UPDATED! DomainSherpa Discussion: Fails at 101domain and DomainNameSales; Rook Media + DomainSponsor…

DomainSherpa Discussion with Michael Cyger, Adam Dicker, Michael Berkens, Rick Schwartz and Page HoweWe’re joined by four Domain Sherpas: Adam Dicker, Mike Berkens, Page Howe and Rick Schwartz.

This is the show where we discuss industry and Internet news, what the news means to you, and questions from the audience.

In this DomainSherpa Discussion:

  • YouPay.com: From a $355 purchase to $200K sale; Mike Berkens summarizes the sale that took 9 years. (1:08)
  • Rook Media acquires DomainSponsor: What does it mean for the industry and for you as an investor? (10:03)
  • MI.com was recently acquired for $3.6MM by Xiaomi Inc. of Bejing. Should you be looking to China to sell your domains? (20:00)
  • Everyone’s rebranding. Just ask Elliot, Shane, Aaron and Raymond. Should you? (29:18)
  • 101domain.com tries to extort rightfully-purchased domain names from registrants, and the panel sounds off on this practice. (32:00)
  • DomainNameSales.com adds a feature to make you money, but are they stepping over their rights as a service provider in doing so? (39:55)
  • Frank Schilling steps-up and helps a confused registrant who files an ICANN Request for Reconsideration. Who isn’t confused by some aspect of the new TLDs? (46:04)
  • Joe Alagna of 101domain answers questions regarding the incident discussed on this week’s Discussion.
  • And more!

Review (Discussion: 62:00 | 101domain Response: 27:41): Watch | Listen/Download Audio | Sponsors | Domain Lists

Your DomainSherpa Discussion

 
This interview is promoted through a media partnership with Domaining.com.

Thank the Sherpas via Twitter

(Don’t have Twitter? Post a comment of thanks or share on Facebook.)

Response from Joe Alagna of 101domain.com

Your DomainSherpa Discussion, Audio Only

DomainSherpa Discussion
Download Domain Name Interview in MP3

Note: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser. Or, listen on iTunes or in your favorite podcast app (here are the feeds).

Or, grab a feed for your podcast app or listen on iTunes.

Response from Joe Alagna of 101domain.com
Download Domain Name Interview in MP3

Note: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser. Or, listen on iTunes or in your favorite podcast app (here are the feeds).

Or, grab a feed for your podcast app or listen on iTunes.

This Show’s Sherpas

Sponsors of DomainSherpa

Please visit the sponsors that support DomainSherpa and make our shows possible.

Niche Websites Estibot.com: Domain appraisal and domain productivity tools Escrow.com Uniregistry.com ChineseLandrush.com MediaOptions.com

More About…

Keywords:
Companies:
People:

Uniregistry.com

Leave a Reply

Comments should be respectful and on-topic. Read our full comment policy (opens in new window). Comments may be moderated; if not posted immediately, it is awaiting review and will be posted soon.

 

88 Responses to “UPDATED! DomainSherpa Discussion: Fails at 101domain and DomainNameSales; Rook Media + DomainSponsor…”

  1. Helmuts says:

    hmm.. after what I heard from Adam – I’m not going to use uniregistry.

    .. and no cool tools of theirs will change my mind.

    Gentlemen – thank you for sharing this valuable information!

    Helmuts
    Media Tower Limited
    UK

  2. Ron Miller says:

    Listening to the story about 1&1 on the program caused me to want to share this. I had found that the name OregonInjuryLawyer.com had expired on April 25, 2014. I found the name available on GoDaddy so I registered it and received confirmation and receipt. Then later I received an email telling me it was not available and the registration was made in error. What I found interesting was according to Whois.com the name was registered the exact same day I had registered it (Registrant Name: Whois Privacy Shield Services)? It just seemed very skeptical to me that it had been expired since April 25th and then someone else registered it the same day I took action on it? I had asked GoDaddy to address this and they sent me to VeriSign which only offered the Whois info. I requested a time stamp of the other registration which they wouldn’t or couldn’t provide.

  3. P.S.

    Jeff,
    If you have nothing to hide, and DNS, as you say, doesn’t use its customers leads, why don’t you modify your Terms of Service to include a specific provision concerning the treatment of leads, as I suggested before on DomainPicks.com?

    Otherwise, why people should believe you?
    Your statements could easily be just empty words … salesman words, not binding for anyone, written on sand …
    Latins were used to say “verba volant, scripta manent”, if you know what it means.

    And we know how easy is to manipulate or hide things in the digital world …

  4. Jeff,
    what a coincidence you closed it now … lol
    We both know it’s not a question of how many inquiries I got in the 19 months (Oct 2012-May 2014) or how many support ticket I opened, all with demonstrable and tangible reasons.
    I think people who read this can judge by themselves.
    Next time you should hide better your “inconvenient truths” …
    It’s the old story of conflicts of interest, lack of transparency, etc … nothing new under the sun …
    Good luck to you!

  5. Update:
    Today DNS disabled (closed) my account, without any notice … lol …
    and despite the fact that I clearly stated that I was not planning to close it, as shown in my email exchange with Jeff Gabriel, VP of Sales at DNS, published on DomainPicks.com.
    Unfortunately for them, I’ve already taken all the screenshots I needed, which are available if you are interested.
    For all the folks around, if you still have doubts, IMHO this says a lot about how they do business …
    It’s up to you to judge …

    • Andrea,

      In the history of your time with us which was a number of years you had a total of 24 inquiries. That means you have received 24 people who were interested in buying your domains over that period. You also had 88 tech support requests, and countless other customer service requests. That is the most of any of our customers. I felt that no matter how much we tried to service you as a client we could never be to the standard that your 24 inquiries require.

      I highly suggest that you hire a team of Brokers to handle this volume so they can provide the level of service, expertise and knowledge you require.

      We wish you luck in your future endeavors.

      • For the record you removed all of your domains from your account. You clearly stated you disagreed with our terms of service, and were not happy with the services we provide. When a customer states that we cannot conduct business any longer.

  6. Domain Angel says:

    So 101 domain will buy the domains back off me for 25 % of their value or I can pay 101 domain two or three times more than that amount for them to leave me alone . For an organisation that makes “next to no mark up on premium names” , thats not a bad piece of business!

  7. Scott says:

    @Joe Alagna update

    The 101Domain.com proposed “resolution” is laughable.

    It seems that Google, your “partner” registry also see that 101Domain.com is the negligent party. 101Domain.com fu**ed up. 101Domain.com needs to take the hit for its mistake and to make the registrants whole.

    That is the only way 101Domain.com could ever hope to resolve this situation – by giving the registrants back their domains at the price they paid.

    Nothing short of this will suffice.

    Scott

  8. Adam says:

    So you’ve sold the domains, told your customers months later that they are worth more than you sold them for and now offer to buy them back with in-store credit for 25% of the value that you say they’re now worth?

    Bet you all had a good laugh in the office when you put that scheme together!

  9. Joe Alagna says:

    Update:

    We have issued the following letter to the .みんな gTLD registrants affected this week. I promised to post more information and our resolution here. We continue to work with those clients who are willing and are sorry for the frustration this has caused.

    Please note that we have lobbied much with Google to play more of a role for their part in this. They have given us more time to work with registrants but we don’t think we are going to see any other assistance beyond that.

    Sincerely,
    Joe Alagna

    April 29, 2014

    Dear Valued Customer,

    I’m writing to provide insight and a better resolution regarding the errors that occurred with Google’s .みんな new gTLD domain launch and its premium names. We are offering below what we hope is a fair and sufficient solution to earn your trust and faith and to compensate you for the pricing errors you have experienced.

