis of the issues.
I'll just repost something I posted earlier:
I've noticed how few people have ever taken the time to understand what the standard set by .mobi is. It is incredibly simple, fits in a paragraph, and stops no one from developing whatever super site they like. It just guarantees that a basic mobile page is available on the site for anyone - a pretty sensible position for a business.and here again is MTLD'd take on the "threat" from smartphones:
the iPhone – and every other smartphone – fails to change very much for mobile Web access http://mtld.mobi/resource/is-the-iph...he-mobi-domain (http://mtld.mobi/resource/is-the-iphone-the-end-of-the-mobi-domain)
Accent
08-16-2009, 04:40 PM
I think that what DotMobi was saying is that compliance, no matter how simple, would scare away customers and be impossibly expensive to enforce because every site would need personal attention (ie appeals) before being shut down. This combined with the long period in which there has been no enforcement would make any attempt now basically a re-invention of the extension. (I know, it is what was originally promised, but from here it would be a re-invention). I agree the extension needs to be re-invented, not sure how, but am absolutely sure that .Mobi needs a hard push now.
A lot of people feel DotMobi misrepresented their product early on regarding compliance - and regarding the efforts to be made by the backers. Integrity is very difficult to restore once broken. DotMobi needs to find an alternative strategy as powerful as the original Compliance Standard + Giant Corporate Backers strategy that they sold to us. If DotMobi is frozen with corporate inertia (as it appears to be to me) then it is going to have to thaw. I do not think DotMobi has much other income beyond registration of domains and selling premium names. So there is the incentive.
.Mobi domains have been hit very hard by the recession. DotMobi appears to currently be directing the majority of it's talents away from the extension. Success would wash away much of the criticism, as the current lack of success has spurred it. At base the people of Mobility want to work with DotMobi to revitalize .Mobi and place the .Mobi option before the world. That is the key.
Scandiman
08-16-2009, 09:50 PM
It will be interesting to find out what was so objectionable at the time of first attempt.
I've mentioned earlier in this thread the problems I see with compliance as originally drafted, and in the beginning I thought it was a great idea. That was before I learned more about mobile web coding and discovered that the current compliance rules don't come close to providing a solid foundation for the concept that the trustmark was intended for, that being that a site ending in .mobi would be mobile phone friendly. Along with the problem of the coding rules themselves was the enforcement policy, that basically would disable a site such that the domain owner wouldn't have access to the site any longer to fix it. It was a flawed rule set and enforcement strategy and in hindsight I'm glad, make that thrilled mTLD did not move forward as originally planned.
I'm all for finding and deploying another approach, hopefully the efforts here will get us there.
Scandiman
08-17-2009, 05:33 AM
I think that what DotMobi was saying is that compliance, no matter how simple, would scare away customers and be impossibly expensive to enforce because every site would need personal attention (ie appeals) before being shut down. This combined with the long period in which there has been no enforcement would make any attempt now basically a re-invention of the extension. (I know, it is what was originally promised, but from here it would be a re-invention).
Totally agree with you here regarding rolling out a code enforcement strategy today. This will hit the majority of registrants as something completely new because they are unaware of the earlier promises of mTLD.
Work In Progress
08-17-2009, 03:03 PM
I've mentioned earlier in this thread the problems I see with compliance as originally drafted, and in the beginning I thought it was a great idea. That was before I learned more about mobile web coding and discovered that the current compliance rules don't come close to providing a solid foundation for the concept that the trustmark was intended for, that being that a site ending in .mobi would be mobile phone friendly.
I'd say that just about all of us thought it was a great idea too. That's why we plunged in head first. You went many steps further than typical domainers / investors by actually learning mobile coding, which led to your discovery of "it was a flawed rule set". Most others just took it for granted that mtld had studied this carefully, knew what they were doing and had a plan to enforce. What I'm saying is, mtld should hold some sort of accountability. I find it hard to believe that they just threw these restrictions / enforcement rules together haphazardly without looking into how to follow through with them.
Along with the problem of the coding rules themselves was the enforcement policy, that basically would disable a site such that the domain owner wouldn't have access to the site any longer to fix it. It was a flawed rule set and enforcement strategy and in hindsight I'm glad, make that thrilled mTLD did not move forward as originally planned.
The original enforcement rules had multiple warnings and gave ample time for anyone to "fix" a simple, compliant page. I still don't see a problem in this. If you don't want to comply, don't buy a mobi.
I'm all for finding and deploying another approach, hopefully the efforts here will get us there. Amen...Can't argue with that. I could care less if the original set of rules / regulations get's ditched for a "new and improved for today" set. As long as abandonment of compliance altogether is avoided, I'm OK. Set the rules and stick to them. If you don't plan on enforcing them, don't bother making them. Are you going to tick off someone by doing this? You bet! But you're gonna tick off a lot more if you don't. I've been upset for quite a while about the slowness of enforcement (yes, even the premiums that were auctioned went through "extensions" well beyond the original, agreed upon dates, which ultimately helped slow down the development). And to add to that, the "best efforts" verbiage is pretty much worthless, IMHO
I find it hard to believe that they just threw these restrictions / enforcement rules together haphazardly without looking into how to follow through with them.
Exactly.
The original enforcement rules had multiple warnings and gave ample time for anyone to "fix" a simple, compliant page. I still don't see a problem in this. If you don't want to comply, don't buy a mobi.
Exactly - again.
Amen...Can't argue with that. I could care less if the original set of rules / regulations get's ditched for a "new and improved for today" set. As long as abandonment of compliance altogether is avoided, I'm OK.
Exactly - thrice.
In order to have process improvement, you must first have a process.
The sand in the vaseline is the lack of any attempt to start the program that obviously is a motivating factor for hundreds of thousands of registrations.
The lack of vaseline, therefore, is mTLD throwing the problem back to the the stakeholders who voiced their displeasure at the failure of mTLD to act; telling us to take some responsibility, and infering that we misunderstood the policy in the first place.
Scandiman
08-17-2009, 03:34 PM
The original enforcement rules had multiple warnings and gave ample time for anyone to "fix" a simple, compliant page. I still don't see a problem in this. If you don't want to comply, don't buy a mobi.
That's a nice sentiment but it isn't that simple. Again I refer back to my example with FoxNews.mobi, layers of corporate bureaucracy can slow things to a crawl, especially when the people receiving the enforcement communications have nothing to do with coding, which is what happens when an intellectual property dept of a corp is the noted registrant. What was missing from the old enforcement methodology was a means by which someone with a blocked site who wanted to fix one line of code could and get their site up and running again.
Accent
08-17-2009, 04:29 PM
Radical idea here - Probably would not work, showing my ignorance.
Is it possible for a compliance task force to "fix" code themselves - I doubt they could do it on the server, but send the domain owner the "acceptable" version and all the owner would have to do is upload it.
Granted in a big corp it would take days to even do that, but it seems a little more pro-active and less confrontational.
Scandiman
08-17-2009, 04:35 PM
Is it possible for a compliance task force to "fix" code themselves - I doubt they could do it on the server, but send the domain owner the "acceptable" version and all the owner would have to do is upload it.
Supplying the actual repaired code for a site would be a stretch because one approach to fixing something doesn't work in all instances (speaking from experience here), but ready.mobi already provides specific information regarding code problems that can be a great assistance to finding workable solutions. It would be good for any compliance enforcement work flow to draw attention to the robust and free resources at ready.mobi.
. What was missing from the old enforcement methodology was a means by which someone with a blocked site who wanted to fix one line of code could and get their site up and running again.
