Domainer vanity and a few words about web development

Earlier today, Mike Berkens posted about a UDRP case that is about to claim the ‘developed’ web site, Vanity.com

Because it’s pointless to wade through trolling comments in order to relay the type of information that such a post deserves, I’m posting it all here.

What does one do with a domain, as soon as they register it?

The obvious answer is parking. It works for the most part, as a place holder that requires no development and no web hosting is needed for some temporary, under construction notification.

The next step up, is exactly that: a simple page that notifies visitors that the content is not there yet.

One step up, is a system that collects email addresses, all while the web site is “under construction”.

A mini site exists for the purpose of delivering content in small, organized chunks, interlaced strategically with ads such as AdSense, for monetization purposes.

Static web sites contain more info than a minisite and their content does not seem to be updated often; the manual editing of pages might occur once in a blue moon.

Dynamic web sites utilize multiple sources of information, databases and feeds to keep the content fresh; both for the visitors and for ranking purposes in search engines.

Now, there is a category that combines all of these elements and yet does not fall in any distinct category: the perpetually under construction, pseudo-developed collection of pages that hints of development. Its purpose and existence is simple: it’s there in order to avoid the delivery of the much-dreaded UDRP, particularly when the domain is extremely valuable.

This method of hybrid domain existence seems to work for the most part, as it often fools both those that could have a legitimate interest in challenging ownership in a domain, and those that deliver judgement over its status. It works beautifully even with domainers that are otherwise experienced, and yet fall prey to tagging such an abomination as “developed”.

On the subject of Vanity.com which Mike scooped from the newly opened cases at the WIPO, I’d be interested to read the case and the argument of the complainant and the respondent; the latter appears to be a company that is not registered in the state of California, unlike what the WHOIS shows.

It was a great opportunity to clear out some misconceptions about domains and web development, and I’m looking forward to doing the same in person at TRAFFIC 2012 in Ft. Lauderdale.