How many .com domains are available?(blog.nametoolkit.com)
blog.nametoolkit.com
How many .com domains are available?
http://blog.nametoolkit.com/
12 comments
I am thoroughly unhappy about good .com domains being squatted. I can't say how many times a perfectly good domain that I would have liked to start an internet service on is being squatted with a page of "contact me if interested in domain" message -- and it's more or less useless trying to contact these persons, as they'll not reply, or demand absurd amounts for the domain.
Just a week ago, one of my co-founders accidentally leaked the domain name of the start up we were working on. It's a bit of a problem to register domain from where we are, so the time when I got to the registration, I found out that the domain name was taken by one of the local companies. We called them, and they asked us to come and negotiate. When we went to their office, the guy told us that he heard about our start up and he bought the domain for fun, he wanted to see us coming to his office and beg for the domain. Eventually we got the transfer code, but the whole experience was not pleasant.
I think domains should just be more expensive, with the money going towards something useful. Would you prefer to pay $200/year for a domain or $20000 to get it from a squatter and then $5/year to keep it?
The economy is the system we've used to balance supply and demand for centuries. We should use it to sort the .com mess out.
Companies can afford to pay significantly more for their domains. Personal users can easily use subdomains at a lower cost if they wish, as DNS intended.
To implement, just ramp up the cost of gTLDs every year.
The economy is the system we've used to balance supply and demand for centuries. We should use it to sort the .com mess out.
Companies can afford to pay significantly more for their domains. Personal users can easily use subdomains at a lower cost if they wish, as DNS intended.
To implement, just ramp up the cost of gTLDs every year.
As someone running a personal .net, I much prefer the $10/yr I'm paying right now. I might be able to afford $200/yr now that I'm working, but I certainly would not have been able to keep that up in college. I don't think cutting students out from being able to have personal domains is at all a good solution.
You're the exception. You got there first. In a couple of decades, nobody in your situation will be able to get any name that makes sense. At this point, people will have to get subdomains anyway.
Actually, the domain market I would say is on the decline as PPC which has been fueling it for many years is spiraling down the drain. That business model will erode and become less and less profitable over time. As that happens, I suspect more domains will cross the margin of profitability and be dropped back into availability. It won't happen overnight or instantly, and the best stuff will not become available, but things at the margins will. I think some registries already manipulate renewal/registration costs to make sure there isn't a decline.
I don't think money is the right solution, there is many other uses for the internet than profitable ones.
Indeed there are. How about we have a separate namespace for commercial stuff then, where these applies, and a separate namespace for non-profitable sites? We could use, say, ".com" to designate the commercial namespace, and something else for the others.
This is what a .org is supposed to be, but it is not, and I suspect you are being ironic?
It needs either cash or regulation, imho.
It needs either cash or regulation, imho.
gTLD prices do go up yearly (7% for .com).
Who captures this extra money for doing nothing? VeriSign just gets this added to their bottom line with no competition in the contract. Is that fair? The fact is, the cost to provide this service is very low and going down, but prices are increasing. There will be economic surplus somewhere, the question is whether it's supply or demand side. I think demand side is far more appropriate. It also allows everyone access to the domain name system. $200 may seem like nothing to you, but in other countries that can be a lot of money. There isn't a shortage of domain names by any means, why create a higher barrier and who does it really benefit?
Who captures this extra money for doing nothing? VeriSign just gets this added to their bottom line with no competition in the contract. Is that fair? The fact is, the cost to provide this service is very low and going down, but prices are increasing. There will be economic surplus somewhere, the question is whether it's supply or demand side. I think demand side is far more appropriate. It also allows everyone access to the domain name system. $200 may seem like nothing to you, but in other countries that can be a lot of money. There isn't a shortage of domain names by any means, why create a higher barrier and who does it really benefit?
I certainly don't think that VeriSign should get the money for doing nothing. I think it should go towards something productive. Ending up with excess cash is hardly a problem with any proposed scheme.
> There isn't a shortage of domain names by any means
Sure there is. Just look at how difficult it is to get the domain that you want.
> It also allows everyone access to the domain name system.
Not at all. Domain names are hierarchical. Get one under your ccTLD, or pool your resources with others and use a subdomain.
In any case, I effectively don't have access to the domain name system because of all the squatters! In other words, there is a supply shortage.
The global namespace is not big enough for all of us. If you want a global brand, then you will have to pay for it. At the moment you pay squatters. I'd prefer to put this money into some kind of better cause than squatters.
> There isn't a shortage of domain names by any means
Sure there is. Just look at how difficult it is to get the domain that you want.
> It also allows everyone access to the domain name system.
Not at all. Domain names are hierarchical. Get one under your ccTLD, or pool your resources with others and use a subdomain.
In any case, I effectively don't have access to the domain name system because of all the squatters! In other words, there is a supply shortage.
The global namespace is not big enough for all of us. If you want a global brand, then you will have to pay for it. At the moment you pay squatters. I'd prefer to put this money into some kind of better cause than squatters.
Do you not see the hypocrisy in your own arguments?
You are complaining you cannot get the domain you want but telling others who might not meet your threshold to get a subdomain. Why don't you drink your own kool aid instead of drawing an arbitrary line that suits you? Stop whining and use a subdomain. If you cannot afford a domain in the secondary market that meets your needs, you probably aren't running a global brand. The average domain sale price in the aftermarket is between $2-3,000.