I'm not clear about this - they would still have access to their server, but the domain name would not resolve to the site - having fixed their code they would need to demonstrate that the site was compliant before MTLD would let the domain name work again.
What I can see there is disproportionate delays.
Scandiman
08-17-2009, 06:04 PM
I'm not clear about this - they would still have access to their server, but the domain name would not resolve to the site - having fixed their code they would need to demonstrate that the site was compliant before MTLD would let the domain name work again.
One assumption here is that the domain will still be associated with the original name servers. What wasn't clear is how exactly a site would be turned off by the registry. Will the nameservers be automatically overwritten with a compliance name server or is there something else a registry can do to intercept a site regardless of the listed nameservers? And regardless of how it is intercepted, how do you check your code at Ready.mobi when the site itself won't resolve? It was a life sentence no matter the degree of infraction. These are some of the technical issues that need to be resolved in this whole process to make it easy for people to fix their sites and get them back online.
What I can see there is disproportionate delays.
Assuming a site owner can easily remedy any code issues, the delays to make the site live again shouldn't be such a major issue as long as any enforcement system functions in real time and is automated. But if nameservers are involved then it can take some time for those to propagate globally.
Work In Progress
08-17-2009, 06:55 PM
That's a nice sentiment but it isn't that simple. Again I refer back to my example with FoxNews.mobi, layers of corporate bureaucracy can slow things to a crawl, especially when the people receiving the enforcement communications have nothing to do with coding, which is what happens when an intellectual property dept of a corp is the noted registrant. What was missing from the old enforcement methodology was a means by which someone with a blocked site who wanted to fix one line of code could and get their site up and running again.
Agreed, it's not that simple now. From what I can see, Fox News obtained their mobi May 24, 2006 (http://mtld.mobi/domain/whois?q=domain/whois)
We all know what restrictions were set in place back then. It wasn't buried news or fine print. I can recall a lot of early talk (in another forum prior to Mobility) of fear of loosing names to mobile parking templates. Again, warnings and time were proposed to be given. I'm quite sure that if a large conglomerate such as Fox needed an extension to get the job done, it could have been worked out. Come on, just look at the extensions given to Premium auction winners.
Instead, they chose to sweep it under the table, delete it from their site and hope we would all forget it ever existed. I had a lingering hope that compliance would someday come around in a revised way. It's Caroline's posts that seem to say they had just tossed it out that really got me going :mad2:
I still have my fingers crossed that mTLD will reevaluate this situation. I wholeheartedly agree that it's pretty much too late to go backwards. A new plan of attack is about the only viable action I can see. What that plan is, I don't know. But just giving up on it is not an option, IMHO
As stated so many times before, without a trustmark, mobi is just a second rate (or worse) tld
DomainTalker
08-18-2009, 04:53 AM
Agreed, it's not that simple now. From what I can see, Fox News obtained their mobi May 24, 2006 (http://mtld.mobi/domain/whois?q=domain/whois)
Folks, the reality is, all the coding help - and, all the reminders/threats - in the world, isn't going help if people don't value the .mobi Trustmark concept - and, don't WANT to comply.
Its not that all those Corporates that received their .mobi's didn't/don't know HOW to code compliantly - nor, didn't know that mTLD wanted them to run a compliant .mobi site (especially those that got their names during TM & Landrush).....These corporates have chosen not to bother.
The reality is, they don't value the .mobi Trustmark element of the story...Don't feel its necessary....Up to, and including, the point that many of them (like Marks & Spencer) effectively run a PC site on their .mobi.
So, if we (and dotmobi) really want an effective Compliance regime, we need cooperation from folks that use .mobi....ie its primarily a marketing/message exercise now.
Convince people WHY .mobi (and the benefits of a complying .mobi), instead of m.domain, or whatever...
...Or else, the compliance issue is dead, imo - regardless of the technology, or the threats.
.
domainitrix
08-18-2009, 06:29 AM
Folks, the reality is, all the coding help - and, all the reminders/threats - in the world, isn't going help if people don't value the .mobi Trustmark concept - and, don't WANT to comply.
Its not that all those Corporates that received their .mobi's didn't/don't know HOW to code compliantly - nor, didn't know that mTLD wanted them to run a compliant .mobi site (especially those that got their names during TM & Landrush).....These corporates have chosen not to bother.
The reality is, they don't value the .mobi Trustmark element of the story...Don't feel its necessary....Up to, and including, the point that many of them (like Marks & Spencer) effectively run a PC site on their .mobi.
So, if we (and dotmobi) really want an effective Compliance regime, we need cooperation from folks that use .mobi....ie its primarily a marketing/message exercise now.
Convince people WHY .mobi, instead of m.domain, or whatever...
...Or else, the compliance issue is dead, imo - regardless of the technology, or the threats.
.
Very true.
At least to me; very realistic view.
I mean I think I once heard Scandi say ' You can draw lines in the sand all you want' ( and this was not in this context at all, I just really thought that expression very cool and wanted to utilize it one day--and it's my 1st time around using it) But, I do believe this is an expression that I want to use for this case with companies. DotMobi can draw lines in the sand all they want but, if the big corps are not wanting to bother at all with .mobi ...
Attracting, enticing, getting their foot in the door and get their cooperation on compliance :dontknow:
Domain that we feel so valuable and having it not get picked up and/or adhered to compliance by the corps is like ( with some exaggeration) raising kids to be young lady/men and have them not be asked out on dates, rejected. It's uncomfy to see it but, we might have to think the inevitable. Maybe we've raised the kid too prude.
So, there seem to be 3 separate modules being considered in the thread.
1. Discontent for .mobi's lack of compliance enforcement.
2. What is the best way to get the big corps to comply; more tech staffs at .mobi to give supprt/sales pitch/marketing?
3. Coming up with best solution for enforcement via Compliance Task Force.
All needing to find workable resolution: suspended in air in harmony and be functional with decent efficacy and not stay an abstract concept--> kinda like ball juggling.
.
MrRhee
08-19-2009, 03:16 AM
I hate to step into the middle of this fight... but even if .mobi did enforce compliance...
what would that accomplish?
for all the people who are voicing their opinions so loudly, please educate me by elaborating what the benefits would mean to someone like me, an end-user/domainer/developer.
Seriously. I'm not on either side at this moment in time... But what do people hope to accomplish with this effort? Will it make your portfolio more valuable? Will it bring more traffic to your .mobi website? Will you generate more revenue? Is that the goal? What is the ultimate goal? Why is it so important to enforce the "trustmark" as some of you are aggressively pursuing? I understand what MTLD promised, I understand that they are trying to evolve/survive... but what is the GOAL of this thread? I understand they promised something and then back-pedaled... BUT what are you fighting for? What do you hope the end result will be? I see many people saying they invested because of the trustmark... does that mean that you would not have invested if they never mentioned the trustmark? If they fail to enforce the trustmark going forward, will you abandon your .mobi domain renewals? Give up your personal development goals? Do you believe the TLD will die? Become irrelevant? Lose its longevity? Never reach its potential? What? Do you believe you are personally losing money due to the lack of compliance enforcement? Are MTLD's policy changes to blame?
I have heavily invested in this space (portfolio/development). I am not trying to add fuel to the fire, I am not trolling, I am not on THEIR side, I am not on YOUR side. I'm on MY side.
What is the goal of this thread? Think about it. This is a SERIOUS question... if you have an answer, please share it with me (and others) so I/we can understand the impact any decision regarding enforcement will make... What rewards are you hoping enforcement will bring?
I am not asking for people to justify their opinions and views... I want to understand what the benefits of compliance are. And how I am personally affected by the current non-compliance.
