<?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: Ping Golf Loses Ping.me Domain Name Arbitration</title>
	<atom:link href="http://domainnamewire.com/2009/01/08/ping-golf-loses-pingme-domain-name-arbitration/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://domainnamewire.com/2009/01/08/ping-golf-loses-pingme-domain-name-arbitration/</link>
	<description>News and Views for the Domain Name Industry</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Feb 2012 04:15:57 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andrew Allemann</title>
		<link>http://domainnamewire.com/2009/01/08/ping-golf-loses-pingme-domain-name-arbitration/comment-page-1/#comment-311413</link>
		<dc:creator>Andrew Allemann</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Jan 2009 02:02:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://domainnamewire.com/?p=3891#comment-311413</guid>
		<description>@ Michael - nice...didn&#039;t realize you owned that one!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@ Michael &#8211; nice&#8230;didn&#8217;t realize you owned that one!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andrew Allemann</title>
		<link>http://domainnamewire.com/2009/01/08/ping-golf-loses-pingme-domain-name-arbitration/comment-page-1/#comment-311412</link>
		<dc:creator>Andrew Allemann</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Jan 2009 02:01:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://domainnamewire.com/?p=3891#comment-311412</guid>
		<description>@ Chris - a UDRP filing counts as a &quot;court order&quot; and requires the privacy service to provide the name of the real owner.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@ Chris &#8211; a UDRP filing counts as a &#8220;court order&#8221; and requires the privacy service to provide the name of the real owner.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michael Castello</title>
		<link>http://domainnamewire.com/2009/01/08/ping-golf-loses-pingme-domain-name-arbitration/comment-page-1/#comment-311359</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael Castello</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Jan 2009 00:12:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://domainnamewire.com/?p=3891#comment-311359</guid>
		<description>Ping use to own GolfClub.com and let the expire in 1997. We use to get Tiger@GolfClub.com email because that was Tiger&#039;s email back then. At least they own Ping.com</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ping use to own GolfClub.com and let the expire in 1997. We use to get <a href="mailto:Tiger@GolfClub.com">Tiger@GolfClub.com</a> email because that was Tiger&#8217;s email back then. At least they own Ping.com</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chris Nielsen</title>
		<link>http://domainnamewire.com/2009/01/08/ping-golf-loses-pingme-domain-name-arbitration/comment-page-1/#comment-311347</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris Nielsen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Jan 2009 23:49:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://domainnamewire.com/?p=3891#comment-311347</guid>
		<description>Andrew: So how did that work? I&#039;m guessing Ping got a court order to find out who the owner of the domain really was? So if you put Elmer Fudd as the registrant do they go after the admin contact?

I use whois privacy somewhat, if it&#039;s free. But in generally it&#039;s something I&#039;d like to see go away. Sure it protects us a little from things like SPAM, but more often it lets people make it more difficult to go after spammers or others that are up to no good.

One thing that I REALLY dislike about this kind of story is that I doubt that Ping tried to contact Pingify to start with and have a conversation. Oh, that&#039;s right, they had whois privacy. Well there is normally still an email address that should work for the domain owner. Too often people don&#039;t talk to domain owners and let the lawyers come out with all guns blazing. Yeah, that might work on small players like me, but a professional discussion would also work better than many realize and cost a lot less time, money, and take less of a toll in stress. I HATE getting those registered emails that I have to sign for. My advice, talk softly and carry a large legal budget.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Andrew: So how did that work? I&#8217;m guessing Ping got a court order to find out who the owner of the domain really was? So if you put Elmer Fudd as the registrant do they go after the admin contact?</p>
<p>I use whois privacy somewhat, if it&#8217;s free. But in generally it&#8217;s something I&#8217;d like to see go away. Sure it protects us a little from things like SPAM, but more often it lets people make it more difficult to go after spammers or others that are up to no good.</p>
<p>One thing that I REALLY dislike about this kind of story is that I doubt that Ping tried to contact Pingify to start with and have a conversation. Oh, that&#8217;s right, they had whois privacy. Well there is normally still an email address that should work for the domain owner. Too often people don&#8217;t talk to domain owners and let the lawyers come out with all guns blazing. Yeah, that might work on small players like me, but a professional discussion would also work better than many realize and cost a lot less time, money, and take less of a toll in stress. I HATE getting those registered emails that I have to sign for. My advice, talk softly and carry a large legal budget.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: A</title>
		<link>http://domainnamewire.com/2009/01/08/ping-golf-loses-pingme-domain-name-arbitration/comment-page-1/#comment-311294</link>
		<dc:creator>A</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Jan 2009 22:19:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://domainnamewire.com/?p=3891#comment-311294</guid>
		<description>Shopping.com the next to go?!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Shopping.com the next to go?!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andrew Allemann</title>
		<link>http://domainnamewire.com/2009/01/08/ping-golf-loses-pingme-domain-name-arbitration/comment-page-1/#comment-311289</link>
		<dc:creator>Andrew Allemann</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Jan 2009 22:11:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://domainnamewire.com/?p=3891#comment-311289</guid>
		<description>@ Chris - one thing I didn&#039;t mention in the article is that Ping.me was protected by DomainsbyProxy.  Ping Golf tried to get DomainsByProxy to remain the respondent rather than Pingify.  I guess their motivation was because DomainsByProxy wouldn&#039;t really respond, but I found it interesting that they insisted.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@ Chris &#8211; one thing I didn&#8217;t mention in the article is that Ping.me was protected by DomainsbyProxy.  Ping Golf tried to get DomainsByProxy to remain the respondent rather than Pingify.  I guess their motivation was because DomainsByProxy wouldn&#8217;t really respond, but I found it interesting that they insisted.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David J Castello</title>
		<link>http://domainnamewire.com/2009/01/08/ping-golf-loses-pingme-domain-name-arbitration/comment-page-1/#comment-311281</link>
		<dc:creator>David J Castello</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Jan 2009 21:57:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://domainnamewire.com/?p=3891#comment-311281</guid>
		<description>Another nail in the coffin for parking domains. Parking is quickly turning into the Achilles Heel of domain onwership. Now all we need is for ICANN to impose a &quot;Use It Or Lose It&quot; clause if they get held up too long from launching the vanity TLDs.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Another nail in the coffin for parking domains. Parking is quickly turning into the Achilles Heel of domain onwership. Now all we need is for ICANN to impose a &#8220;Use It Or Lose It&#8221; clause if they get held up too long from launching the vanity TLDs.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

