Daily Poll: Does Verisign’s Blog Post Concern You?

On Friday, a blog post I would describe as inflammatory was published on the Verisign corporate blog. One line was particularly bothersome to me, especially given that Verisign has advertised here on DomainInvesting.com and Verisign has sponsored domain investor conferences like NamesCon and today’s NameSummit conference in New York. Here’s what was written:

“Flipping domain names or warehousing them to create scarcity adds nothing to the industry and merely allows those engaged in this questionable practice to enrich themselves at the expense of consumers and businesses.”

Andrew Allemann wrote about Verisign’s blog post, as did Rick Schwartz. There is a thread on NamePros, and a whole lot of comments on Twitter. Domain investors are reacting strongly to it.

I don’t really know what to think. I’ve always thought Verisign was supportive of domain investors. The employees I have met, both via email and in person, have always been helpful and friendly. After reading the blog post, it feels like Verisign is positioning itself to become an adversary to domain investors. I don’t really understand why.

It seems that people are angered and disappointed by the tone and content of the blog post, and I want to know if investors are concerned by it:

Elliot Silver
Elliot Silver
About The Author: Elliot Silver is an Internet entrepreneur and publisher of DomainInvesting.com. Elliot is also the founder and President of Top Notch Domains, LLC, a company that has closed eight figures in deals. Please read the DomainInvesting.com Terms of Use page for additional information about the publisher, website comment policy, disclosures, and conflicts of interest. Reach out to Elliot: Twitter | Facebook | LinkedIn


  1. What V/Sign actually mean is that they don’t have an effective secondary market or drop-catch service, and so despite significant growth, their lack of those strings mean billions of $ per year relating to .com domains end uo in other pockets.

  2. Verisign acts like they created the .Com domain extension and own it, but they did not create .Com nor do they own it.
    Verisign just won the contract to administer .Com domains and they should be grateful they are still able to do so!

  3. Why doesn’t Verisign simply acquire Turn Commerce and share in the profits that they frown upon so much? Verisign shareholders like us would love to participate in the true market value upside made available through an acquisition like Turn Commerce. It’s not like Verisign doesn’t have the financial wherewithall to buy Turn many times over!

  4. “I’ve always thought Verisign was supportive of domain investors. ”

    Really?? Non of these guys are unless it directly creates revenue for them. Verisign’s Sitefinder from years ago showed us that they will say and do whatever is best for their bottom line. Domainers are currently in the way of their monopoly pricing ambitions because nobody else is watching.

Leave a Reply

Recent Posts

Fox.org UDRP Decision is Upsetting

Last night, I saw that WIPO had posted an update regarding the Fox.org UDRP. Fox.org is a domain name registered in 1996, and I...

CEO of NFT.com Shares Domain Name Acquisition Learnings

Jordan Fried is the owner of some exceptional domain names. A few of the domain names he owns include NFT.com, PuertoRico.com, and Fried.com. This...

Taking a Blog Break

I have been writing articles on my blog since 2007. I have been fortunate to have the advertising support of many domain industry companies...

Some Thoughts About 2023

As the year winds down, I have been thinking about what to expect for the upcoming year. I am hopeful that it will be...

How I Am Preparing for the New Year

Less than a week remains in 2022. This is generally a quiet week in terms of domain name sales, so I tend to spend...