Thanks in advance for any kind of feedback...
youmo
08-19-2009, 04:06 AM
I hate to step into the middle of this fight... but even if .mobi did enforce compliance...
what would that accomplish?
for all the people who are voicing their opinions so loudly, please educate me by elaborating what the benefits would mean to someone like me, an end-user/domainer/developer.
Seriously. I'm not on either side at this moment in time... But what do people hope to accomplish with this effort? Will it make your portfolio more valuable? Will it bring more traffic to your .mobi website? Will you generate more revenue? Is that the goal? What is the ultimate goal? Why is it so important to enforce the "trustmark" as some of you are aggressively pursuing? I understand what MTLD promised, I understand that they are trying to evolve/survive... but what is the GOAL of this thread? I understand they promised something and then back-pedaled... BUT what are you fighting for? What do you hope the end result will be? I see many people saying they invested because of the trustmark... does that mean that you would not have invested if they never mentioned the trustmark? If they fail to enforce the trustmark going forward, will you abandon your .mobi domain renewals? Give up your personal development goals? Do you believe the TLD will die? Become irrelevant? Lose its longevity? Never reach its potential? What? Do you believe you are personally losing money due to the lack of compliance enforcement? Are MTLD's policy changes to blame?
I have heavily invested in this space (portfolio/development). I am not trying to add fuel to the fire, I am not trolling, I am not on THEIR side, I am not on YOUR side. I'm on MY side.
What is the goal of this thread? Think about it. This is a SERIOUS question... if you have an answer, please share it with me (and others) so I/we can understand the impact any decision regarding enforcement will make... What rewards are you hoping enforcement will bring?
I am not asking for people to justify their opinions and views... I want to understand what the benefits of compliance are. And how I am personally affected by the current non-compliance.
Thanks in advance for any kind of feedback...
I think that certain people believe that an enforced trustmark will produce less non-mobile friendly sites on .mobi domains and thus the general public will be less likely to receive a poor user experience at a .mobi address.
The thinking is that occasionally arriving a non-mobile formatted site will turn users off the .mobi TLD as a whole and this lack of trust in the TLD will decrease its appeal to end users.
Personally I have rarely arrived at a non-mobile formatted .mobi site, and when I did, the experience didn't turn me off.
Do you think that in the future there will be more non-mobile formatted sites on .mobi domains or less?
Personally the whole reason I got into .mobi was because I see a time when the whole internet will be primarily mobile. Meaning that a mobile formatted site will become the norm and the pc site will receive proportionately less traffic than its mobile version. With this in mind creating a mobile formatted site on a .mobi domain will become more desirable than creating a pc formatted site. This is what I described in an early post as 'natural enforcement'.
I think that with the help of SOME MARKETING it will be understood that .mobi is for mobile, and the general public will never know or care about the enforcement. Natural enforcement will occur and through experience .mobi will grow. I use http://bit.ly all the time. I could care less that there may be some other unscrupulous websites on the .ly libyan TLD.
Lots of good questions...
for all the people who are voicing their opinions so loudly, please educate me by elaborating what the benefits would mean to someone like me, an end-user/domainer/developer.
The trustmark is a product benefit - it is a marketing tool site owners use to distinguish .mobi sites from the competing TLDs. It is supposed to be backed up by the enforcement actions of the registry. Enforcement should guarantee that any .mobi site will work on a mobile phone by definition.
Trustmark may sound redonculous to us who spend xx hours a day surfing the worlds sites, but for the millions of people whose first web experience may in fact be on a mobile, a 100% guaranteed mobile experience means a lot. Let's also not forget that it still costs a lot for some countries to access data and if someone accidentally catches a PC site and downloads a 5 meg page, their going to get hit with a pretty big bill.
I wrote something about wifi and the iphone (http://pooptooth.mobi/mobi-tunnel-vision/) a long, long time ago here. You can take that thinking and apply it to data download costs.
But what do people hope to accomplish with this effort?
The right to use the trustmark benefit as a marketing tool.
Will it make your portfolio more valuable?
Domains that have a distinguishing characteristic that fits the mobile market are more valuable than domains that do not.
Will it bring more traffic to your .mobi website?
It may. Many carriers have whitelisted .mobi sites because of the trustmark. I know a few of my sites get deck traffic.
Will you generate more revenue? Is that the goal?
Isn't money the underlying goal of what we do? Curious question.
Why is it so important to enforce the "trustmark" as some of you are aggressively pursuing?
Several reasons: 1) we were all sold something that has yet to be delivered; nay it has been withdrawn without notice and arrogantly to boot. That has really p issed off a lot of people; principle 2) many people were sold on it because they believe in the product benefit. It's really an awesome distinguishing characteristic to say that any .mobi guarantees a mobile site and that guarantee is backed up with enforcement by the registry.; marketing 3) Once a registry changes its core benefit to suit needs that are a) unannounced b) unknown and uncorroberated c) out of line with the product it sells it takes a major chunk out of their support; credibility.
To sum it up: principle, marketing, and credibility are the core reasons to aggresively pursue trustmark enforcement.
I see many people saying they invested because of the trustmark... does that mean that you would not have invested if they never mentioned the trustmark?
Yes. I would not have invested anywhere near the amount I did if I thought that the registry would back out of enforcing trustmark standards.
If they fail to enforce the trustmark going forward, will you (a)abandon your .mobi domain renewals? (b)Give up your personal development goals? (c)Do you believe the TLD will die? (d)Become irrelevant? (e)Lose its longevity? (f)Never reach its potential? (g)Do you believe you are personally losing money due to the lack of compliance enforcement? (h)Are MTLD's policy changes to blame?
a) some
b) some
c) no
d) tough one...I think dotMobi will become a successful mobile software company, but the TLD will become secondary, imo
e) yes
f) yes
g) yes, I believe I will lose future profits if .mobi becomes an unknown four letter .com with dubious site experiences on a mobile
h) yes, in the context of promoting .mobi as a guaranteed hit on a mobile, mTLD abandoning trustmark standards compliance would take a majority of the blame. Think about the resources you or I would have to expend to convince the public on our own that .mobi means mobile 100% of the time. Why the F don't they just follow through on their TOS?
I have heavily invested in this space (portfolio/development). I am not trying to add fuel to the fire, I am not trolling, I am not on THEIR side, I am not on YOUR side. I'm on MY side.
ditto - several people who were uncomfortable with the firm stance of many people here have yielded to the conflict and left. I'm uneffected.
What is the goal of this thread?
I think this is the third time you've asked this.
I am not asking for people to justify their opinions and views... I want to understand what the benefits of compliance are. And how I am personally affected by the current non-compliance. Thanks in advance for any kind of feedback...
I hope you find value in my reply.
I hate to step into the middle of this fight... but even if .mobi did enforce compliance...
what would that accomplish?
for all the people who are voicing their opinions so loudly, please educate me by elaborating what the benefits would mean to someone like me, an end-user/domainer/developer.
Thanks for asking such good questions. Questions and discussion are good, real answers are important too.
First, Dotmobi / MTLD launched the .mobi domain as their only product, selling it on the basis of offering consumers and exclusive trustmark backed up by publishing absolute statements that there would be enforcement of the trustmark.
Look at this slick document (http://services.tucows.com/domains/mobi/dotMobi_overview.pdf) to see how they argued the benefits, and what efforts they went to to make the case:
services.tucows.com/domains/mobi/dotMobi_overview.pdf
As Tim has said, and the points are made by the why.mobi (http://why.mobi/) site collectively created by members here (on a domain provided by Dotmobi), .mobi saves the consumer end-user time and money. It lets the site-owner assure people that they offer mobile content and make it easily findable. As for developers, Dotmobi set up a certified developer exam; those who pass obtain a certificate and permission to use various Dotmobi symbols, including a trustmark, advertised to this day on Dotmobi's site http://mobiforge.com/starting/story/certification-materials. (I wonder what position those developers would put themselves in advertising their services with a trustmark that had been abandoned or discredited?)