    • You now have until June 23, 2014 to make a decision whether to delete the name or pay for the premium name.

    • If you want to keep the name(s), 101domain will offer you a 50% discount on the first year premium price and a 25% discount on premium annual renewals.

    • If you give up your name(s), we will give you a credit on 101domain.com for any future purchases equal to 25% of the price of the premium name(s) we are deleting. This offer will not expire.

    Please let us know which option you would like prior to June 23, 2014 by calling or emailing billing (at) 101domain (dot) com.

    As a leader in the new gTLD space, we made the decision to offer all launch phases and premium names as early as possible because our customers have demanded this early and all-access offering. Our first to market position and wealth of information has proven immensely popular to many customers.

    The .みんな gTLD (Japanese for “everyone”) launched in General Availability on March 4th by Google’s registry. As you know, you were able to purchase names from 101domain.com during GA for $12.99 each which Google had previously labeled as premium – some at more than $7,000 USD for a single name. Unfortunately, this error was not recognized until over 30 days later after we received our first transaction report.

    We contacted Google and requested them to work with us on the matter since we felt strongly that both sides were responsible to right the situation. Google offered no other assistance other than extending the date to delete the names – telling us it was our problem.

    Our staff works very closely with most new gTLD registries to ensure reserved and premium names are rolled out correctly throughout all phases of a TLD launch. With Google, there were a number of non-standard procedures detailed below which created this situation which we are not in control of. We sincerely hope that Google is able to properly address and correct these items for its registrars going forward.

    • Premium name lists were distributed via email only. In our case, premium list emails were missed.

    • There were no premium name commands in Google’s EPP (pricing extensions) to lookup and approve premium name registrations. This is standard with most new gTLD registries and the best way to handle premium names.

    • There was no ability to turn “off” registration of premium names. This is again a nearly standard feature.

    • There were no real-time reports available to identify errors which led to 30+ days going by before the errors were identified.

    In hindsight, we should not have launched this TLD without these standard features in place or clear warnings to customers that pricing had to be confirmed after submission due to manual registry processes.

    We hope to earn your trust and business back. This has proven a valuable learning experience for us to improve the customer experience for you, our valued customers.

    Sincerely,
    Anthony M. Beltran
    COO/CFO

    • Martin M says:

      I had the same thing that happened to me for the .club. I purchased a topless.club for $11.99 in preorder. I had this domain paid for and preordered for a few months. Then I was told that I had to pay 16K a year. I had a credit wiped out that was later given back for this charge. My obvious response was to surrender the domain

  10. OB says:

    @Jeffrey Gabriel/DomainNameSales,

    I don’t know what to say other than that my opinion of you has just ratcheted down by about 1000% after your comment that what I’m saying “never happened.”

    I have no problem showing Michael Cyger all the evidence, the saved screenshot and HTML that we captured at the time of the event. I don’t know Michael personally, but I’ve had brief contact with him in the past and my impression of him was that he’s a gentleman. I doubt he would disclose the domain beyond just verifying it isn’t a made up story.

    As to requiring me to disclose the domain and my name to you, whether publicly here or in private, that would be like calling the mafia to tell them that they suck and leaving my name and contact information! What makes you think that I’d want to be in touch with a company that I have a very poor opinion of based on my own experience as well as what Adam recently brought to light? We do our best to AVOID doing business with people like you, not get in touch with them again. When you give me your hand that has crap on it, it’s not my fault that I don’t want to shake it.

    Thanks for reminding me why when we’re looking for domains for our clients, I check BuyDomain’s portfolio, Archeo’s portfolio, Kevin Ham’s, and even Reberry’s (who some people don’t like), but always pass on domains when they’re owned by DomainNameSales.

    For those interested in knowing about DomainNameSales’ slimy tactics, here’s a brief summary of the events from our side as a buyer, all verifiable through a screenshot if Michael wants to see it in confidence:

    1) Day 0: We asked for a price quote via the web form on DomainNameSales and we provided an email address. (As it turns out, DomainNameSales auto-generates a chronological thread and logs your initial inquiry as the first entry on that thread. You don’t actually need to create an account/password to view that thread. The next time you visit, your IP address gets compared to the initial IP that made the inquiry and you’ll automatically see the thread if the IP addresses match. We initially weren’t aware of this auto-generated thread, because we expected them to email us so we didn’t visit the website again after the initial inquiry, until a few days later (see point 7) when we were investigating why on earth escrow.com is sending us a reminder about a pending transaction. That’s when that thread was discovered and all the shocking entries on it (more on that below). I never tried to buy from them again after this incident, so there may have been technical changes since then.)

    2) Day 2, early in the day: They got a quote from the seller. This quote was sent to the email address that we supplied so we did receive this quote, but it also got added as an entry to the thread on their website as we found out later.

    3) Day 2, later in the day: An entry is added to the thread on their website that we accepted the seller’s offer. We weren’t aware of this entry at the time it was made, mainly of course because we never actually accepted the seller’s quote, but also because they never sent us an email about it. This entry was discovered a few days later (see point 7) when we visited their website for the second time and discovered the thread for the first time.

    4) Day 2, minutes after the fake acceptance entry, another entry is added about an escrow transaction. Again this entry is only on their thread but no email was sent to us about it.

    5) Day 2, minutes later, another entry from escrow.com containing the transaction ID and a message that the transaction was started by the broker (whose name is also included). Again, this entry is only on their thread but no email record of it was sent to us.

    6) Day 2, minutes later, an entry about the seller accepting the transaction. Again, this entry is only on the thread but no email sent to us. What complicates is that the poor seller is getting played just like us. It seems like DomainNameSales’ goal is to appear to their sellers as if they’re doing something and achieving a milestone by getting the buyers to agree, then making it look like the buyer backed out.

    7) A few days later we get a reminder from escrow.com that we have a pending transaction. HUH? So, while investigating what’s going on, we visit either DomainNameSales or the domain itself (I don’t remember) and discover the thread and all the shocking entries (3 to 6 above) that we weren’t aware of, including our acceptance which is completely fake. So basically the summary of it is that we requested a quote, 2 days later they emailed us the quote in the morning, then in the evening faked our acceptance, sent it to escrow, got it approved by the seller ALL within the span of 30 minutes in the evening. Unbelievable. (All verifiable by the screenshot that I’m willing to show to Michael only, I’m not willing to interact with these sleazeballs again).

    8) Seeing that thread was just a shock. I was pissed, my colleagues that I showed this to were pissed. We told the client and they were pissed. Everyone just said screw em and the client said they’d rather brand on something else than play those kinds of games. That’s when we replied to the only email that we got from them, the email that included the quote (see point 2 above) and said we don’t like their quote and won’t pursue it further.

    Everything above is on the screenshot which I’m willing to show to Michael to prove that this isn’t some made up story like Jeffrey Gabriel is claiming.

    The other victim is the poor seller who thought that DomainNameSales got him an acceptance and thought that we the buyer eventually backed out. The seller doesn’t know that the sales agents are just faking these acceptances to appear to the sellers as if there’s some movement and some progress and that their system is worth staying in. Most sellers probably wouldn’t imagine that DomainNameSales is doing this until they’re told how it went down with us on the buying side and until they hear stories like Adam’s.

    I’m not writing this for DomainNameSales. They can go to you-know-where and take their slimy tactics with them (faking our acceptance, playing their seller and disappointing them at the end, faking Adam’s email to his buyer, and who knows what else).

