<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Tucows holding back expired 4 letter .com&#8217;s</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.dotweekly.com/tucows-holding-back-expired-4-letter-coms/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.dotweekly.com/tucows-holding-back-expired-4-letter-coms/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 12 Feb 2012 21:29:56 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
<xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" />
	<item>
		<title>By: My Take On Web.com’s Network Solutions Purchase &#124; Domain Industry News</title>
		<link>http://www.dotweekly.com/tucows-holding-back-expired-4-letter-coms/#comment-16615</link>
		<dc:creator>My Take On Web.com’s Network Solutions Purchase &#124; Domain Industry News</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Aug 2011 15:59:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dotweekly.com/?p=222#comment-16615</guid>
		<description>[...] end of the article). Tucows does it (and admitted it here on DotWeekly twice, Bill Sweetman comment &#8220;some of the names are retained by Tucows for our own portfolio&#8221; 3rd comment) or Ken Schafer admitting to warehousing on this comment (#1) again. They have built a [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] end of the article). Tucows does it (and admitted it here on DotWeekly twice, Bill Sweetman comment &#8220;some of the names are retained by Tucows for our own portfolio&#8221; 3rd comment) or Ken Schafer admitting to warehousing on this comment (#1) again. They have built a [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: My letter to ICANN on Registrar Warehousing Domain Names : Dot Weekly</title>
		<link>http://www.dotweekly.com/tucows-holding-back-expired-4-letter-coms/#comment-1442</link>
		<dc:creator>My letter to ICANN on Registrar Warehousing Domain Names : Dot Weekly</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 12 Jul 2008 20:17:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dotweekly.com/?p=222#comment-1442</guid>
		<description>[...] names are retained by Tucows for our own portfolio&quot; referring to expired domain names. Source: http://www.dotweekly.com/2008/04/16/tucows-holding-back-expired-4-letter-coms/#more-222&#160;Comment # 3. &#160; Ken&#160;Schafer says (Vice President, Marketing and Product Management at [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] names are retained by Tucows for our own portfolio&quot; referring to expired domain names. Source: <a href="http://www.dotweekly.com/2008/04/16/tucows-holding-back-expired-4-letter-coms/#more-222&nbsp;Comment" rel="nofollow">http://www.dotweekly.com/2008/04/16/tucows-holding-back-expired-4-letter-coms/#more-222&nbsp;Comment</a> # 3. &nbsp; Ken&nbsp;Schafer says (Vice President, Marketing and Product Management at [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: qwerty</title>
		<link>http://www.dotweekly.com/tucows-holding-back-expired-4-letter-coms/#comment-1353</link>
		<dc:creator>qwerty</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Jun 2008 12:08:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dotweekly.com/?p=222#comment-1353</guid>
		<description>I honestly see a class action lawsuit brewing. Auctions pulled after being won. Domain not being released. Various renewal periods based on the desirability of the domain etc etc. Then moving on to the auction process. Names dropped into a auction pool instead of to everyone as ICANN rules state. 

This is all just begging for a class action lawsuit.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I honestly see a class action lawsuit brewing. Auctions pulled after being won. Domain not being released. Various renewal periods based on the desirability of the domain etc etc. Then moving on to the auction process. Names dropped into a auction pool instead of to everyone as ICANN rules state. </p>
<p>This is all just begging for a class action lawsuit.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: When Is A Drop, Not A Drop? &#124; Domainer Income News</title>
		<link>http://www.dotweekly.com/tucows-holding-back-expired-4-letter-coms/#comment-956</link>
		<dc:creator>When Is A Drop, Not A Drop? &#124; Domainer Income News</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Apr 2008 13:58:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dotweekly.com/?p=222#comment-956</guid>
		<description>[...] The General Manager of the Tucows Domain Portfolio (Bill Sweetman) allegedly said &#8220;not all of the expired names end up in the Tucows auction. Some names are renewed by the [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] The General Manager of the Tucows Domain Portfolio (Bill Sweetman) allegedly said &#8220;not all of the expired names end up in the Tucows auction. Some names are renewed by the [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David</title>
		<link>http://www.dotweekly.com/tucows-holding-back-expired-4-letter-coms/#comment-950</link>
		<dc:creator>David</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 20 Apr 2008 11:47:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dotweekly.com/?p=222#comment-950</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;Registrar shall abide by any ICANN-adopted policy prohibiting or restricting warehousing of or speculation in domain names by registrars.&lt;/blockquote&gt;

And can you find any ICANN-adopted policy prohibiting or restricting warehousing of or speculation in domain names by registrars? Has warehousing even been defined to begin with?