In my opinion without the trustmark consumers lose a benefit, the domains lose resale value, and the company loses credibility. Also, the chances that .mobi should be established as the default extension for mobile become more remote.
I don't see an opposition between trustmark and marketing at all - you can have both, and you need both. I am not sure what you are marketing without the trustmark - imagine trying to market .net.
Really, we did not invent this situation, it is up to the company Dotmobi to make a statement reaffirming the trustmark and enforcement or else formally abandoning it so all parties know where they stand
newdomainer
08-19-2009, 10:21 AM
I think the lack of mobile parking options is damaging the extension too.. if a compliant parking option was available it would add 100,000's of 'live' sites to the mobile ecosystem. while this wouldn't earn the domain owners much, nor offer much in the way of quality content; it would at least allow most mobi domains to resolve and get the public used to seeing mobile compliant pages & associate the dotmobi tld with mobile content.
I'm not sitting on the fence either, but I do think that enforcement will be nigh on impossible without a $xx million dollar spend.
The only reason the mobile content is lacking is because the public are slow to use the mobile web on the scale required to build critical mass.
I'd rather see mTLD conduct a high-profile PUBLIC campaign aimed at SME's
I hold the opinion that when the mobile web reaches critical mass, that the market will to a great extent, self-regulate anyway.
I share the concerns of Tim & Gogo and they have put their arguments across well.... my only reservations in not siding with them 100% is the lack of unlimited funds..
Because funds are limited, I favour spending on publicity & marketing over compliance although the likes of marksandspencers.mobi must not be allowed to persist in ignoring mobile compliance because they are the high street / household names that will help us win market share.
The compliance issue only concerns me if ICANN decide that there is room for another "mobile" gTLD..... if they allow another mobile only extension I think it would be disastrous.... BUT conversely, as long as dotmobi remains THE mobile TLD I suspect that the market will look after itself due to lack of viable alternatives.
m. doesn't work as well for SEO and in any event only works where an existing url is already in use which doesn't apply to all start-ups; of which there will be millions every year...... we're a planet of 6 billion for goodness sake....
Just get the message out there by painting some London Buses & postering the Tube stations & do that in New York, Paris, Moscow, etc... etc..
Scandiman
08-19-2009, 05:16 PM
Look at this slick document (http://services.tucows.com/domains/mobi/dotMobi_overview.pdf) to see how they argued the benefits, and what efforts they went to to make the case:
services.tucows.com/domains/mobi/dotMobi_overview.pdf
Page 12 and 13 of this presentation provide a wonderfully simple and succinct description from mTLD themselves as to why the trustmark has value (then and today)...
".mobi: Internet Made Mobile"
".mobi tells consumers: This works on my mobile."
followed by this on page 13:
".mobi’s underlying technology guarantees the Internet works on your mobile every time"
"Style guides are enforced to guarantee the .mobi trustmark
– .mobi domains can be turned off"
Common sense dictates that the message "This works on my mobile" is completely unsubstantiated (aka lacks credibility) without "Style guides are enforced to guarantee the .mobi trustmark". And mTLD clearly understood the necessity of the logic of standards + enforcement = trustmark, which provides the essential substance of ".mobi tells consumers: This works on my mobile."
As I've tried to explain at length earlier in this thread and elsewhere, there were some flaws in the old approach to compliance enforcement and I'm glad it didn't move forward as initially planned, but it needed to be fixed rather than abandoned, and unfortunately the abandonment will make the job of establishing enforcement policies and procedures all the more difficult to implement today. But I hope and trust that expediency won't be the deciding factor here but rather the importance of shoring up one of the fundamental value propositions of the .mobi extension.
From a mobile web entrepreneur/developer perspective the trustmark is extremely valuable for me as a differentiating factor in the marketplace. It provides me some assurances regarding carriers white-lists, it can provide search engines an easy assurance that my site is mobile friendly and use it as an element for results ranking and it gives me assurances that others using and marketing .mobi websites are contributing to the overall consumer trust that I'm also working hard to contribute to.
From a domain trader perspective the trustmark is a foundational essence of what .mobi was and is in the marketplace. Without any enforced standards relevant to mobile devices, .mobi can no longer credibly claim to be the mobile tld and opens the door for another new TLD to fill the void and stake the claim that .mobi has abandoned.
That being said, the trustmark isn't the end-all-be-all for the extension, the trustmark alone won't make the extension a success. But IMO it's an essential component of the foundation for the .mobi ecosystem as a whole.
Without .mobi being a meaningful trustmark what we have is ".mobi tells consumers: This might work on my mobile." This is not a standard to be proud of and is why I seek reasonable coding standards and enforcement policies that brings us back to the original value proposition for consumers that ".mobi works on my mobile."
EDIT: A quick addition for consideration: A successful example of all this can be found in the retail industry, specifically shopping malls where all the vendors agree to certain rules that benefit everyone only if everyone abides by the rules. And it is up to the mall owner to make sure these rules are indeed followed. The mall owner (registry) sells space (domains), enforces the rules (compliance), and with vendors in place can successfully coordinate marketing the shopping destination to the public which grows the value of the mall as the vendors profit and grow. Remove the compliance and move forward with the marketing and you have the public showing up to a disorderly mall, with some stores open, some closed, some using the front door and some using the back (or in the case of .mobi, full PC sites like marksandspencer.mobi). Have compliance only without any marketing and you've got a tidy well run mall with very few customers. Have marketing without any vendors and the customers show up to empty stores (which is why consumer focused marketing about .mobi by mTLD would have been a disaster in the early days). Note that it's the mall owners capacity to coordinate marketing...the vendors often pay for it... but the mall owner is often in the best position to market the destination rather than only one vendor. And each vendor can (and should) market on their own, and will proudly draw focus to the mall they are located in since it's a great destination. It's all a package, can't just focus on one element and hope for success, but neither can one element be ignored without negative implications.
DomainTalker
08-20-2009, 03:21 AM
At the risk of repetition...:)
...Excellent post, again, Scandi...Spot-on summary - and, I especially like the no-element-can-stand-alone point & analogy...ie a well-run Mall (your example) needs an effective combination of compliance to understood rules, both Mall owner and store owner marketing etc...
.
domainitrix
08-20-2009, 05:12 AM
EDIT: A quick addition for consideration: A successful example of all this can be found in the retail industry, specifically shopping malls where all the vendors agree to certain rules that benefit everyone only if everyone abides by the rules. And it is up to the mall owner to make sure these rules are indeed followed. The mall owner (registry) sells space (domains), enforces the rules (compliance), and with vendors in place can successfully coordinate marketing the shopping destination to the public which grows the value of the mall as the vendors profit and grow. Remove the compliance and move forward with the marketing and you have the public showing up to a disorderly mall, with some stores open, some closed, some using the front door and some using the back (or in the case of .mobi, full PC sites like marksandspencer.mobi). Have compliance only without any marketing and you've got a tidy well run mall with very few customers. Have marketing without any vendors and the customers show up to empty stores (which is why consumer focused marketing about .mobi by mTLD would have been a disaster in the early days). Note that it's the mall owners capacity to coordinate marketing...the vendors often pay for it... but the mall owner is often in the best position to market the destination rather than only one vendor. And each vendor can (and should) market on their own, and will proudly draw focus to the mall they are located in since it's a great destination. It's all a package, can't just focus on one element and hope for success, but neither can one element be ignored without negative implications.