    I don’t think what happened with Adam is an isolated incident. They’ve obviously always operated that way with their clients. As I said before: “So back to Adam’s story, this doesn’t surprise me one bit. What’s surprising is that they were sloppy this time and forgot to cover up their tracks.”

    Here is some advice for anyone who has a functioning brain.

    If you own domains, there’s NO SANE REASON why you would allow a direct competitor like Frank/DomainNameSales to eavesdrop on the leads coming for your domains, including the negotiations and the highest price that the buyer offered you. If you allow them, then find out later that they try to sell their own services and domains to your leads and/or sign your name (as has happened to Adam Dicker), I’m sorry but you have contributed to it by trusting a direct competitor who has a huge portfolio of their own to sell.

    The solution is simple. Set up your own form and host it yourself so that all the leads come to you, and only to you, and aren’t shared with competitors. I might be willing to volunteer and arrange for a detailed technical tutorial if Michael requests. If you hire someone technical to do, it wouldn’t cost you more than $50. It’s a lame form, nothing fancy, just a form that captures the leads and sends them to your email address. (But make sure they don’t have a backdoor that sends a copy to some external email address).

    I realize that some people might say that Go Daddy does the same thing and eavesdrops on leads. I completely agree, but Go Daddy is a beast of a different size. Go Daddy is the largest registrar out there, so having your domains show up on their registration path is not a bad tradeoff given the size of their client base. There are people talking about trying to get Go Daddy to release mroe information about the buyers, at least for domains registered with them since the seller will eventually close the sale with Go Daddy anyway as it’s very convenient that way, but that’s the situation right now with Go Daddy.

    DomianNameSales on the other hand doesn’t offer an attractive tradeoff for you as a seller. The greatest benefit really is to them when they capture all those leads thanks to the inquiries coming for your domains and all the other domains owned by everyone else who’s allowing them to eavesdrop on leads.

    Remember that if someone wants your domain, they will come to you and will follow whatever instructions you’ve given to contact you. If you point your domains to DomainNameSales, you are sharing your leads with DomainNameSales. If you post your own form, only you get your leads (just the way it should be). So, do you want buyers to contact you and have control over your leads? Or do you want to give so much intelligence and data to a direct competitor who is much bigger than you, and who will claim that your story “never happened” when you report their wrongdoing, just like they did with our story here as a buyer? They didn’t dare do it with Adam because he’s on this show so it would be a really bad move to claim that what he says “never happened”. But most people are not in Adam’s position, most people are like us, so they should expect the same reply we got.

    And by the way, no matter what box you check that says “don’t contact my customers”, you know very well that’s complete BS. DomainNameSales knows that this lead exists, they know who it is, and they know how much that lead was willing to pay if the negotiation had gone that far.

    Think of their most recent beef with Go Daddy as a result of Uniregistry wanting to have more control of the registrations coming through Go Daddy. (If you don’t know what I’m talking about, google the article on Domain Incite “Here’s why registrars are boycotting .sexy”. This article is GOLD and will tell you exactly how Frank’s business thinks of leads.) After you read that article, ask yourself how do you think this applies to the leads coming for your domains that you parked with DomainNameSales? These guys in reality consider these leads theirs. I’m sorry, but any seller who willingly gives them access to leads is kind of an idiot. Sorry, I don’t know how to put it more politely.

    Adam’s portfolio is actually kind of medium or even smaller than it relative to the other portfolios we are aware of, but once you pass the 1000 or 500 or even the 100 domains mark, it’s really worthwhile to setup your own form on your domains for buyers to contact you privately. It just makes no sense to use someone else’s lead capture form. The risk of abuse is just too high.

    Adam of course will do what he wants with his domains and he might decide to keep them parked with DomainNameSales, but I personally will be disappointed if he did. If this happened to Adam (signing his name while peddling their own domains to his buyers), imagine what’s happening to the other guys who have no voice in the industry.

    I wish everybody luck, except the sleazeballs of course :)

    • Hi OB,
      I’m also a customer of DNS.
      Could you kindly contact me privately, I’d like to ask you a few things about this case.
      You can email me using the form on our site.
      Thank you.
      Andrea

  11. Adam says:

    Until I watched this video I hadn’t realised that commercial businesses like this one were doing their customers a huge favor.

  12. […] this seemingly generous response to domainer outrage, at the least one affected customer is not […]

  13. As regards the issues Adam had with DNS, I’d like to share what happened to me in the last few days (I joined DNS in Oct 2012).
    First, let me tell you that I was and I’m still a supporter of Frank, nothing personal with him, I still think he’s a good guy and a great poster boy for the industry.
    Maybe it’s an overreach, as Rick said, and nobody is perfect, you know, all is perfectible, but I can’t tolerate things like that, and that’s why I’m really disappointed.
    Normally I self-broker my domains, and on DNS I have no minimum offer price set.
    Some days ago I decided to give DNS a chance on my old leads, but later I changed my mind when I heard about the issues Adam had with them, so I disabled this option.
    I mean, I work hard to get my leads, they are mine, I have not authorized DNS to use them to sell their names or whatever.
    So I deleted all but one of my names from the platform.
    Today I’ve noticed that on all my old leads forwarded to their brokers someone (who?) put a 1k minimum price without even asking my permission … unbelievable! …
    Sorry, but I’m really speechless Frank, hope you can explain …
    I’ve sent a support ticket to your guys, but I guess I will not receive a reply soon … once I waited 16 days (days, not hours!) to get an answer.

    • Andrea,

      Thanks for the email. We received your support ticket. That 1,000 dollar minimum offer is sent when we ask you for a price and you do not respond for a number of days…I believe it is five or seven… We send a message asking the buyer to make that minimum offer.

      We do our best to qualify them with that minimum offer. That amount is a default. You can change it by going to SETTINGS in your account then FOR SALE CONFIGURATION you can make it one dollar or you can make it one million. In my professional opinion I would recommend that you price all of your domains north of 1,000 USD. That is another DomainSherpa conversation all together!

      The thinking behind this is our customers are busy people and we understand that. Many of our customers do not have a chance to get the prices back to us as quickly as we would like. The longer we wait the greater our chances are we will lose the deal. This was the solution we thought would work best, and it has.

      Please make the change accordingly.

      Have a nice day.

      Jeffrey M. Gabriel
      Vice President of Sales

      • Jeffrey,
        Thanks for your fast reply.
        First, I did not receive any notification asking me to fix a minimum price.
        Secondly, fixing a discretionary minimum offer when/if your client do not respond for a number of days is IMHO overriding your client, since you send out a message asking the buyer to make that minimum offer.
        You should not send out ANY message to potential buyers without client authorization.
        Where can I find a reference to the rule you mention (bypassing the client after a number of days) in your TOS?
        If there is such a rule you should disclose it publicly and clearly, so customer can decide what to do.
        I don’t see why a client must reply by a certain number of days in order to avoid to be bypassed by the set minimum offer, that’s ridiculous.
        It’s the customer who choose if, when, and with what minimum offer to respond to a potential buyer inquiry, not DNS.
        Sometimes it seems you are “urging”/pushing your client to put a minimum price or to accept an offer …
        You say “The longer we wait the greater our chances are we will lose the deal. “, but IMHO actually that’s not the best way to maximize the offer, since often you can get a better price just waiting a bit more, and I think Adam can agree on this.
        As regards my settings, I know 1,000$ is the default, but, as I said before, i did not set any minimum offer (so it was zero $), but that’s not the point.
        The point is that you are not authorized to override your customer, acting without authorization.

