Going offline to promote your city web site.

A couple months ago I sat at a cafe for lunch in Lakeway, Texas. Alone with nothing but myself and a sandwich, I grabbed a couple newsletters off the newsstand. You may have seen similar newsletters before; they’re front and back, filled with mostly useless content and lots of ads.

But I was a captive audience with nothing else to read. So I read the newsletter. Then it hit me: why not create a local newsletter, branded with my Lakeway.com web site and good quality content, and distribute it to local businesses? It would help promote the brand, allow me to sell print advertising to companies that don’t yet understand the internet, and give me the chance to meet local businesses by asking to place the newsletter in their store.

The idea worked. But fumbling through the process was time consuming. So, rather than you spending time figuring out how to produce a print newsletter, getting good content, and getting it printed, I’m going to give you the step-by-step process right here. (You’re welcome).

1. Get a desktop publishing program. I spent a lot of time looking for a program with a quick learning curve and without feature overload. After trying a couple programs, I came upon Serif’s PagePlus X4. It’s cheap, very easy to learn, and comes with lots of pre-made templates. Seriously, don’t waste your time trying out other programs unless you are a desktop publishing pro. And feel free to use my link

2. Get someone to write content for you. I asked a local library, which already adds its events to Lakeway.com, to write an article about its book clubs and other programming. Additionally, I did some work myself. I wrote an article on the top things to do in Lakeway with kids when it’s cold outside, and created a list of local businesses using Twitter.

3. After creating the newsletter, get it printed. This is really your only cost in this endeavor. If you print tabloid size front and back newsletters on ivory paper, it’s going to set you back about 40-45 cents per copy at Fedex Kinkos. Instead, use BestValueCopy.com, which will print and fold them for less than 15 cents each.

4. Distribute them. This is a time consuming process, but also a great way to get in front of local businesses. Instead of walking in the door with something to sell, you simply say, “I’m with city.com, and was wondering if I could leave our latest newsletter for your customers”. Out of 50+ businesses I’ve visited so far, not a single one has rejected me. Many have made room on their checkout counter for the newsletter. I was sure to point out to them if they were included in the newsletter some way, such as being listed in the Twitter article. My daughter’s Montessori school offered to distribute them in parent folders. I also left a flyer for the business owner about adding themselves to Lakeway.com. I wasn’t pushy, but mentioned that they should at least take me up on the free listing I offer. Of course, I’d like them to upgrade to a paid listing, too. You can also pay someone to distribute the flyers for you, or have a commissioned salesperson do it.

By the way, here’s a copy of the inaugural Lakeway.com Print Edition (pdf).

Dell scores victories in domain disputes.

Computer and technology services company Dell has received an early Christmas present, winning seven domain name arbitration cases in the span of just one week.

For the Dell brand, the company won five cases covering 8 domain names. One is an obvious typo, wwdell.com. The company also won a case for four gaming related domain names: DellConsole.com, DellGaming.com, DellVideoGaming.com, and DellVideoGames.com. Other domains picked up through arbitration include DellNotebook.com, DellStudent.com, and DellCareers.com.

The company also won two domain names related to its Alienware brand of high performance computers: Alianware.com and AlienLaptops.com.

Although Dell is no stranger to the UDRP process, this sudden spurt of cases filed in October is somewhat of an anomaly. It appears to have only filed two other cases this year. One was for MessagOne.com, a typo for MessageOne, a company Dell acquired. The other case was for two more Alienware domains, AlienWard.com and AlienWari.com.

According to a search at UDRPsearch.com, Dell has never lost a UDRP case.

What happens when an amateur shows up to a domain meetup.

I came across a blog post today by a self-proclaimed “amateur” domainer who attended the South Florida Domainers event last week. It’s an interesting read because the author, Craig Agranoff, showed up to the event thinking he’d be surrounded by prolific domainers. Instead, he claims, the majority of them were amateurs like himself. In his own words:

I’ve dabbled in domain trading and development before and have made some money doing it, but have always thought of myself as just a dabbler, an amateur. Turns out, I’ve done more of it than most of the “experts” in attendance. A lot of them were there, I think, to try to siphon information from the successful domainers.

Even the examples Agranoff gives of the top sales by people that he at first labels as “some of the pretty well-known and prolific domainers in the world” are not substantial.