Great analogy Scandi.
I like to further add that the great & successful malls have Anchor Stores.
Those big draw department stores/well known national chains that draws foot traffic and such malls with more of those Anchor Stores are highly desired by the potential future tenants ( small vendors) thus less chance for vacant spaces for the mall management. In our case it would be the big corps adopting the extension.
I think that having such large Anchor Stores moving in ( big corps adopting) is very important. But, attracting them in the first place & having them stay there needs promotion for the mall brand itself-the Anchor Stores-then the foot traffic-then the small vendors vying for their spot. Bona fide mall. Don't want to get off topic too much but, here's a new mall that just opened recently in LA area http://www.americanaatbrand.com/index.php
Heavily promoted from it's initial inception all through the opening. Even in multi-language local news channels in many languages to get the area shoppers awareness. I heard that it's crowded.
As I've tried to explain at length earlier in this thread and elsewhere, there were some flaws in the old approach to compliance enforcement and I'm glad it didn't move forward as initially planned, but it needed to be fixed rather than abandoned
Sounds great, I hope that together with some promotion and adjustments things will move to accommodate,favorable for growth of the extension, and importantly for this juncture, to accommodate more Anchor Stores.
.
Scandiman
08-20-2009, 06:39 AM
Great analogy Scandi.
I like to further add that the great & successful malls have Anchor Stores.
Those big draw department stores/well known national chains that draws foot traffic and such malls with more of those Anchor Stores are highly desired by the potential future tenants ( small vendors) thus less chance for vacant spaces for the mall management. In our case it would be the big corps adopting the extension.
I think that having such large Anchor Stores moving in ( big corps adopting) is very important. But, attracting them in the first place & having them stay there needs promotion for the mall brand itself-the Anchor Stores-then the foot traffic-then the small vendors vying for their spot. Bona fide mall. Don't want to get off topic too much but, here's a new mall that just opened recently in LA area http://www.americanaatbrand.com/index.php
Heavily promoted from it's initial inception all through the opening. Even in multi-language local news channels in many languages to get the area shoppers awareness. I heard that it's crowded.
Sounds great, I hope that together with some promotion and adjustments things will move to accommodate,favorable for growth of the extension, and importantly for this juncture, to accommodate more Anchor Stores.
.
Yes, without a doubt big brands do lend their credibility and awareness to the extension. But what has been more important for me is that consumers have a breadth of product to utilize in the .mobi space regardless of the brands involved. For example, if you google "dating", match.com and eHarmony.com are the top two. Sure it would be great for these giants in that segment to be active in .mobi but I see no problem promoting Andres' Dating.mobi website instead. I know he's got a lot more in store for it but it is a well executed site today that is something worth promoting. Similarly in the travel industry, while Priceline.com does use their .mobi, I will humbly suggest that Lodging.mobi does so much more for hotel shoppers and we've got even more cool stuff coming to make it so much better. These are but two examples of emerging brands that can just as easily be anchors of major internet content segments as compared to established existing PC brands who are not as interested or motivated as we are.
Spot-on summary - and, I especially like the no-element-can-stand-alone point & analogy...ie a well-run Mall (your example) needs an effective combination of compliance to understood rules, both Mall owner and store owner marketing etc...
As the growing number of pages in mTLD's MobiThinking showcase will attest, the number of high quality .mobi sites is expanding all the time, providing mTLD with increasing opportunities to connect the .mobi concept to consumers using real life high quality .mobi sites as examples. This content didn't exist a few years ago making consumer marketing very premature. But today is a different story and mTLD is in a unique position to consider coordinating some general marketing efforts using active .mobi websites of existing and emerging brands to open the eyes of consumers to the overall .mobi ecosystem. This would also drive more adoption from more end users to capture the growing consumer awareness.
This reminds me of Apple and iPhone apps, they market 3rd party apps to consumers so they will sell more iPhones and grow the app ecosystem overall. mTLD could market 3rd party websites to consumers so they can sell more registrations as end users take notice, and also grow the demand for their one and two character releases as well as the Premiums. Obviously the budgets involved are quite different but that's not to say nothing can be accomplished to grow consumer awareness of .mobi. And as I alluded to in my earlier post, site owners interested in participating should contribute to covering the costs, and possibly all registrants as well through perhaps a one dollar marketing allocation per domain.
But to do all this without compliance enforcement will result in a littered .mobi ecosystem as some new entrants will undoubtedly go astray from the core .mobi concept. Similarly Apple has compliance control over their phone app ecosystem to help provide some assurances of basic functionality. Compliance keeps everyone on the same core foundation while the marketing pushes the brand forward. Either one without the other will not be nearly as productive as the whole.
domainitrix
08-20-2009, 08:19 AM
Yes, without a doubt big brands do lend their credibility and awareness to the extension. But what has been more important for me is that consumers have a breadth of product to utilize in the .mobi space regardless of the brands involved. For example, if you google "dating", match.com and eHarmony.com are the top two. Sure it would be great for these giants in that segment to be active in .mobi but I see no problem promoting Andres' Dating.mobi website instead. I know he's got a lot more in store for it but it is a well executed site today that is something worth promoting. Similarly in the travel industry, while Priceline.com does use their .mobi, I will humbly suggest that Lodging.mobi does so much more for hotel shoppers and we've got even more cool stuff coming to make it so much better. These are but two examples of emerging brands that can just as easily be anchors of major internet content segments as compared to established existing PC brands who are not as interested or motivated as we are.
Oh yeah no doubt, sites like Andres' & yours will attribute to the solid success of the extension. I myself is a firm believer in the saying 'A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush' as well. And as such, what you're saying I do agree. But, I also think that it isn't an either/ or proposition. It takes all from all directions.
Like you have alluded to also, big brands and corps do bring their years of consumer awareness, trust and have spent much $ in previous yrs of branding with phalanx of ad ,PR agencies and brand makers who helped them get there.
The instant recognition and awareness that these brands can bring to the masses and furthermore, induce their competitors to proselytize to the extension in accelerated manner can add hugely in solidifying DotMobi's position in the mobile world in the crucial stage of development.
I follow some branding and graphics companies on Twitter and have noticed how they all follow what each others are doing. Like, xyz agency has done abc campaign for this and that brand kind of thing. They all sort of have this very sensitive antenna for what's what in their world. This one graphics company that I follow did a tweet today which seemed to be a screen shot of who is visiting their site ;I think that they were proud of it. ( hmmm, I never knew that you can get corporation visitor names listed like that before!) But, saw it & I instantly recognized top 5 ad agencies in the world listed there..and am sure host of other big guns. But, the point is, they all influence each other/keep tabs. And having more of AKQAs and Ogilvys in the world utilizing this extension for their clients and their clients competitors will have a trickling effect sooner than later. Having it in as an "in" thing to use .mobi amongst the movers of that world-- Synergistic Fission.
Plus for the general public and small businesses, it can be pointed out, naturally, that 'all that prestige of a big brands' .mobi site can be had for less than a price of lunch and you can even make it for yourself in a non-rocket science way'. Sticks better.
I do give DotMobi a huge credit for their interest in what we are doing, what sites are being made and also, including some of our sites in their PRs. That 's a super support and no doubt that it will be continued in the future.
But, all in all I hope that on the big brands/ corporations front plus the marketing of .mobi, there will also be a continued expansion on it.
The longer these delay, the higher the threshold for solidifying it's position in the framework it will be IMO.
.