    • One more thing for you and our customers, Andrea. We added this to our dev blog so you can see how to change it…

      http://dev.domainnamesales.com/blog/2014/04/setting-a-minimum-offer-requested-for-buyers/

      • Thanks Jeff, I appreciate, but I know how to set a minimum price for my potential buyers.
        As I said before, that’s not the point.
        I think the best way to fix this kind of situation is revising/rethinking/changing some of your automated tools, in order that DNS stops to act without customer authorization.
        Thanks.

        Andrea

  14. Steve says:

    What gives ; have these guys gone and hid under a rock now ?

  15. IMHO

    In regards to Joe Alguna’s interview. I appreciate Joe coming and attempting to answer some questions. But I didn’t hear anything except, “it’s not our fault, but we’re not sure”.

    Mr. Alguna, with all do respect, to put up something for sale, regardless of the supplier (registry) , at a price advertised by the “seller” should be the price for the product sold.

    The problem lyes with the seller’s due diligence.

    To say no one has “lost” money and will be refunded their $12.99, and knowing that it was “investors” who purchased the domains is ludicrous. They may have already put a team on reselling and or development.

    To tout being the “leading edge” of domain information etc etc and have this happen… hmmm.

    If “your” people didn’t double check prices before releasing the names, IT’S ON YOU, 101Domain.

    If you have a list, provided by Google, of the names in question that YOUR PEOPLE had to READ from, input DATA in regards to the names, WITH PRICES being read off the said list, then the problem is Googles’. If there was NO PRICE ON THE LIST… PICK UP THE PHONE AND FIND OUT!!!!!

    The case is pretty cut and dry. You don’t need to be Sherlock Holmes.

    Bottom line, and I am sorry for being so simplistic and honest, if you paid for it at an “advertised price”, have a “receipt” for said purchase, YOU OWN THE ITEM. It’s the only solution.

    The bottom line was brought up around 26:45.:

    “if anything it was an honest mistake. And we were within our legal rights to cancel them. It’s not because we think it’s right or wrong… it was a big amount of money. Not out of “their pockets” (meaning the registrants) but “ours pockets” (meaning 101Domain). Out of a registrant’s pockets it was only $12.00…”

    I think that those words speak volumes as to the lack of understanding of who their clients potentially are, especially for the new .gtlds.

    And to dismiss the “future profits” of an investor’s domain investment as speculation is asinine. Why do you think the new .gtlds were created?

    It’s obvious that YOUR COMPANY is scared to be on the hook for Google’s demands. But sometimes, you have got to just accept it and move on. No one wants to fight Google. And the last people who should are the customers who purchased the names at YOUR ADVERTISED PRICES.

    If I were you, bite the bullet and negotiate with Google for a lower price on the said domains and hope for a smaller penalty.

    Much luck in the future and I hope this issue gets resolved amicably for all involved.

    Regards.

    AD

  16. Hey Domainclature,

    Looks like we hit the 12 limit post reply thing. Sorry Michael,,,

    “Question: You have a writing style similar to a handle “OnTheInterweb”, are you familiar with that guy?”

    No, I don’t. I hate reading.lol

    To be brutally honest… this is the only place I look into the domain thing. I figured these guys are the ones reviewing the domain world weekly and making things happen and or talking about the relevant stuff, etc etc. I don’t need to see them drink sodas and listen in the back ground as I do other things. But when I watch sometimes it’s priceless. Especially Rick on a tangent.

    It’s like a domain smoothie. Packed with just the good stuff. ;)

    Personally I would love to be the perfect combination of them all but my passions so to speak, lye elsewhere, I do love getting a great name though. I am sure I will love hitting a home run too. ;)

    That’s why I am happy to out source everything development, etc (joint venture style) because there are strength in numbers. I am happy with 200 domains bringing in a few grand a month. I just need to get to that level. If I can use the rest to drive traffic between them perfect. I really don’t want to sell, but I do have a few I will part with. :)

    Damn near every name I purchased I had a business thought behind it,

    All the best!

  17. albert says:

    Just listened to the interview and Joe seems extremely sincere about what happened.

    Having said that, seriously, there are basically a hand full of people in the domain industry (compared to other businesses) and they pissed of 50 of them.

    That’s not good especially if they are counting on these very same people to get the word out on the new TLD’s.

    It goes to show that so far, .com is the safest of call (and still largest) of all.

  18. Brendan says:

    Thank you for the interview with Mr. Alagna.

    My company was the recipient of twelve of the reported ~50 invoices sent out. Our invoices totaled over $10,000.

    I have not received any of the calls that Mr. Alagna mentioned, just some emails from the billing department and brief replies to my queries from an accounting supervisor.

    I don’t expect anything other than the names I paid for, and renewal rates that are the same as other standard registrations. If they want me to pay $2,900 to renew one of my names, they better make everyone pay $2,900 to renew their names, otherwise they are singling out the names my company registered unfairly.

    I did pay the extra $100 for one, since I’d already had substantial development into it, but at this point, I want that applied to renewals.

    Who is the correct authority to report this to? Does ICANN hold any weight at all? The Ombudsman?

    Thanks for your suggestions.

  19. Ok… considering eventually something similar to Real Estate Certification will occur in the domain world to create a set of standards…

    Who’s in?

    DomainBrokersConference.com (which hosts DomainBrokerSchool.com)

    where you can get your

    DomainBrokersCertification.com

    then attend the

    DomainSalesExpo.com

    and utilize your skills.

    Adam: covers buyer approach, ethics tactics and practices.

    Page: Common Sense Applications.

    Mike: Legal

    Drew: Appraisals

    Rick: Joint Ventures.

    Michael: Moderation

    Me: a free pass.

  20. Great discussion!

    The new .gtlds to put it simply, will fail with the exception of the few who can afford to flood the air waves with money.

    The real money will be made by the ad agencies and television, radio etc.

    What I find funny is the prices that are being asked even for a single word. Especially considering the earlier statement. To teach millions to think .”whatever” will cost billions.

    On another note…

    I too had a disappointing experience with Domain Name Sales. After a year or so of zero returns on their platform… I heard they were starting a leasing program and contacted them to see if I could out source some of the leasing for my portfolio.

    Dan and I had a great conversation, during which he asked if I had some category domains for sale. Never heard a reply after sending a list I had available. Terrible communications considering a simple “they won’t do” or “thanks for the list, but our client passed” would have been great. I guess the business respect level coincides with someone’s heavy hitter status.

    Needless to say I pulled the portfolio from their system.

    Makes you want to get out all together sometimes… hmmm there’s a thought… ok, I have considered this momentarily and may change my mind tomorrow… I’ll keep what’s close to my heart and the other 400 domains I’ll let go for $5,000,000.00. Do the math however you want… Buy one for $5 million get 399 free. Will lease to own. ;)

  21. OB says:

    @Jeffrey Gabriel

    I pursue an average of 200 domains per month when looking for domains for our clients, so I sure hope I know the difference between an offer and a mere inquiry. As I made clear, no offer was ever made to DomainNameSales, only a request for a quote, and when we received the quote, it was never agreed to or even responded to. So taking the liberty to mark your own quote as “Buyer Accepted” so you can push it to escrow is real desperate and unprofessional. Trust me, if I think it’s low, imagine what the average buyer thinks. If you think it’s a way to speed up sales, no, it’s a way to make buyers feel like you’re faking their acceptance to force a purchase commitment.

    With regards to the tactic that Adam brought up, I know how hard it is to sell domains. I see what selling brokers on our team have to deal with, so I don’t blame you for cherishing those leads and trying to use them for DomainNameSales. It’s great for your shareholders, but sucks for the domainers who entrust you with their domains, so these domainers need to know how far you guys go with the leads their domains bring. Trying to sell your own domains to leads that your clients dismissed is one thing, but signing in your client’s name is almost criminal. Have you guys gone mad? You’re pretending to be that person.

