Domain Name Wire | Domain Name News

Domain Name Industry News

Featured Domains

GoDaddy explains AR15 .com boot

by — Domain Registrars 34 Comments

Company says it asked the site to remove content that incited violence before telling it to find another domain name registrar.

Screenshot of AR15.com saying that it was deplatformed

AR15 .com says it was kicked off GoDaddy without warning. GoDaddy disputes this.

Last week, gun site and forum AR15 .com said it was “de-platformed” by GoDaddy. It claimed that GoDaddy didn’t tell it which content violated its terms, and informed it that the decision was final and it was given no way to appeal:

GoDaddy released a statement explaining that it provided a specific warning to AR15 .com, and the site did not take action to address it:

Why did GoDaddy suspend services to AR15.com?

On January 8, we received a complaint regarding certain content on AR15.com. Per our policy, our team investigated the content in question and confirmed it violated our terms of service because it incited violence. On that same day, we notified AR15.com that they had 24 hours to remove the content, or their domain name would be suspended. AR15.com responded that the content had been removed, yet when we checked to confirm, the site showed the content still live. Accordingly, we suspended services on January 11.

Although we informed AR15.com they had 24 hours to take action, we actually provided them with 53 hours to remove the content. Again, because the content was not removed, we followed our terms of service and suspended services to AR15.com.

Does GoDaddy plan to take the same action with other gun sites?

GoDaddy supports a free and open Internet. We do not take action on complaints that would constitute censorship of content that represents the exercise of freedom of speech and expression on the Internet. In instances where a site goes beyond the mere exercise of these freedoms, however, and crosses over to promoting, encouraging, or otherwise engaging in violence, as was the case with AR15.com, we will take action.

This is the same rationale the company provided when it told DailyStormer to find a new registrar in 2017 after the violence in Charlottesville. GoDaddy took a lot of heat leading up to that point. It was a bit squishy in that case — it seemed that GoDaddy suggested the content on the site could lead to violence, even if it didn’t directly call for it.

AR15 .com moved its domain name to Epik.

GoDaddy to change closeout auction pricing

by — Expired Domains 30 Comments

Dutch auction will start at higher prices to deter closeout sniping.

GoDaddy is changing its closeout auction pricing structure in a move that will upset some domain investors and make others happy.

When a domain name on GoDaddy’s expired auction platform doesn’t sell by the end date, it moves to closeouts. Closeouts follow a Dutch auction format in which the domain is $11 (plus renewal) on the first day and decreases by one dollar per day to $5. The domain proceeds to deletion if no one buys it by the final day.

As expired domain auctions have become more popular, bidders have refrained from bidding on domains with no other bids at GoDaddy Auctions and hoped to snap them up the moment they went into closeout. This resulted in a sort of closeout drop catching process similar to when drop catching services ping the registry when domains delete.

People with access to GoDaddy’s legacy API have been able to take advantage of this opportunity, but bidders without API access and computing power/development resources have been left out. Smaller domain investors, in particular, have felt disadvantaged.

The new pricing structure should give domain investors without special access a better opportunity to get domains in closeouts. The new pricing (effective February 1) will be:

Day 1: $50

Day 2: $40

Day 3: $30

Day 4: $11

Day 5: $5

It may seem counterintuitive that the closeouts start at more than the starting bid price of regular auctions, but the reality is that if you place an $11 bid on GoDaddy Auctions, you’re likely to see the price quickly soar above $50.

It will be interesting to see how this changes behavior.

This for sale lander boosted leads 47%. But how do you measure success?

by — Services 2 Comments

I’m curious how improved sales landers lead to more sales.

Picture of GoDaddy sales landers for domain names.

GoDaddy says the form on the right gets 47% more leads than the one on the left. Image courtesy GoDaddy.

GoDaddy introduced a new “for sale” lander a couple of months ago. After running an A/B test, it says that the new lander increased conversions 47%. It’s measuring conversion by how many people feel out the inquiry form.

This is a shocking number but got me thinking: how should we measure the success of domain landers?

Leads are great. In theory, the more leads at the top of the funnel, the greater your chance for sales.

But I’ve also heard domainers say that, if someone really wants to buy your domain, tweaks in messaging don’t matter that much. They type it in to see if it’s available, and even if your sales pitch is weak, they’ll fill out a contact form regardless.

As domain investors, all we care about is how changes impact sales, not leads.

There are some landing page features that I think could lead to more sales. An example is Squadhelp’s live chat feature. Chatting with someone immediately probably helps sales.

And Afternic has frequently stated that getting someone on the phone is the key to closing sales, which is why its landers are all about collecting information or giving people the option to call a phone number immediately.

Like many other domainers, I’d love to see GoDaddy test “buy now” landers for lower-priced domains. This would be easy to do using the new lander.

I’m open to any data that for sale landing page platforms can share about this. Email me.

Last month’s top domain name stories

by — Uncategorized 0 Comments

What happened in the domain industry last month.

The words "Top 5" written on a purple background

I’m a bit tardy posting the top stories from December. Let’s just say that it’s been an eventful start to the year and I’ve gotten a bit behind.

Here are the top stories on Domain Name Wire from last month, as well as links to the DNW podcasts.

1. NameSilo finds buyer as debt payments loom – A Dutch company plans to buy NameSilo with plans to combine it with a Nigerian domain business. The company disputed my characterization that the debt payments were an issue and said it was a good financial exit.

2. How Google became a strong competitor for domain names – Great search rankings on its own search engine have helped Google Domains grab market share.

3. The scariest thing about that GoDaddy phishing test story – GoDaddy got some flack for a fake bonus email. But we should also be concerned about how many employees fell for it.

4. GoDaddy to pay up to $365 million for payments company Poynt – GoDaddy is adding payments to its puzzle in a huge acquisition. It will also put the company in stores “physically” with point of sale systems.

5. Is Chehadé why ICANN’s board is reviewing Afilias deal? ICANN’s board was probably made aware of the Afilias change of control because of its former CEO’s involvement. The deal proceeded as planned.

Podcasts

#318 2021 Predictions Episode – Listen

#317 2020 in Review – Listen

#316 A Sparkly conversation with Jen Sale – Listen

#315 Acquiring a killer domain – Listen

Facebook wins GameRoom.com dispute

by — Policy & Law 2 Comments

Company that used the domain MyGameroom.com tried to get Gameroom.com through a cybersquatting dispute.

Screenshot of Facebook Gameroom

A company went after Facebook’s Gameroom.com domain name, which it forwards to a page for Facebook Gameroom.

Facebook has successfully defended a cybersquatting dispute against its domain name Gameroom.com.

The social media company acquired the domain name in 2016 when it launched Facebook Gameroom.

My Gameroom LLC filed the dispute. It uses the domain name MyGameroom.com for its online games business. The company argued that Facebook was cybersquatting with its use of the superior Gameroom.com domain name.

The Complainant relied on a registered trademark for My Gameroom that it filed for in 2018, and claimed common law rights dating to 2016. However, it provided scant evidence of its use in 2016.

Facebook’s lawyers said they did extensive research around the brand prior to adopting it to ensure it had no trademark issues. It also pointed out that the term “game room” is clearly descriptive.

National Arbitration Forum panelist Darryl Wilson agreed with Facebook and denied My Gameroom’s claim. He declined to find that the case was brought in abuse of the administrative proceeding, i.e. reverse domain name hijacking.

Tamara S. Pester, LLC represented My Gameroom LLC. David Taylor/Jane Seager of Hogan Lovells LLP represented Facebook.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!