Registrars may have an unfair advantage over the average user in being able to register a domain name. But keep in mind that registrars are &lt;b&gt;&lt;i&gt;not&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/b&gt; required to offer domain registration services to the public to begin with.

Of course, it never stops people from feeling otherwise...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>Registrar shall abide by any ICANN-adopted policy prohibiting or restricting warehousing of or speculation in domain names by registrars.</p></blockquote>
<p>And can you find any ICANN-adopted policy prohibiting or restricting warehousing of or speculation in domain names by registrars? Has warehousing even been defined to begin with?</p>
<p>Registrars may have an unfair advantage over the average user in being able to register a domain name. But keep in mind that registrars are <b><i>not</i></b> required to offer domain registration services to the public to begin with.</p>
<p>Of course, it never stops people from feeling otherwise&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gazzip</title>
		<link>http://www.dotweekly.com/tucows-holding-back-expired-4-letter-coms/#comment-936</link>
		<dc:creator>Gazzip</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 Apr 2008 17:36:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dotweekly.com/?p=222#comment-936</guid>
		<description>Bill, so basically you are saying that it is Legal for Tucows to keep domains from going through their natural expiry process and then warehouse/monatize or sell them on for profit and its not a breach of the ICANN Registrar accreditation Agreement to which you have signed ? 

Registrar shall abide by any ICANN-adopted policy prohibiting or restricting warehousing of or speculation in domain names by registrars.

or the General obligations of Registrars ?
Dbii -  do not unreasonably restrain competition.

If its not then it sure is a conflict of interest to let Registrars act as if they own the domains to do as they please with.

Whats coming next, charge people $500 to let them renew it whilst in the redemtion period or you&#039;ll just keep it for yourself ??

Deliberetly targetting owners in order to confiscate their domains for yourself just because their whois details are not 100% spot on ??

Not sending out email renewal notices because you want to keep the names for yourself ??

Its NUTS for ICANN to allow registrars to behave in the way you are, there is clearly a very big conflict of interest and a serious tust issue and I will definetly be transferring all my names away from Tucows as soon as possible.

Bill - If you owned a pub would you leave an alcoholic in charge of it when you went on holiday ? Of course you would&#039;nt - Whats the difference ?

Its about time ICANN grew some balls and sorted this mess out.

It amazes me that even a new extension like the .eu seem to be doing something about this type of warehousing and speculating by so-called &quot;registrars&quot; and ICANN don&#039;t do anything.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/5216118.stm