    On top of that, the alternate TLDs that Adam supposedly offered her (HealthyIntent.link .pics .photo .sexy) are absolutely laughable. They sound more like Adam was making fun of her as opposed to giving her real alternatives for her business. Who in his right mind would think that these are real domains? They sound more like a joke or some kind of a prank, so you just ruined the guy’s chances of selling his domain to her in the future. Buyers come back months and even years later to get the same domain. I don’t know why Adam was being this calm. I’d be sounding more like Rick and screaming bloody murder for ruining his chances.

    These are real issues that can’t be pushed under the rug, so I’ll just quote Rick from 37:30. We can’t just sit there silently and watch all the wrongdoing and conflict of interest. That’s why guys like Halvarez are out there. We just sit on the side and look the other way because we know the guy who did it. We all need to grow some balls. Page’s comment on 38:00 are just as good.

    It’s obvious that Adam doesn’t want to make it a big deal and wants to be a nice guy, especially that he knows Frank and has been using his platform for a while. But problems like this need to be brought up if we have any hope of cleaning up this industry.

    • OB,

      Since you still have not revealed to me the domain you inquired on, or even your real name or an email address how can I even look into the matter? We receive thousands of inquiries every single day, and so does our clients.

      As for this quote “Trying to sell your own domains to leads that your clients dismissed is one thing, but signing in your client’s name is almost criminal. Have you guys gone mad? You’re pretending to be that person.”

      I am sorry when did that happen? Did you read the comment I made to Adam in the thread? He knows we did not log into his account, and we never did that. Before you make accusations you need to get the facts straight.

      All in all OB I am still waiting for the domain you inquired on or even your real name, and if our Brokerage was given the opportunity I am happy to reveal the entire back and forth for our customers to decide what happened. I am that confident what you are saying never happened.

      My Skype is JeffreyMGabriel
      My phone number is 1.800.818.1828 x8

  22. steven says:

    I was pleased to hear Apple is looking at merchant solutions. I own iChargeCard dot com maybe I can move a domain! :)

  23. Rene says:

    It says a lot to me when a company accused of something is willing to either directly respond or come on a video to explain their side. I think both Jeff from DomainNameSales and Joe from 101domain should be commended.

    I think DomainNameSales made a mistake and owned up to it. Every company needs checks and balances, and this is just one issue that slipped through the cracks. But how fast their reacted and fixed the situation will make me continue as a customer of theirs.

    I think 101domain made a mistake and has not owned up to it. They should not have offered a TLD that wasn’t ready to be rolled out. Their corporate greed in selling the domain name got them into this mess. Now they’re trying to back out of honoring their customer agreement (maybe not the letter of the law, but the spirit of the agreement). I will look at other registrars before theirs when I go to register new TLDs as a result.

    I think there’s a lot to be learned by companies in our industry from these two incidents. I hope they learn.

    Kudos to Adam for sharing and Michael for promoting. I love DomainSherpa!

  24. OB says:

    It’s funny that there are people out there who thought that Frank/DomainNameSales wouldn’t do this, and more.

    A while ago, we were looking for a domain for a client and one of the options was a domain either owned or brokered by DomainNameSales. I requested a quote via their website form and received a quote. Then a few days later, I got a reminder from none other than escrow.com telling us that we have x days left to complete a transaction. What transaction?! We never agreed to or even discussed the price for DomainNameSales to start an escrow transaction. All I did was request a quote and receive it.

    So I checked the thread on their system to try and figure out what’s going on. As it turns out, after the quote, there was another entry that said “Buyer Accepted” and then another entry around 5 minutes later that they started the escrow transaction. Let me tell you what that feels like. It’s like going out on a quick date with someone once, then getting your wedding invitation card with the wedding date and everything a couple of days later.

    I was glad that the inquiry was sent using a personal not a company email address, because how can we dispute that we never agreed to the price if the need arises? Who audits their data? Nobody. All inquiries are logged with the source IP address into their internal database, and all the broker had to do is check a box on their interface that says that buyer accepted and if needed even plug the same IP address. They know very well that I never accepted, but many of their domains are brokered for third party owners, so given that the quote that I allegedly agreed to was a high amount, what if that misled owner decided to enforce the “agreement” by taking us to court.. and if you think this doesn’t happen, you’re not listening enough, it has happened before in this industry. But more likely, think of the reaction of the average buyer when he gets a bill for a price that he never agreed to. The domain investing industry already has one of the worst reputations. You don’t need sales agents muddying it up even more by faking offer acceptances.

    So back to Adam’s story, this doesn’t surprise me one bit. What’s surprising is that they were sloppy this time and forgot to cover up their tracks.

    Get real, people. Frank’s main business is the resale of domains and he has a huge portfolio that he needs to move. Even Uniregistry and the new gTLDs he’s running are nothing but a tool to aid that main business which is the resale of domains. Do you honestly think that a large domain reseller isn’t going to value the leads he gets from your domains? or do you think he’s more likely to beat those leads to death and try to sell them one of his domains when you’ve stopped looking?

    Domainers often talked about high parking revenue on Frank’s platform as one of the main reasons they moved there. The parking revenue is probably close to 100%, because that’s not where the value is, parking revenue is peanuts. The real value is all the data and intelligence DomainNameSales gathers about third party domains parked with them, including what keywords are being visited more and what type of domains are getting more offers so they can go and register or sell variations of those.

    Adam is likely also mistaken that the sale was only for the cheap domain that they offered. You’re still not seeing the big picture. What the sales team was trying to do is get the buyer to enter in the sales funnel again, but this time their sales funnel. If the buyer accepts any of the low-ticket domains offered, they would then offer her some of the higher ticket ones they own especially if they already know the buyer’s budget from your previous negotiations with that buyer.

    If anyone thinks I’m being a little harsh on Frank, you obviously have no real corporate management experience where you had to get up every morning and think during your 6am morning coffee how you’re going to beat your competition, and then go to an office full of people who did exactly the same thing as you and discuss as a group how you plan to crush your competition. Well, Frank runs his company that way, and thanks for playing in his playground.

    • OB,

      Thanks for the comments about our service. On behalf of myself, and all of the brokers here at DomainNameSales we could only wish that selling domains was as easy as clicking the buttons on our Escrow.com integration to start a transaction on every opportunity that is presented to us.

      Have you considered that:

      If you made a fair offer maybe it was accepted?
      Was it a buy it now domain? We have our buy it now domains integrated with Escrow.com.

      If you could be so kind as to email me the domain you inquired about, and I will be happy to look into it. That is not how we do business as it would waste our time, our buyer’s time, ruin our relationship with Escrow.com clogging up their platform, and most importantly be a poor service for our valuable customers.

      As for your other comments I must say we are finishing one of our best months ever, and we owe our success to our customers which we appreciate every opportunity they give to us. We turn those opportunities into sales by working hard, being honest, ethical and knowledgeable. That starts from the top with Frank and goes all the way down. Hard honest work always pays off. Yes we make mistakes, but we do our best to admit them, and fix them.

      You should come for a visit sometime, and see. I guarantee your opinion would change.

      Have a great weekend!

      Jeffrey M. Gabriel

    • Adam Dicker says:

      “The real value is all the data and intelligence DomainNameSales gathers about third party domains parked with them, including what keywords are being visited more and what type of domains are getting more offers so they can go and register or sell variations of those.”