Agranoff also writes that he was surprised by how much legal wrangling goes on in the background of the industry:

It’s amazing how many things there are surrounding the domain business as well. Lawyers, mostly, but they are the back-end that most people don’t see. They cut deals, smooth out the legalities, and work on people’s behalf to defend against or prosecute theft of trademarks or copyrights. With them are the paralegals and support staff. All focused on the domain name industry.

It’s worth a read to get an outsiders take on meeting a group of domainers for the first time.

Domain name arbitrator asks good questions about Expedited UDRP.

The Hon. Neil Brown, a UDRP domain name arbitrator, has submitted comments to ICANN regarding Czech Arbitration Court’s plans for expedited UDRPs. He actually phrases them as rhetorical questions, but they certainly raise a number of issues. They’re worth reading in their entirety, but here’s a summary:

Can the Expedited Decision proposal be implemented by amendments to the Supplemental Rules of the Czech Arbitration Court?

It’s a good question. After all, as Brown explains, the Supplemental Rules are supposed to cover “such topics as fees, word and page limits and guidelines…communicating …and the form of cover sheets.”

Although CAC’s proposal may fit that description by the letter of the law, it certainly doesn’t meet the spirit of the law.

Is the Expedited Decision proposal outside the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“the UDRP”) itself. In other words, if the Expedited Decision proposal could be implemented by supplemental rules, would that be the end of the matter or would it be contrary to the Policy itself?

Brown suggests that the Expedited Decision procedure is different from the UDRP rules. Since domain registrants agree to be subject to the UDRP rules at the time of registration, would they actually be subject to a different set of rules now?

Is the proposal outside the ICANN Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“the Rules”)?

UDRP requires decisions to be based on “reasons”, and for those reasons to be laid out in “the full text of the decision”. CAC’s proposal basically involves a form with check boxes. Brown questions:

Could it be said that the Expedited Decision proposal does not provide for any of these elements? The proposal is that the expedited decision “shall” be in the prescribed form and the prescribed form is therefore an essential part of the process. It might be said that, by implication, the decision is therefore not to be a reasoned decision in the form of building on the evidence and coming to a conclusion on what it all means and why.

It could also be said that the form does not provide for reasons to be given because it provides for boxes to be ticked rather than reasons to be given.

Where’s Reverse Domain Name Hijacking?

Brown questions why CAC’s form doesn’t have a box to check when the complainant commits reverse domain name hijacking. As Brown has pointed out before, a respondent doesn’t need to ask for RDNH in order for the panel to consider it. In fact, the panel has a responsibility to consider it.

Can the Rules be amended to accommodate the Expedited Decision proposal of the Czech Arbitration Court?

It’s possible that ICANN can amend the rules for an expedited UDRP (as compared to changing supplemental rules). But this begs another question: if you registered a domain before the new rules came into effect, should you be subject to the new rules?

The deadline to submit comments on CAC’s proposal is tomorrow.

No contract exists with UDRP providers.

With two UDRP arbitration providers trying to change up the rules, attorney Jim Davies tried to get his hands on the contract between ICANN and its approved UDRP providers. He hit a stumbling block: there is none.

You can see the details of his request for the contract in his public comments (submitted as an individual, not on behalf of his firm or clients) on ICANN’s web site. But it’s worth reprinting them here.

I was very surprised to learn that there is no contract between ICANN
and the accredited UDRP providers. Given the importance of the UDRP to
all domain registrants, who are contractually bound to accept its terms
when they register a domain, there really must be a contract put in
place with the accredited providers as a matter of the utmost urgency.
Without it, it is not clear what control (if any) ICANN can apply on the
accredited providers to ensure that (as a minimum) they comply with the
UDRP Policy and Rules.

Whilst ICANN goes through due process in preparing a draft contract and
reaching consensus within the community on its content, it should make
clear to the providers that there can be no further amendment to their
Supplemental Rules. I would also suggest that any contract needs to
provide for a review of the providers’ existing Supplementary Rules; and
also an independent audit of the processes already followed by providers
when handling UDRP cases.

I think that if ICANN follows any other path, it will be badly failing
the millions of registrants who are bound to the UDRP as part of their
registration agreement. The UDRP is an important process that impacts
on many parties, with over 30,000 decided cases already. To maintain
the UDRP’s legitimacy, the relationship with the accredited providers
must be put on a proper contractual footing and it must be brought under
the control of ICANN.

The deadline to submit your own comments on Czech Arbitration Court’s plans is tomorrow. You can see my brief comments here.