.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Bill, so basically you are saying that it is Legal for Tucows to keep domains from going through their natural expiry process and then warehouse/monatize or sell them on for profit and its not a breach of the ICANN Registrar accreditation Agreement to which you have signed ? </p>
<p>Registrar shall abide by any ICANN-adopted policy prohibiting or restricting warehousing of or speculation in domain names by registrars.</p>
<p>or the General obligations of Registrars ?<br />
Dbii &#8211;  do not unreasonably restrain competition.</p>
<p>If its not then it sure is a conflict of interest to let Registrars act as if they own the domains to do as they please with.</p>
<p>Whats coming next, charge people $500 to let them renew it whilst in the redemtion period or you&#8217;ll just keep it for yourself ??</p>
<p>Deliberetly targetting owners in order to confiscate their domains for yourself just because their whois details are not 100% spot on ??</p>
<p>Not sending out email renewal notices because you want to keep the names for yourself ??</p>
<p>Its NUTS for ICANN to allow registrars to behave in the way you are, there is clearly a very big conflict of interest and a serious tust issue and I will definetly be transferring all my names away from Tucows as soon as possible.</p>
<p>Bill &#8211; If you owned a pub would you leave an alcoholic in charge of it when you went on holiday ? Of course you would&#8217;nt &#8211; Whats the difference ?</p>
<p>Its about time ICANN grew some balls and sorted this mess out.</p>
<p>It amazes me that even a new extension like the .eu seem to be doing something about this type of warehousing and speculating by so-called &#8220;registrars&#8221; and ICANN don&#8217;t do anything.</p>
<p><a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/5216118.stm" rel="nofollow">http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/5216118.stm</a></p>
<p>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bill Sweetman</title>
		<link>http://www.dotweekly.com/tucows-holding-back-expired-4-letter-coms/#comment-926</link>
		<dc:creator>Bill Sweetman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 Apr 2008 00:38:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dotweekly.com/?p=222#comment-926</guid>
		<description>Jamie, you asked me if I consider Tucows retaining some expired names for our own portfolio &quot;Stealing? Warehousing? Shady business practice?&quot;. My answer is: none of the above. Tucows is an ICANN-accredited registrar, a publicly-traded company, and one of the oldest Internet companies in the world. We not only adhere to ICANN regulations, we exceed many of them. We also have one of the longest Grace Periods in the industry, and every day the Tucows team helps original registrants reinstate their domain names. I&#039;m very proud of what we do and how we do it, and if I thought we were doing something illegal or unethical, I&#039;d be the first person walking out the door.

**Jamie Says**

Thank you for the follow up Bill. To me as an investor, I feel that registrars have an unfair advantage in the industry with being &quot;able&quot; to obtain expired domain names for just the renewal fees of the domain name with no competition. If a registrar had to pay what the normal general public does for expired domains in auction, I would then consider it fair. Until ICANN addresses this issue, registrars will simply have the pick on what they want to keep, what to auction and what to really let expire.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Jamie, you asked me if I consider Tucows retaining some expired names for our own portfolio &#8220;Stealing? Warehousing? Shady business practice?&#8221;. My answer is: none of the above. Tucows is an ICANN-accredited registrar, a publicly-traded company, and one of the oldest Internet companies in the world. We not only adhere to ICANN regulations, we exceed many of them. We also have one of the longest Grace Periods in the industry, and every day the Tucows team helps original registrants reinstate their domain names. I&#8217;m very proud of what we do and how we do it, and if I thought we were doing something illegal or unethical, I&#8217;d be the first person walking out the door.</p>
<p>**Jamie Says**</p>
<p>Thank you for the follow up Bill. To me as an investor, I feel that registrars have an unfair advantage in the industry with being &#8220;able&#8221; to obtain expired domain names for just the renewal fees of the domain name with no competition. If a registrar had to pay what the normal general public does for expired domains in auction, I would then consider it fair. Until ICANN addresses this issue, registrars will simply have the pick on what they want to keep, what to auction and what to really let expire.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gazzip</title>
		<link>http://www.dotweekly.com/tucows-holding-back-expired-4-letter-coms/#comment-917</link>
		<dc:creator>Gazzip</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Apr 2008 13:01:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dotweekly.com/?p=222#comment-917</guid>
		<description>Not that surprising yofie, they recently stated on domaintools blog that they keep what they want.

Tucows commented,

“Our strategy to acquire expiring domain names differs from that of some other large Registrars who have focused on domain name auctions. Tucows believes that there is substantial value in holding on to these domain names, both in terms of monetization through pay-per-click advertising, but also in terms of the resale or lease of high-value domains to individuals and businesses that understand the intrinsic value of a high-quality domain name.”

http://blog.domaintools.com/2008/02/tucows-portfolio/

Domainsite.com is also keeping names from what I can tell, a name I was after got renewed by them but does&#039;nt show any whois info on it.