Scandiman
08-20-2009, 03:46 PM
Oh yeah no doubt, sites like Andres' & yours will attribute to the solid success of the extension. I myself is a firm believer in the saying 'A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush' as well. And as such, what you're saying I do agree. But, I also think that it isn't an either/ or proposition. It takes all from all directions.
Didn't mean to imply it was an either/or proposition, which is why I said..."mTLD is in a unique position to consider coordinating some general marketing efforts using active .mobi websites of existing and emerging brands to open the eyes of consumers to the overall .mobi ecosystem." Similarly, it isn't either marketing or compliance..it's both.
It's exactly this contentious chicken and egg argument that keeps anything from happening 100%. From my POV, how can you advertise a product that isn't ready for market? The product is simply incomplete without the trustmark firmly in place.
The other side of the corporate flee from compliance argument, if you will, is that may be what is holding back natural adoption is the lack of respect to their own product. I don't know if anyone has made this analogy yet, we all know how much everyone here likes their analogies ;), but keeping a market exclusive makes it very desirable. Think about all the rules and regulations in exclusive HOA's, country and other clubs, etc. If you look at some of the rules that are STRICTLY ENFORCED by both the organizations and memebers! you'd think people are nuts to join, but join they do. They want to feel exclusive.
Without being a stickler on the word exclusive as it applies to consumer consumption, because it would not be a product that consumers would be held away from; the exclusivity would be something that is claimed by the site owner. Does that make sense to anyone? I guess what I am trying to do is talk out a way from mTLD to follow through on the trustmark...am I grabbing at straws? :rolleyes2:
Accent
08-20-2009, 09:19 PM
I keep coming back in my mind to will it fly?
I see no concern among corporations (large or small) that their websites don't work on all devices - shoot, Dotster(dot)com is a huge domain company, they should be great at tech, yet for years their check-out page would not fit on my PC screen, I got only the middle with no scroll bar. There was a box that had to be checked located off the screen to the left, so I had to wait and pounce on it while the screen loaded - sometimes had to refresh many times to catch it. Called Dotster, they didn't care.
Stuff has to be really seriously messed up to get business's attention, otherwise they will status quo on down to the golf course.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Requiring anything of domain buyers is a barrier to the growth of .mobi. Yes, there are cases where a barrier becomes a reason for growth, but that occurs when there is a widely held conviction that there is a need. There is no groundswell of demand for better functioning mobile websites. On the contrary, Iphone has been able to convince their customers that they are getting the "entire Internet".
That was Iphone's marketing. To counter that, to convince people that no, the better mobile internet is instead over here on .Mobi would take a marketing campaign the size of Iphone's - larger, because Apple already had so many fans.
The .pro registry tried being exclusive in a market (doctors, lawyers) where strictly enforced compliance already existed. A .pro website assured that you were getting a AMA certified doctor, pretty important in a lot of people's eyes. They failed, .pro is open to anyone now.
I respect you guys that want compliance, understand that you feel the registry should do what they promised. I am not opposed to re-instating compliance if it would make .mobi more successful. But as I said earlier, a trustmark has little meaning if nobody has heard of it. Presenting .mobi as "more than just another extension - a guarantee that it will work on your phone" is a much more expensive marketing job than presenting .mobi as ".mobi - built for your phone".
Of course neither is happening at the moment.
Requiring anything of domain buyers is a barrier to the growth of .mobi.
That's a little too broad of a statement, imo.
Yes, there are cases where a barrier becomes a reason for growth, but that occurs when there is a widely held conviction that there is a need. There is no groundswell of demand for better functioning mobile websites. On the contrary, Iphone has been able to convince their customers that they are getting the "entire Internet".
Boy, isn't that an inconvenient truth. Here is where the marketing machine has fallen flat on their face.
The .pro registry tried being exclusive in a market (doctors, lawyers) where strictly enforced compliance already existed. A .pro website assured that you were getting a AMA certified doctor, pretty important in a lot of people's eyes. They failed, .pro is open to anyone now.
Great contrast to my earlier point of exclusivity. Is .pro a peer to .mobi in terms of adoption and visibility? I don't think I've ever seen a .pro ever anywhere on anything ever...
DomainTalker
08-21-2009, 03:06 AM
but that occurs when there is a widely held conviction that there is a need. There is no groundswell of demand for better functioning mobile websites. On the contrary, Iphone has been able to convince their customers that they are getting the "entire Internet".
That was Iphone's marketing.
To counter that, to convince people that no, the better mobile internet is instead over here on .Mobi would take a marketing campaign the size of Iphone's - larger, because Apple already had so many fans.
There, in a nutshell, is both the missed .mobi opportunity - and the scale of the .mobi challenge.
Apple & their iPhone showed how marketing a brand is done.
I get so angry whenever I think about how someone, somewhere, decided: "Well...lets not bother for .mobi....".
And before anyone tells me dotmobi didn't have the funds to do what Apple did, then, I say, what kind of organisation sets itself up to establish a new global brand - and doesn't have/allocate adequate funds to market the thing effectively?!?
.
Accent
08-21-2009, 05:12 AM
... dotMobi also gives consumer access to "big business." We have the ear of the most prominent mobile and Internet players in the world. The very same companies who have delivered the promise of today's information society are the same companies who are investors in dotMobi, including Ericsson, Google, GSM Association, Hutchison (3), Microsoft, Nokia, Orascom Telecom, Samsung Electronics, Syniverse, T-Mobile, Telefonica Moviles, TIM, Visa and Vodafone.
Still located on their website: http://mtld.mobi/company
No lack of money there, to say the least.
Those words tell an investor that .Mobi swims with the big fishes. It says that #6 among gTLDS + behind a number of ccTLDs is in no way acceptable.
Those corporate owners know (or should know) that if they ease off now that .Mobi will fade, but if they successfully position .Mobi as the premier extension for the mobile web then it will blossom into a reliable cash producer for as long as the internet continues. Look at Verisign's position - they run a few servers and bank hundreds of millions of dollars each year.
There is ample justification for requesting more money from the backers.
I see no concern among corporations (large or small) that their websites don't work on all devices
This really varies from company to company - the ones with an "accessibility" or "moblie" link on their site tend to have considered these issues. As said, if the job is done right this stuff is dealt with at the planning stage; going back and fixing sites that were wrongly conceived is more expensive than getting it right from the start.
Apple & their iPhone showed how marketing a brand is done.
I get so angry whenever I think about how someone, somewhere, decided: "Well...lets not bother for .mobi....".
This very issue made me start questioning what MTLD's objectives really are, or whether they changed them.
There is no groundswell of demand for better functioning mobile websites. On the contrary, Iphone has been able to convince their customers that they are getting the "entire Internet".
That was Iphone's marketing. To counter that, to convince people that no, the better mobile internet is instead over here on .Mobi would take a marketing campaign the size of Iphone's - larger, because Apple already had so many fans.
You're raising a valid point about people wanting the "entire internet" but guess who they sold that to? Buyers of iphones - and now many companies offer iphone-friendly sites and say so. Gerry (where is he these days?) shrewdly created an "iphone friendly" logo for his sites.
The key thing about iphone is it comes with unlimited data usage - that is one reason iphone usage seems so high while ownership is far from dominant. There are so many iphone myths that it deserves a thread of its own - in fact MTLD have a whole page on the subject: http://mtld.mobi/resource/is-the-iphone-the-end-of-the-mobi-domain
Usability studies on mobile are just beginning - a recent one by THE expert said mobile usability is currently terrible. People really do listen to these usability experts when they plan sites because the more usable ones create more $.
The report by Jakob Nielsen was press released and widely reported:
http://blogs.usatoday.com/technologylive/2009/07/do-you-have-a-tough-time-getting-anything-more-complicated-than-talking-done-on-your-cellphone-small-wonderresearchers-at-n.html
Websites designed for desktop and laptop computers, don’t typically translate well to mobile screens.
