So, every day I get emails from both SnapNames and Pool trying to get me interested in their auctions or their drops. I actually like the formatting and messaging of Pool’s email quite a bit more than the SnapNames one. However, I am definitely bothered by many of the names that Pool chooses to feature in its email to me.
Here’s a sample from the last two weeks:
edmontonoilerscountry.com
coccast.net
cartoonnetwokgames.com
disneychenal.com
nordictrac.com
guitarhero2.com
mictosoft.com
dineycannel.com
daysinns.us
googlefoto.com
In contrast, I can’t remember ever seeing a questionable domain name in an email from SnapNames.
Now, I am cognizant of a the following facts:
1) The definitions of “typosquatting” (and “cybersquatting”) are legally murky.
2) It would be an impossible job to seperate the few “offending” names from the large number of “non-offending” names at the time of the drop.
3) It might also even be unreasonable to have Pool try to police and judge all the sales that take place on its platform.
But, keeping questionable domain names out of their daily emails should be pretty simple and definitely should be an industry “best practice”.
Many folks see “Domaining” as the same thing as “Cybersquatting”. The Domain Industry is fighting a fierce battle for its legitimacy and the Pool.com emails are terrific ammunition for other side. Pool has plenty of quality domains in its “pool” that it can feature without using the sort of names that I gave as examples. Such an act would be great public relations for the Domain Industry.
Todd Mintz knows PPC…knows Social Media…knows SEO…knows Blogging…knows Domaining…and knows them all real well. He runs growth marketing for )and is also a Director & Founding Member of SEMpdx: Portland, Oregon’s Search Engine Marketing Association, and he can be found here on Twitter and Facebook.
Hey Todd (Frank by cc),
You raise an interesting question about domain availability alert lists. Our systems are geared to the specific requests of our customers. We don’t make any value judgments about domains nor do we assess the potential for typosquatting. That is a matter for our customers to decide. As you point out in your blog, it would be a difficult filter to implement in the drop itself but you should understand that Pool.com focuses our acquisition engines on domains that have been back-ordered by customers.
You rightly point out that the definitions of ““typosquatting” (and “cybersquatting”) are legally murky.” More importantly, it is very possible that similar intellectual property is in fact shared by multiple people in which case it is up to the UDRP process to arbitrate who has the more qualified claim. I am reminded of the famous case where Microsoft sued a young Canadian teen whose full name was “confusingly similar” (Mike Rowesoft) to their trademark. I’m sure many such cases exist particularly when you consider the community that the internet now serves. I could also site a number of examples of some of our compatriots in the business of hosting PPC sites who rarely disallow domains to be hosted as suspected typosquatting properties unless they get a specific complaint from a rights holder.
In the past, we have investigated the possibility of filtering specific domain strings as a service to rights holders to prevent domains from re-entering the market. But few, if any, are willing to commit financial resources to the process. And again, occasionally there are domain purchasers that are very willing to defend their claim to a domain that others may assert as being “typosquatting.” Ultimately, it really is the choice of customers.
By the way, thanks also for the positive remarks about the format of our emails; we welcome your ongoing comments and suggestions. As a minimum you’ll see a small change in our emails reflecting Frank’s suggestion.
Richard Schreier
CEO, Pool.com
Richard, thanks for your most prompt and courteous response. Too many “anti-domaining” folks are looking for examples that they can use to prove that domaining is a shady industry and I was concerned that your emails made it too easy for those folks to assert their claims.
I know it is very difficult to police such a vast “pool” and I’m not suggesting it is necessarily worthwhile or even your business to do so…just that we all must view our public-facing communications from the eyes of the other side and do our best not to give them ammunition they can use against us.