Marketing

Advertising & Marketing, News

Look it up, don’t make it up

“You can look it up” is a phrase popularized either by the humorist James Thurber or the humorous Casey Stengel, but it remains good advice, especially for some of the many who have had something to say about Vox Populi Registry. What has been said has not always been accurate and unnecessarily so. In each case, as you might guess from the opening anecdote, they could have looked it up. First, there is the matter of who and where we are. Here is what the Boston Business Journal said: “Vox Populi is a subsidiary of Canadian-based Momentous Corp., which acquired the .sucks domain name for $3 million last year.” Uh-uh. Vox Populi is a Cayman Islands company and Momentous Barbados (not Momentous Canada) was its initial investor. You can see the full picture right here: http://www.iana.org/domains/root/db/sucks.html As for the right to operate the registry, that was granted when the other two companies that had applied withdrew as a result of a private auction among the three of us. Admittedly, that is one thing you can’t look up. The specifics of the auction price, by the terms of the auction, cannot be made public. The $3 million was someone’s guess that has taken on a life of its own. Second, there is the notion that the registry’s Market Premium and Registry Premium lists are comprised of trademarks cadged from the Trademark Clearinghouse. Just one look at how the TMCH operates will allay any concerns. No registry has access to the list of marks, only confirmation that when one seeks to register, it has the bona fides. Here is what the TMCH says about that: http://www.trademark-clearinghouse.com/content/what-trademark-clearinghouse Third, there is a notion that the same domain name is available to different kinds of registrants at different recommended prices. Here is how Gary McIlraith, chief executive of NetNames, expressed it in supporting his company’s request of the European Commission to take a look: “This differentiation in price for the same domain, which is determined by whether you are a brand holder or an individual, has created an uneven playing field.” We have tried to make it clear, from the day we launched Sunrise, that this is not the case. Just take a look at the products page at the registry’s website, https://www.registry.sucks/products Different names may have different suggested prices, but not for different registrants. Unless, fourth, you conflate our search for a partner to operate a consumer advocate subsidy program which is also often misrepresented as being an offering of the registry. Here is how the Vancouver Sun said it: “Starting next fall, Vox Populi will be offering dot-sucks domains to consumers who want to host a forum discussion website, with the domain holders offered a free, hosted website. The company expects the price for consumers will drop below $10 US.” Whether a registration is subsidized, the price to the registrar and registry is unaffected. That is the nature of a subsidy. Neither is the program to be offered by the registry. We are talking to a number of free speech advocates and domain name companies to find the right partner. When we do, likely sometime in the Fall, we will make sure that the information is clear and available so that, well, you can look it up.

Advertising & Marketing, News

Trailblazers welcome

There has been quite a bit said about the Consumer Advocate Subsidy program we want to see launched in the Fall. It will reduce the ultimate cost of a dotSucks name to make them more accessible to individuals, adding energy to the registry as a platform for criticism and protest. Lost in the swirl of all that attention, though, is another program, one that will be run by the registry. It is our “Trailblazers’ Program.” We had thought to focus the Vox Populi Registry’s “Trailblazers’ Program” on partnering with registrants who already operate communities at addresses including the word “sucks,” but somewhere to left of the dot. Think cancersucks.com. It is clear, though, that the arrival of dotSucks names has spurred the imagination and stimulated innovation. For this reason the program ought to have room for registrants who want to create a community. Now it does. Our “Trailblazers’ Program” invites sites to relocate or build upon the emerging community of criticism, commentary and customer service to be found in the dotSucks domain space. A statement of interest, sent to support@registry.sucks, is all it takes. Just answer these five (5) questions: What community do you seek to champion? How would operating with a dotSucks site help you succeed? How extensive are your connections in the designated community? Is the designated community’s current presence on the Internet diffuse, emerging or strong? Why is this your passion? Each applicant will be judged on the merit of its mission, reach of its community, diversity of its approach and plan to leverage its new address. As noted above, we are looking for a mix of sites that can rally a community of criticism, commentary or of customer service. Once selected, we will work with these Trailblazers to help publicize and promote their effort as well as ease the burden of their start-up costs. Options open to us are extending a payment schedule without interest or deferring the registration and renewal costs for as period up to two years. Applicants may have additional ideas which should be appended to the statement of interest. It is clear the dotSucks names have struck a chord with people, institutions and advocacy groups. Our “Trailblazers’ Program” is an effort to accelerate the adoption of the new names in support of the passions, problems, causes and opportunities that drive us all.