Indeed, the research found that when test participants went to sites specifically designed for mobile use, they completed tasks at a 64% rate compared to 53% when using “full” sites on their phones. But Nielsen Norman also found that people sometimes had trouble getting to a mobile site, even for companies that offered one.
The report advises companies to build a mobile site if they can afford to do so, ideally one that could work with every type of mobile phone.
Still located on their website: http://mtld.mobi/company
No lack of money there, to say the least.
Those words tell an investor that .Mobi swims with the big fishes. It says that #6 among gTLDS + behind a number of ccTLDs is in no way acceptable.
Those corporate owners know (or should know) that if they ease off now that .Mobi will fade, but if they successfully position .Mobi as the premier extension for the mobile web then it will blossom into a reliable cash producer for as long as the internet continues. Look at Verisign's position - they run a few servers and bank hundreds of millions of dollars each year.
There is ample justification for requesting more money from the backers.
We know, thanks to Vance Hedderel telling us here, that the registry is currently in profit. (Is that MTLD overall or just a the domain registry business within MTLD ? More research needed.) So in some respects we are discussing HOW they spend their money - which always leads back to the questions about what they are trying to achieve and their priorities - see other threads on that. If they have downgraded or given up on the mobi domain to concentrate on other objectives, they won't announce that fact because then renewals would drop and they would have less money to carry out their plans.
We are seeing suggestions that such a large marketing budget is needed that it's ... well... impossible. Well, why not earmark a % of the domain registrion fees, or of the company budget, or of the profits?
As for compliance, again lets not assume that we are discussing a massive, automated, inflexible and expensive project - all compliance has real-world constraints such as budgets, and usually sets what it thinks are achievable compliance levels, then monitors the effectiveness of the efforts.
So where are MTLD's stats from the compliance monitoring we know they do?
Earlier in this thread Dotmobi consulting MAG - and others- on compliance was mentioned. What was MAG's response?
And the registrars' response? The recent webinar claimed to give a filtered, secondhand version of that... but the registrars probably cannot give their version due to this Confidentiality Agreement (http://mobility.mobi/mtld.mobi/system/files/Confidentiality+Agreement.pdf). I wonder if the registrars are happy that in the recent webinar Dotmobi advised domain owners to ask registrars for discounts on mobi renewals?
This is a different document from MAG that mentions the benefits of the trustmark, in particular for selling advertising. It's called "Mobile Advertising in a Dotmobi world" and it's available free on Scribd scribd.com/docinfo/9372172 (http://www.scribd.com/docinfo/9372172):
page 2 in full:
Welcome to the dotMobi Advisory Group
“Serving the global .mobi community”
The dotMobi Advisory Group (MAG) is a dotMobi accredited independent not-for-profit industry forum with
the goal of ensuring that the dotMobi Top Level Domain (.mobi) is operated in the best interests of the global
dotMobi community and the Internet at large.
With over 100 members, the MAG is a global forum exploring the dotMobi technical style guides and best
practices, domain policies and commercialization initiatives, providing policy advice to dotMobi through the
Policy Advisory Board (PAB). The MAG enables its members to keep in touch with market trends and
understand, assess and prioritise the needs of the mobile Internet community. It acts as a vehicle for mobile
industry stakeholders to network and voice their opinions and ideas for the betterment of the mobile
experience.
MAG Mobile Advertising Task Force
Chair: Eric Eller, Senior Vice President Products and Marketing, Millennial Media Inc.
Vice Chair: Harald Neidhardt, Co-Founder & Chief Marketing Officer, Smaato Inc.
Mobile Advertising is emerging as the new "hot topic" in the mobile and internet industry today. It is clear
from industry event presentations and discussions held in the marketplace that there is an extreme diversity
in views and ultimately no one person or organization has Mobile Advertising "figured out".
The work of this task force will continue to explore product, service, policy and commercialization
opportunities for the Mobile Advertising market leveraging the .mobi domain trust mark.
About the dotMobi Company
dotMobi (the informal name of mTLD Top Level Domain Ltd), a consortium based in Dublin, Ireland, with
offices in Washington, DC, and Beijing, is leading the growth of Internet use from mobile phones with the
.mobi domain name. Unique among domain name providers, dotMobi ensures that services and sites
developed around .mobi are optimized for use by mobile devices. On-the-go consumers can have
confidence that an Internet site or service will work on their mobile phones when using a .mobi address.
dotMobi is backed by leading mobile operators, network and device manufacturers, and Internet content
providers, including Ericsson, GSM Association, Hutchison 3, Microsoft, Nokia, Orascom Telecom,
Samsung Electronics, Syniverse, T-Mobile, Telefonica Moviles, TIM, Visa and Vodafone. dotMobi is also a
sponsor of W3C's Mobile Web Initiative. For more information on dotMobi visit http://dotmobi.mobi.
There are currently over 700,000 .mobi domains in the marketplace.
page 22 in full:
Brand and Mobile Network Operator Opportunities in Mobile Advertising
6.
The potential opportunity to make the mobile web "free or partially subsidized" via advertising support is
tremendous. As the world's best-known brands begin to realize the global reach of the mobile web and
engage within the Mobile Advertising Ecosystem, the mobile web ‘subsidized’ opportunity will evolve and
emerge in many forms if fully supported by all the Mobile Advertising Ecosystem participants.
The Mobile Advertising Ecosystem and its key players have already been detailed in this paper; what has
not been conveyed is why brands, and mobile operators, are only now beginning to realize the opportunity
that is Mobile Advertising.
Brands have yet to experience the true reach of the mobile web
Globally, more than four mobile phones are sold for every PC. Brands have been told that the PC-based
Internet is all-pervasive, when in fact, even though the mobile web is only in its infancy; its reach is
multitudes greater than any existing PC-based website can offer. Brands perceive their existing channels as
key, and engaging in a new channel like the mobile web is seen as complex and expensive. Of course there
is also a concern that, after investing in the development of mobile campaigns and mobile websites,
consumers will not access them.
However in reality, a lucrative Mobile Advertising market already exists and billions of Mobile Advertising
page impressions have been reported by mobile ad networks worldwide. The Mobile Advertising industry is
in fact a booming marketing medium, yet to reach its zenith.
Brands have yet to acquire the necessary skills
Successful advertising requires an ability to exploit the medium in which it is presented. For television,
advertisers are generally assuming a viewer is in a home context. For Internet-based advertising, the
assumption is a sit-down location that will, most likely, lead to a "click-through" scenario. For mobile,
advertisers have to rethink context completely: Where is my user? What do I want that user to do? What will
be a successful metric beyond a click-through rate? How do I determine a realistic ROI? How do I make my
static brand meaningful in a mobile world?
Brands need to take an innovative approach
All brands are pioneers when it comes to advertising on the mobile web. Although many organizations such
as the MMA are providing guidelines for Mobile Advertising, there are no textbook case studies on how to
make it work. Some companies are taking steps to broaden the possibilities of Mobile Advertising leveraging
the .mobi domain trust mark, for example, Zagat Survey, who is opening their service to the mobile world via
zagat.mobi with subtle banner advertising support from VISA Signature (Figure 10). The Mobile Advertising
world needs more services like this, so that existing barriers can be broken down by engaging the brands...
page 24 in full:
The Off-Portal Mobile Advertising community is now aggressively engaging with brands and mobile
operators to educate them that this advertising channel is an opportunistic medium and, when used in the
right context, can provide a lucrative and highly-measurable return on investment for all parties involved.