      This is easy to test, people can just contact people that they dismissed offers from and see if and where they bought a different domain name from for their business.

      • OB says:

        @Adam

        That’s right. But most buyers probably wouldn’t feel obligated to disclose, so you might need to do deeper digging on your own.

  25. Scott says:

    Further to Joe Alagna’s invitation to email him and Anthony, here is what I sent along to them.

    Gentlemen,

    The Domainer in me wants to puke.

    I’ve been in this business for over 12 years, and aside from the Alvarez scandal, this is the most egregious situation one could imagine.

    Regardless of:

    * the ongoing discussions with Google in an effort to try to make things right

    * the warm-hearted genuine efforts being put forward by the 101Domain.com team

    * the fact that there were communication malfunctions between registrar and registry

    * 101Domain.com’s Terms of Service

    * the fact that 101Domain.com will take a “hit” if it didn’t recoup the money from the 50+ registrants

    * that fact that 101Domain.com is bleeding edge

    * the fact that it was an IDN extension

    * the fact that Google is new to the registry business
    … All don’t matter

    Success in the domain business is largely built on trust. As one of the most respected registrars in the new gTLD sphere (according Shane Coltra) 101Domain.com should realize the importance of maintaining that trust, especially with all of the new registrants that are “flocking” to your website looking for advice, guidance and new gTLD domains.

    101Domain.com offered those domains to registrants in good faith.

    The registrants bought them with the expectation that they could trust 101Domain.com to deliver the domains safely to their respective accounts with no further requests for additional exorbitant fees paralleling Soprano-style interest rates.

    101Domain.com, you failed.

    You priced domains publicly at $12.99, took the money and delivered the domains only to try to extort substantially more than the advertised price. Whatever “legal” position you are hiding behind may be upheld in a court of law, but will not hold water in the court of public opinion.

    More importantly, it doesn’t hold up ethically. Nor does it espouse to doing the right thing.

    In addition, Joe, for you to say that you started out as a domainer so you know how the registrants affected feel is utter bullshit. If that were the case, you would have grown a set of cajones and gone to bat for your fellow domainers by getting your 101Domain.com team and Google in a room and demanded that they work out how, between them, they were going to take the “hit” and not affect the registrants on whose respective backs 101Domain.com has built its business.

    Shame on you.

    In my opinion 101Domain.com (and Google), you have one chance to make this right.

    I recommend that you not only allow the affected registrants to keep the domains they registered, I would suggest that as a you offer them another premium-priced domain of equal value at NO COST.

    If you’re not prepared to stand up for the rights of your registrants, you don’t deserve to be in business.

    The shitstorm is not going to go gently into the good night. If you don’t agree, are willing to screw your registrants and you are going to be run out of town… might as well get out in front and make it look like a parade.

    Now, I’m going to go shower.

  26. For the record:
    I have known Joe Alagna forever. I love Joe too. He is a good guy.
    I don’t think they did anything on purpose.

    But it seems they may have been negligent and those domains should be paid for to Google before they pull them. Right now that should be the main focus, securing these domains.

    When you are given 24 hours, that is like having a gun up to your head for a lot of folks.
    My friend Joe did a lot of dancing. I never knew. ;-)

    I won’t change my view on this because Joe is my friend and I love him.

    His company should just do the right thing. Make sure those domains are secured. Pay the Google bill until it is sorted out. Because that is probably the issue and why he can’t say they won’t be pulled.

    It is really insulting to hear he will give back their $12.99. It was no longer a $12.99 asset the minute an INVESTOR bought it.

    Plus yesterday it was 30 days and now they seem to own these for 45 days.

    I don’t care about margins. That’s their biz and their problem.
    Make the customer whole. Bottom line.

    Joe, I still love ya! But I don’t change my values based on that.

    I have no dog in this race. But domain owners can not be left to hold the bag when another party is negligent or does something wrong, Whether it be Google, 101domain.com or anyone else.

    I hope it all gets sorted out to everyone’s satisfaction. But depending on the outcome of this, it has the appearance of either extortion or negligence depending on who did what. Possibly both?

    I think it comes down to…. did Google raise the price after the fact or did 101domain just miss it completely and were floored when they saw the bill? From what I heard, i think the latter. But the facts are still not clear.

    • And Joe, I won’t take the word extortion off the table. But the word refers to the appearance of the situation not a legal one. Give me $1500 more in 24 hours or we are taking back the property you already paid for. On the face of it you can see why I and others would choose that word.

      If Google raised the prices after the fact, they indeed are guilty of something far more than negligence. But from what I heard you say, 101domain did not extort and it appears likely that Google did not either. But negligence is another matter. Nobody makes a big mistake like this on purpose. So the intent was not to harm. We all get that.. However it might be that the result harmed your own customers even if it was not the intent.

  27. As regards Joe Alagna response, IMHO these are the main issues here:
    – the registrar (101Domain in this case) should not be allowed to sell domains for which he does not know or it has not checked the pricing with the registry. Pricing must be definitive, not subject to later adjustments.
    – in this case, the registry should have checked Google pricing before starting to sell these domains, and Google should have timely provided final pricing.
    Not following these easy, common sense, rules, lead to misleading and deceiving registrants and potential registrants.
    Buyers legitimately purchased those domains, at the then shown pricing, so the issue has to be addressed among registry and registrar, which are the parties who have to be blamed for this “communication mistake”.

  28. […] allowed and DNS taking leads unless you opt out (this has been a worry since DNS came about) on DomainSherpa, I think Frank needs a better public relations coordinator than a parody domain site,  although […]

  29. John Barnes says:

    Well what if someone had a really good name and sold it in the 30 days,stranger things have happened,what happens then,then the seller would REALLY be out of pocket right??

  30. […] admit the people concerned have very good reason. I love the DNS platform but until I heard the DomainSherpa Discussion yesterday I didn’t even know about the feature that is causing the […]

  31. Brad Mugford says:

    I just watched the update and don’t think it really did much to address this issue.

    From the interview it seems like no one is to blame according to Joe.
    He also did the classic fall back on the TOS corporate defense.

    The issue is clearly between the registrar and registry. The registrant had absolutely no role in this error yet they are left holding the bag.

    Perception is reality. It does not even matter what is says in the TOS, even if there is legal protection to take this action. Frankly falling back on the TOS defense is just lame. With an action like this it is going to damage your credibility among current and potential future customers.

    Joe also seems to take issue with Rick calling this extortion.

    What should it be called when you are contacted 30+ days after you legitimately purchase an item, and then are given 24 hours to pay an additional fee or the item will be seized?

    This type of behavior and defense of it will only discredit the entire new gTLD process.

    Also, Joe seems to think a refund of the purchase price is acceptable, which it is not.
    Do you not realize that some customers could have far more cost into this? It is not just about potential future gains.

    Is 101Domain prepared to compensate customers that already started development for the additional costs that they might have incurred?

    Brad

    • Thanks for your thoughts and for commenting, Brad.

      I thought about asking the last question of yours (“compensate customers that already started development”) but I decided it’s a hypothetical and unless one of the customers comes forward with proof of expenditures then it’s a moot point for 101domain to consider in my opinion.

    • Steve says:

      I find it strange that Joe doesn’t appear to comprehend that by saying that the names in question are worth more than people paid for them it is no longer “speculation” to suggest that the names might be worth more in future – 101 are telling customers the MINIMUM they are worth NOW!

      Whilst it’s admirable Joe has come forward, he should have been much better briefed and needs to get his head around why 101 would be “taking money out of peoples pockets”. 101 are currently telling people how much money they have in their pockets (which in many cases will be confirming a customer’s expectations) before they try and pick them.