I think they&#039;ll all be doing it soon.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Not that surprising yofie, they recently stated on domaintools blog that they keep what they want.</p>
<p>Tucows commented,</p>
<p>“Our strategy to acquire expiring domain names differs from that of some other large Registrars who have focused on domain name auctions. Tucows believes that there is substantial value in holding on to these domain names, both in terms of monetization through pay-per-click advertising, but also in terms of the resale or lease of high-value domains to individuals and businesses that understand the intrinsic value of a high-quality domain name.”</p>
<p><a href="http://blog.domaintools.com/2008/02/tucows-portfolio/" rel="nofollow">http://blog.domaintools.com/2008/02/tucows-portfolio/</a></p>
<p>Domainsite.com is also keeping names from what I can tell, a name I was after got renewed by them but does&#8217;nt show any whois info on it.</p>
<p>I think they&#8217;ll all be doing it soon.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bill Sweetman</title>
		<link>http://www.dotweekly.com/tucows-holding-back-expired-4-letter-coms/#comment-916</link>
		<dc:creator>Bill Sweetman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Apr 2008 12:58:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dotweekly.com/?p=222#comment-916</guid>
		<description>Hi Jamie,

I&#039;m the General Manager of the Tucows Domain Portfolio and also oversee the Tucows auction.

Glad to hear you&#039;re a fan of our auction.

Not all of the expired names end up in the Tucows auction. Some names are renewed by the original registrant before they reach the auction, and some of the names are retained by Tucows for our own portfolio (although we still allow the orginal registrant to reinstate the domain name if they want to). In other words, we go out of our way to protect the rights of the orginal registrant.

One final thing to keep in mind: expired names only start to show up in the Tucows auction approximately 32 days after they have expired.

Cheers,

Bill

**Jamie Says** 

Hi Bill,

Thank you for your reply. I find this line pretty interesting. And I quote &quot;some of the names are retained by Tucows for our own portfolio&quot; Do you find this as Stealing? Warehousing? Shady business practice?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Jamie,</p>
<p>I&#8217;m the General Manager of the Tucows Domain Portfolio and also oversee the Tucows auction.</p>
<p>Glad to hear you&#8217;re a fan of our auction.</p>
<p>Not all of the expired names end up in the Tucows auction. Some names are renewed by the original registrant before they reach the auction, and some of the names are retained by Tucows for our own portfolio (although we still allow the orginal registrant to reinstate the domain name if they want to). In other words, we go out of our way to protect the rights of the orginal registrant.</p>
<p>One final thing to keep in mind: expired names only start to show up in the Tucows auction approximately 32 days after they have expired.</p>
<p>Cheers,</p>
<p>Bill</p>
<p>**Jamie Says** </p>
<p>Hi Bill,</p>
<p>Thank you for your reply. I find this line pretty interesting. And I quote &#8220;some of the names are retained by Tucows for our own portfolio&#8221; Do you find this as Stealing? Warehousing? Shady business practice?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: damir</title>
		<link>http://www.dotweekly.com/tucows-holding-back-expired-4-letter-coms/#comment-915</link>
		<dc:creator>damir</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Apr 2008 12:41:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dotweekly.com/?p=222#comment-915</guid>
		<description>Interesting method of keeping domain names - to create a need and increase the $$ value of LLLL.com&#039;s</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Interesting method of keeping domain names &#8211; to create a need and increase the $$ value of LLLL.com&#8217;s</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Craig C</title>
		<link>http://www.dotweekly.com/tucows-holding-back-expired-4-letter-coms/#comment-912</link>
		<dc:creator>Craig C</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Apr 2008 20:33:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dotweekly.com/?p=222#comment-912</guid>
		<description>I&#039;d guess Tucows send names to auction when they please, rather than at the whim of the expiration cycle.  If true, wouldn&#039;t this be better as their control of an name is assured, rather than the potential a former registrant renews it at the last minute?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;d guess Tucows send names to auction when they please, rather than at the whim of the expiration cycle.  If true, wouldn&#8217;t this be better as their control of an name is assured, rather than the potential a former registrant renews it at the last minute?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