One example of the way that Mobile Advertising can provide brands and mobile operators with real
incentives in the Off-Portal market is to make advertising available as an option for all .mobi mobile web
developers as they build their sites. For example, Brand X makes its advertising available for developers to
use on its .mobi sites. dotMobi and network of trust marked advertising partners offer this as inventory for
small developers to use for free, funded by Brand X. In turn, small developers and mobile operators receive
revenue share based on measurable and reported ‘click-through’ redemptions, which the dotMobi endorsed
partner network would track on behalf of the developers, mobile operators and advertisers. This opens a
world of advertising into the mobile web space that is integrated at Off-Portal site launches and allows
content providers to build more sites because they are not solely reliant on content sales for revenue. Brand
X wins by getting more inventories of sites to promote its offerings with success measurement reports. And,
the mobile operators win by being serviced Off-Portal through the .mobi trust marked Mobile Advertising
environment that meets their QoS requirements and delivers new ARPU opportunities.
from page 26:
The .mobi domain trust mark, when enforced to dotMobi Style Guide domain policies, is well-positioned to
provide mobile operators the Off-Portal Quality of Service assurances they need. It is also easily identified
by their mobile Internet network service operations when requested by a customer to use on their mobile
device. This process to ensure Quality of Service via .mobi domains could very easily be automated and
scale for large volumes of made-for-mobile web sites by the mobile operators. For marketers, brands, and
advertising agencies; web site developers using dotMobi best practices, the .mobi domain extension and the
MMA style guides are the natural way to ensure Off-Portal consumer mobile web experiences are well
designed made-for-mobile web sites and services – not an unusable rendition of a “made-for-the big-screen-
and-DSL-speed” experience. Mobile operators and their customer do not want to guess nor worry about
what won’t or will work best on the Off-Portal mobile web.
For Mobile Advertising to succeed in the Off-Portal market; advertisers need exponential brand reach and
ROI measurement analytics – the mobile operators need to see how their mobile Internet network access
contributions will be preserved and rewarded. Through collaboration with all Mobile Advertising industry
stakeholders, an Off-Portal trust marked Mobile Advertising partner network could be established providing
mass market service delivery and reporting functions for advertisers; and a new revenue stream to subsidize
mobile operators. By establishing and enforcing industry best practices for Mobile Advertising, as published
by the MMA on .mobi domain-based mobile web sites, the global Mobile Advertising community could lead
in the development of a successful Off-Portal market. Business models would be created to reward mobile
operators, reward mobile web site developers and reward all contributing members of the Mobile Advertising
Ecosystem value chain; especially for consumers by providing thousands of made-for-mobile web sites for
them to enjoy – whether On-Portal or Off-Portal.
The report's conclusions are on page 27, given here in full:
8. Call to Action
To accelerate the creation and adoption of a structured and profitable Mobile Advertising industry, the MAG
Mobile Advertising Task Force proposes the following ‘Next Steps’ and invites all Mobile Advertising
Ecosystem industry actors to play a role in shaping the future of the mobile Internet.
1. To define and publish a dotMobi Mobile Advertising style guide for agencies and brands; based
on published MMA Mobile Advertising Guidelines;
2. To define, publish and enforce dotMobi Mobile Advertising best practices with mandated policies
for .mobi domain-based Mobile Advertising offerings for the Off-Portal community;
3. To research, develop and define the requirements for an Off-Portal trust marked Mobile
Advertising partner network; including a common criteria framework for QoS service delivery,
ROI analytics and revenue share models; and
4. To empower marketers, brands, and advertising agencies with an ongoing series of Mobile
Advertising Off-Portal white papers, industry awareness programs, market research initiatives
and educational events.
The MAG Mobile Advertising Task Force has an open invitation for all organizations to contribute to this
important initiative by joining the MAG. For more information about our initiatives and how to join the MAG,
contact Simi Grosman, MAG Marketing Services, at simi.grosman@advisorygroup.mobi or visit our web site
at http://advisorygroup.mobi.
The time to act is now. The market, reach and revenue opportunities for Off-Portal Mobile Advertising are
too big to ignore. The MAG will continue to focus on advancing the evolution of Off-Portal mobile Internet
services supported by the trust marked .mobi domain service offerings, and to engage with all industry
actors to advance the development of an open mobile Internet.
http://emulator.mtld.mobi/domain/registrars/step1 sets out the relationship with registrars, and also covers fees in this doc: http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:AaVBVWB6QigJ:emulator.mtld.mobi/system/files/RRA.pdf+dotmobi+registrar+confidentiality+agreemen t&cd=4&hl=en
OBLIGATIONS OF REGISTRAR
3
Accredited Registrar. During the Term of this Agreement, Registrar
3.1
shall at all times maintain in force and effect its accreditation by ICANN as
a registrar for the Registry TLD.
3.2 Communication with Registered Name Holder. Registrar shall not
communicate any information to a Registered Name Holder which is
inconsistent or otherwise not in compliance with (i) a Policy; (ii) the terms
of this Agreement; or (iii) operational standards, procedures and
practices for the Registry TLD established from time to time by the
Registry Operator. Registrar shall facilitate Registry Operator
communication with Registered Name Holder (e.g., for request(s) for
additional information regarding compliance requirements) as Registry
Operator desires for performance or promotion of Registry Services or
other services, in complying with Policy or in complying with law
enforcement or a court order.
3.3 Registrar Cooperation. Registrar, its employees, contractors, agents and
delegets, shall not impede Registry Operator’s performance under this
Agreement and shall reasonably cooperate with Registry Operator in
furtherance of such performance.
3.4 Registry Policies. Registrar shall comply with all Registry Policies,
including the style guides set forth therein:
Prior to commencing registration activities, Registrar shall establish
3.4.1
a dotmobi website that complies with Registry Policies.
Registrar shall be licensed to display a “.mobi certified” logo on its
3.4.2
website after it has completed all the necessary steps for dotmobi
certification and the establishment of the website described in
3.4.1 above.
3.4.2.1 Additional certification levels, along with policies,
rules, and guidelines therein, may be instituted by the
Registry following a thirty days notice period and the
additional compliance procedures of Section 10.2 below.
Additionally, the notice, along with the information
pertaining to the additional certification levels will be
posted on the www.mtld.mobi website.
Registrar’s license to use the “dotmobi certified” logo shall
3.4.3
terminate immediately in the event of Registrar’s material violation
of this Agreement, including without limit failure to enforce
Registry Policies or make any payments due to Registry Operator
hereunder.
Registrar shall be responsible for promptly communicating to the
3.4.4
Registrant any non-compliant activity that the Registry might
identify, and working with the Registrant to bring the website into
compliance with the Style Guide.
Scandiman
09-05-2009, 01:55 PM
http://emulator.mtld.mobi/domain/registrars/step1 sets out the relationship with registrars, and also covers fees in this doc: http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:AaVBVWB6QigJ:emulator.mtld.mobi/system/files/RRA.pdf+dotmobi+registrar+confidentiality+agreemen t&cd=4&hl=en
Seems like everything is well in place for compliance enforcement, minus mTLD's will to proceed.
TheJD
10-27-2009, 04:40 PM
Disappointing news that the mobile compliance won't be enforced on .mobi sites, but my main attraction towards .mobi wasn't the trustmark but it was the brand .mobi.
.mobi still means mobile and is an obvious extension for everything mobile. Just in the same way that for example the .se extension stands for Sweden and sites on .se usually contains swedish content even though the swedish .se registry doesn't shut down .se sites with content in different languages than swedish.
I still think the future holds something great for .mobi!
Best regards,
Jonas
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.10 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.