  32. Great show as always.

    On the issue of YouPay.com, sales price versus Estibot, it is my opinion that Estibot’s $1700 appraisal is much more reasonable than the actual sale price of $200,000

    I disagree with all Sherpas on this one.

    When Berkens stated that he received an offer for $100,000 n YouPay.com and refused it, to me that is very, very unreasonable, I don’t care how it later turned out, unreasonableness is episodic; at the phase where he rejected that offer, for such a name, he was being unreasonable. He eventually got lucky for the outcome he got. That’s my opinion. BUT I still give him credit for constantly achieving incredible results in many spheres in domaining, both in purchasing, and selling.

    • I respectfully disagree. The long term revenue by a name such as YouPay.com is “exponential” depending on the use.

      There is a company called Amscott here, a check cashing store. They spent a fortune on advertising and now the lines for cashing checks and making payments, money orders… they are ruling the market because they have made us equate a word that means nothing to money services.

      A name like YouPay.com, because of the actually name meaning something, would take far less than the aforementioned company. And, it rolls off the tongue better. ;)

      IMO

      All the best Domainclature!

      • It sure does roll of the tongue, BUT more like a threat! Like something you’d see in a n expensive China-ware shop:

        IF You break these plates, YOUPAY!

        I can see Youearn.com, but pay? Naaaa

        Look at Paypal, they used “pay” the negative threat, with a much more friendly “Pal”, coming out with a nonthreatening Berkens-like ‘You Pay or You’re Gonna Get it’ type of name.

        Now, all that aside, what’s with rejecting 100 Grand for it?
        You disagree with me on that too? I love it when you pick and choose what part to respond to. ;-)

        • Naaaa… The term is You break it, you bought it.

          And besides you can market it with a smiley face or a lizard. :)

          In regards to the $100k offer….

          Two thoughts…

          1. If I had Mike’s money, time and experience… First thing I would think is, “these guys have money to play with let’s see how much..: And it paid off.

          What if he did counter at $750k or $1M. They may have come back at $400k. When you have resources to pay the bills, no need to panic and sell without making the attempt at top dollar.

          It seems these guys WANT that name and have a GAME PLAN they feel will payoff. A domain is worth what it sells for, for the seller.

          2. My broke ass would most likely have said “SOLD!!!” or counter with $200l and cross every crossable bone in my body and take their second offer. ;)

          How’d I do?

          • You’re right, that Berkens is an assuming Rascal. His manner of speech, and demeanor doesn’t give him away like somebody who can pull such a stunt. Besides, it’s unnecessary. Why make the determination of who has money to play? Sell the goddamn domain at fair price; the 100 Grand offer shows that they had money to play. It is stupid to go beyond that point, however successful.

            Hey Advertisement Domains, have a nice weekend!

            • Hey DC, (working on the good weekend thing)

              When you’re dealing with the declining values of currencies, and keeping in mind some of these “end users” who purchase such names play with MILLIONS of dollars all of it tax deductible to piss away.

              Those are the guys, that in any other situation may be the same bankers that foreclosed on your home, just in a new venture.

              Once you attain a certain plateau financially, $100k might as well be $1k or $10k.

              I am more than sure if the client were “mom and pop”, Mike would have possibly accepted less if he felt the name was cluttering up his portfolio.

              But it’s a bit more than that. You really have to consider the simplicity of the name and the LONG TERM potential in the right hands.

              In a year you may be signed up for YouPay.com because they had enough money to out do PayPal etc. (anything can happen)

              I don’t feel sorry for those guys.

              I feel sorry for me… all this wonderful insight and yet… :)

              Have a great weekend as well!

              • Hello Advertisement Domains,

                A silvery thread of water cut through the forest.

                I have determined to point out something that is common in a lot of your comments, whether wittingly, or unwittingly, you portray Buyers as a distinct and constant entity from Sellers in the domain market; I think it’s an error none-the-less.

                We are Buyers, and sometimes Sellers. Sellers are sometimes Buyers; Berkens is a Buyer sometimes, and Seller sometimes.

                Therefore, we must be advocates equitably, not altruistically, but even for self interests.

                So, there is a common thread running through all the comments you’ve uttered so far, and that is that Buyers and Sellers are mutually exclusive, I’m pointing out that the contrary is the case. So, let’s adjust accordingly.

                • Hey Domainclature

                  I respectfully must disagree. As a person who invested into 700+ domains, I believe that would qualify me as a “buyer”.

                  The fact that I have “my” methods or train of thought as to how, where and how much I pay is in itself the actions of a buyer.

                  I think the fact that I believe if someone can “afford” a domain, and are “willing to pay” for the domain as an “end user”. Then as a seller, the better the price, the sweeter the deal.

                  And there are different tiers of buyers. Guys like you and me to hedge funds that purchase millions behind the curtain.

                  That being said, I can appreciate where you are coming from.

                  700+ x $10= A lot of money a year. Some may see my names and say “what???”. Chances are it would be a brandable and once the thought behind it revealed, perhaps an “ah ha” moment. Others, self explanatory.

                  To date no sales, but all .COM and I feel comfortable if I hang on 1 more year… hopefully some profits and or the ability to maintain reg fees. The new .gtlds may not fair so well for the masses. People still want .com.

                  I have reached out to a few for help, had something show promise, but you know, sometimes I speak unfiltered and folks don’t quite get me. They may say they do, but actions speak louder than words.

                  Much Respect Domainclature.

                  p,s,

                  I am not greedy. Feel free to include my portfolio in your business dealings. I will offer up to 20% percent of anything you bring in. Joint Ventures preferred, leases are great and sales depends on the offer.

                  ;)

                  • Sorry Domainclature…

                    I ranted so much about buying… I am not a seller yet, no one has made offers. But when I do, I will try my best to get top dollar from the purchaser.

                    If it’s not an end user ala investors big or small like us, I will weigh out the long term and or short term benefits of the sale. I can’t say what the future holds.

                    Have a great one!!! :)

                    • I hear ya. Not much to disagree with there, and three points to emphasize:

                      1. Your comment was neither long, nor a rant;
                      2. I understand you perfectly.
                      3. One must keep hope alive. Money is fungible, principles ain’t.

                      I will take a look at your site.

                      Question: You have a writing style similar to a handle “OnTheInterweb”, are you familiar with that guy?

  33. Interesting program as always – sad to hear about leads being redirected to generate sales of competing domains at DNS. That practice should be discontinued at least while negotiations are active – six months later OK. But sending out messages to a potential lead in the name of the potential seller – inexcusable and would have very serious ramifications outside the domain sector.

  34. Adam made me laugh so much with his “Toby Clements is on the lamb” …lol :)
    I didn’t get any answer from him so far, maybe he flew to some exotic location … :)) …
    On a different note, I’m kinda disappointed for what happened to Adam with DNS, and all the negotiation and signature thing, that’s totally unethical and unacceptable …
    Sorry Frank, but things like these have a tangible impact on your consistency and business credibility …
    Totally agree with Rick about the 101domain thing, that’s plain and simple legalized (…) extortion …
    As always, great insights and contributions from Adam, Mike (congrats for your 200k sales!, and you gave me some ideas), Page and Rick! and kudos to Michael, impeccable host!