.SUCKS in Practice, Success Stories

Never invited, but always present

Listening today to the U.S. Congress’ House of Representatives Subcommittee on Communications and Technology hearing on ICANN governance reminded me just how often Vox Populi Registry, the company bringing dotSucks names to the Internet, is a guest at parties to which it has never been invited. Sometimes, like today, we are able to view it all from a distance and mostly we have refrained from trying to correct every misstatement or argue each odd point. That approach will hold here even though, once again, the dotSucks domain names were cited as an example of failure and bad faith. The Internet’s plumbing has never been a point of popular discussion. With the advent of such consumer friendly devices as the iPhone and services like Twitter, broad awareness of the intricacies of the domain name system was low and likely to stay there. That changed when the U.S. Department of Commerce announced its intention to move oversight of one particular, technical (if you can call a spreadsheet technical) contract — the one governing the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority or “eye-ann-uh”. The matter now popped into view and those long-pressing a particular point, whether practical or legal or organizational — caught a second wind. To win to their cause those newly arrived, now focused and worried about this transition, there was the natural rise of rhetoric and analogy. Both are useful devices. Each can help advocates on every side of the issue create the understanding they seek to promote of hard-to-grasp or obscure activities. It becomes a bit more pointed when you, as we have, become a part of the story and misleading point-of-emphasis based on deliberate misinformation. Whether it is about our policies, pricing or business model, the “facts” are more likely culled from industry and lawyers’ blogs than from the source material that can easily be found at our website. And if questions do persist, we have been available to all who have called. But, again, not many have. Even the briefing document prepared by Congressional staff for today’s hearing cited only news reports. Here are a few of the things this leads us to think: We think it is wrong to say dotSucks names are evidence of a lack of ICANN accountability. In fact, our path to market is evidence that ICANN is accountable in this case. There were three companies vying for the right to operate this particular registry, with applications publicly filed more than three years ago. There were public comment periods and the government advisory committee asked ICANN multiple times for enhanced safeguards. At each turn, the applications progressed. More important to us is that the Vox Populi Registry application never needed to be amended from its initial filing because it had already committed to those safeguards. We think cybersquatting (a crime in the U.S. and so a label that ought to be carefully pasted on anyone’s wall) and trolling won’t survive in the dotSucks registry because of the rules established to defeat such purpose. We think the current controversy is rooted in the likelihood that dotSucks domain names will be deployed for the purpose we proposed in early 2012, to rally and give voice to consumers and advocates. We think the criticism of our suggested pricing comes from those who see a dotSucks name as just another address on the Internet. We are priced higher than mass-market domains because dotSucks is not just an address, it is an activity that can yield benefit for both consumer and company. It is on the basis of this real value that we have suggested the pricing plan. With 600 new gTLDs approved, is it really a surprise that some might create new types of business models and approach their markets in new ways? Our goal is not to flood the Internet with names and serve as a platform for phishers, pharmers and malware. We think a bigger problem for us is that some of our competition offers space on the Internet for free. Visit Facebook and search for a company along with the word “sucks.” A hit almost every time. If we did not think we were offering a better approach – delivering real value — how could we hope to compete with free? And, if we are wrong, we will fail. What could be more market driven than that?

Advertising & Marketing, News

If it sucks, #makeitright

UK-based mobile network operator, Three (www.three.co.uk) launched in 2003, but it is only now that they seem to be willing to say what mobile customers have been saying since, well, since there were mobile network operators: The mobile industry sucks. Not only are they willing to say so, they are also willing to commit to making it right. It is a bold campaign — if one looks only as far a the self-incriminating nature of it. Look deeper and you will find a message that has to resonate with the people who most use their mobile phones. It resonates because it is true and spoken in a language familiar to them. Sucks long ago lost it power as a perjorative. It is a now a point-of-emphasis, a call to action. And in Three’s case, a rally cry for those who have been too long under the thumb (pun intended) of mobile network operators who may know but won’t say.

Scroll to Top