  35. John Gleeson says:

    Now that YouPay.com has been sold for 6 digits, what would the panel pay today for UePay.com, if they were to buy, hold and wait for a sale to happen? Really enjoy the show, thanks Michael

  36. albert says:

    Sorry Mike, I posted this on Mike’s blog, but I think it is worth repeating. Of course, it’s your blog, so if you want to remove it, I understand:

    WOW!!!
    I just went to a meet-up hosted by Uregistry, Donuts and Minds & Machines in Santa Monica.
    This was discussed and basically they said that they would not do something like this.
    At least, that was the feel that they were trying to give.
    I’ll be honest and say that most of the domainers that I talked to did not trust a lot of what was said.
    Now here is a perfect example.
    By the way, let’s say they back off the demand of the higher pricing.
    Okay, once the domain goes to get renewed next year, what happens then.
    Or, if your are doing great in the domain using THEIR T.L.D., in five, ten, or twency years, what happens then???

    1and1 really screwed up by demanding this money at a time when they and everyone else are trying to establish credibility into this space.

    What an incredicdible P.R. move.
    .Com’s is the only way to go so far.

    • To clarify, it was 101domain.com not 1and1.com.

      Joe Alagna from 101domain.com is going to do a follow-up interview later today with me that I hope to post to this page immediately.

      Every story has two sides; Joe will be able to share their side of the story.

    • Jay Mohanraj says:

      Well said. Reminds me of what my neighbour said when I was changing my roof – “Hire an experienced roofer not one who gets his experience on your roof”. I understand everyone learns by their mistakes but bottom line is don’t pass on the learning cost on to the domainer !!

  37. Paul Goulart says:

    Thank you Mike and MY Sherpa’s for another truthful discussion/education on
    our chosen industry.

    You all have a relationship with Frank Shilling from Domain Name Sale but I
    don’t and after this latest crapola with Adam and last weeks BS, I, for one, will
    never do business with DNS, now or in the future. Can not believe they signed
    your name…Incredible!! You only get one shot with the ‘Trust Factor’.

    Best show on the net and getting better. Many thanks again.

  38. Jay Mohanraj says:

    Great interviews once again. On the issue concerning Adam’s domain that DNS tried to promote an alternate domain while in the midst of a negotiation is outright criminal action as far as I am concerned. Frank has been in the industry for long and he should have known this is not ethical and should have exercised better judgement. Not come up with something and hope the user will forget to uncheck so DNS can make some extra money. If this can happen to Adam , imagine what small fries like us can do.
    Thanks for sharing this Adam.

    • Adam Dicker says:

      To be fair, I dismissed the offer because we were off in price, when I went back to drop a bit I saw the email that was sent using my name. That’s what pissed me off as I didn’t send it… and she responded nicely because we built a report and she thought it was me. It was not me.

      • Jay Mohanraj says:

        Adam, using your name without your knowledge was the terrible thing. Estibot lists similar names that are sold or available when a valuation search is made. This is perfectly all right with me, but to send an email with your name , a definite NO.

      • Adam,

        Thanks for your comments. I think there is some confusion here, and this is being taken out of context.

        In the DomainNameSales system we implemented an option when a seller on our platform dismisses a lead it would send an email template to the buyer offering them an alternative. When an in-house Broker or a Self Broker uses our platform when “Dismissing” a lead it is in essence saying there is no chance of a sale. There will be no follow up, we will not make any calls, or send any communication to that buyer.

        Myself, and tech have checked your account. No one broke into your account, no one from DomainNameSales sent an email. It was triggered by you choosing dismiss, then the email was populated in front of you like any other template, then you scrolled to the bottom, chose OK (send)…

        The message on there is very clear, and again it shows the template to our users before it is sent.

        This is the message that is made very clear to you, our customer, before you choose send:

        “Mark the inquiry as having no hope of sale. Do not use for junk inquiries, but for cases where the buyer and seller will never arrive at a price. We recommend sending the buyer your Uniregistry Affiliate Plus link (included by default).
        You will earn a commission when they register alternate names after clicking through.”

        You could have opted out of this email as the default was opted in at the time. We have now made the default opted out so what you think of us stealing a lead never happens again. By all means we have no interest in disrupting our customers negotiations!

        Any customer of ours will see this by choosing “dismiss” in their own leads on our platform. I am providing pictures of this to Michael Cyger for him to see as well.

        Adam, you are a valuable customer of ours, a pillar in the domain industry, and we appreciate your business. I surely hope that you do not think this is how we do business. If you still do I would like to do my best to rectify this situation, learn from it and go forward. Your comments made us aware of what we needed to change, and we made the adjustment.

        Great show btw!

        If anyone else has questions I am happy to talk.

        Jeffrey M. Gabriel
        Vice President of Sales | DomainNameSales.com
        O: 1-800-818-1828 x 6261
        D: 1-345-623-6261
        S: JeffreyMGabriel

        • Adam Dicker says:

          Jeff,

          I value DNS as well, but was not happy that this was set at default and was unhappy the email was sent form me.

          Glad it’s not the default setting anymore, thank you for responding to concerns.

        • Jay Mohanraj says:

          Jeff,

          Thanks for the detailed response. As Michael mentioned there is always two sides to the story. My apologies for being judgemental too early.

          Cheers,

          Jay Mohanraj

  39. […] chatted about this on the DomainSherpa.com show yesterday and we all agreed that the registrar not the customer should eat their […]

  40. Luke says:

    Thanks for another great show.

    Crazy stuff from domainnamesales.com. I had been considering DNS for some of my portfolio, but there’s no way I would work with them now. Completely inappropriate behaviour in my opinion.

  41. Ty says:

    Kudos to you’all for doing this show.

    It’s not easy to talk about what your friends are doing at other companies, and I get that. But I swear, the value you provide to regular domain name investors is phenomenal.

    By discussing issues like this, you’re opening our eyes to a whole new world of issues we likely weren’t even aware of but could be being taken advantage of.

    Keep up the great work, Sherpas. We all owe you a debt of gratitude.

  42. Jay says:

    Great Show Mike. What do you think about Isracoin? Thanks

  43. Noor Manji says:

    Excellent discussion, thank you Michael for arranging this. Quick question, do you recommend holding on to .mobi names, I have some names like outfits.mobi, singlemalt.mobi, brewery.mobi and rhymes.mobi. Rick mentioned renewing a .mobi name but did not get into more details about it. Would appreciate any feedback.

    Thanks.

  44. Nice interview! Some nice information to grab from it. Thanks everyone for your time and sharing knowledge.

    Great sale of YouPay.com for $200,000

  45. Brad Mugford says:

    Let me start by saying that was a great video. I would like to thank Michael and the sherpas (Rick, Adam, Page, Mike).

    My post is regarding – “DomainNameSales.com adds a feature to make you money, but are they stepping over their rights as a service provider in doing so?” at 39:55

    Elliot made a blog post regarding this activity on 4/15. At the time he assumed it was an opt-in.

    After hearing what Adam said it is clear that DNS has poached leads that were generated by domain owners who use the platform. Without an opt-in they pitched their own lower priced product to these leads. That is just wrong on so many levels.

    I would be extremely concerned about a venue that thinks they own the leads that my domains generate to do with as they please.

    In Adam’s case they also signed his name without his permission. Obviously Adam’s case was not isolated. Using someone’s name without permission is a major issue.

    This whole thing reeks of desperation.

    Is the upside of a handful of new gTLD registrations worth the downside of losing credibility?

    Brad

Domaining magazine site recommended by Domaining.com
Copyright © 2010-2014 DomainSherpa. All rights reserved. Reproduction without explicit permission is prohibited.
About  |  Affiliate Links  |  Privacy  |  Terms  |  Contact Us
x
Want All The Secrets?

Subscribe to our newsletter and we'll share them with you. It's free; unsubscribe anytime.