The argument that you don't have access to the domain name system is hilarious. There are plenty of available domains, I dug up 26,000 short, pronounceable (<5 letters) ones a couple months ago. A single namespace has ~63^37 possibilities, that's plenty big.
You are complaining you cannot get the domain you want but telling others who might not meet your threshold to get a subdomain. Why don't you drink your own kool aid instead of drawing an arbitrary line that suits you? Stop whining and use a subdomain. If you cannot afford a domain in the secondary market that meets your needs, you probably aren't running a global brand. The average domain sale price in the aftermarket is between $2-3,000.
The argument that you don't have access to the domain name system is hilarious. There are plenty of available domains, I dug up 26,000 short, pronounceable (<5 letters) ones a couple months ago. A single namespace has ~63^37 possibilities, that's plenty big.
[deleted]
There are plenty of available domains, I dug up 26,000 short, pronounceable (<5 letters) ones a couple months ago. A single namespace has ~63^37 possibilities, that's plenty big.
And yet, based on your own website's About Page you yourself can't even find a name for your customer reviews start-up.
Do you not see the hypocrisy in your own arguments?
Not in his, but I sure as hell can see them in yours. Oh, the hypocrisy.
And yet, based on your own website's About Page you yourself can't even find a name for your customer reviews start-up.
Do you not see the hypocrisy in your own arguments?
Not in his, but I sure as hell can see them in yours. Oh, the hypocrisy.
Along with patent reform, I'm hoping there's some sort of domain squatting reform down the line. There are way too many squatters doing absolutely nothing with way too many good domains. The domain system right now seems to be working against creating value for the public and more towards creating value for the squatters. There should be some guidelines put in place to ensure domains are being purchased for the benefit of online service creation. This, however, would require a dramatic overhaul of the current domain registering process. Hopefully, this whole issue becomes less relevant as domain names become more obsolete due to web app marketplaces such as the chrome web store, but that may take some time to come to fruition.
How do you define "online service creation"? Does my personal blog qualify? What about the period of time where I didn't serve anything to the web but was using my server to run a personal email & jabber server? What about the time where I didn't even do that and was using my server as a remote shell for me and a couple friends? What about when I was running it just for me?
Should it matter that nobody else should have any interest in masterzora.net since I've (almost; there are a couple silly outliers) uniquely held that handle for over a decade?
Every "simple" solution I've heard for the squatter problem is only simple because it's focusing on a simple case.
Should it matter that nobody else should have any interest in masterzora.net since I've (almost; there are a couple silly outliers) uniquely held that handle for over a decade?
Every "simple" solution I've heard for the squatter problem is only simple because it's focusing on a simple case.
Every "simple" solution I've heard for the squatter problem is only simple because it's focusing on a simple case.
Yes, but more sophisticated solutions will gradually be put in place to consider most cases. Think of it sort of like the App Store approval process but for .com domain registrations. Every domain suffix could be reserved for a particular sort of online category. Dot com domains would be reserved for businesses, while .net could be reserved for personal server projects, .me domains for blogs, etc. Obviously, there are going to be other things to consider, but with gradual adjustments, I'm sure the system would be much more suitable to entrepreneurship than it is right now.
Yes, but more sophisticated solutions will gradually be put in place to consider most cases. Think of it sort of like the App Store approval process but for .com domain registrations. Every domain suffix could be reserved for a particular sort of online category. Dot com domains would be reserved for businesses, while .net could be reserved for personal server projects, .me domains for blogs, etc. Obviously, there are going to be other things to consider, but with gradual adjustments, I'm sure the system would be much more suitable to entrepreneurship than it is right now.
Everything to do with http://beerhallsofmunich.com/ is squatting. It could be a case study. Incidentally, I bought that to test a system and I will happily transfer it for free to anyone willing to blog/sell teeshirts/whatever about beerhalls in Muenchen.
(oh and the ads are default provided by the registrar - please don't click on them!)
(oh and the ads are default provided by the registrar - please don't click on them!)
Not to mention the problem of who regulates and monitors. Conflicting interests in the same domain? It's such a complex mess, these simple solutions don't even begin to grasp at understanding the system.
It's such a complex mess, these simple solutions don't even begin to grasp at understanding the system.
Just because it's complex doesn't mean we can't work towards trying to solve or improve this issue. We can either try to improve it for entrepreneurs and users, or allow it to continue to work in the best interest of sitting squatters.
Just because it's complex doesn't mean we can't work towards trying to solve or improve this issue. We can either try to improve it for entrepreneurs and users, or allow it to continue to work in the best interest of sitting squatters.
Domain squatting is a specific term, it means someone who registers in bad faith to infringe on another company's trademark. Let's be clear about that.
Perhaps the system is already optimized for capitalism and entrepreneurship. There are plenty of domains available for next to nothing. Better ones that others have already come up with will cost more. This means that only better financed companies can afford them. Thus, better names go to better companies (in general). Bad companies fail and disappear and a less valuable domain was taken in the process and is now weeded out.
Of course, with all these 'noble' goals of helping users and entrepreneurs, drawing actual concrete lines anywhere is virtually impossible. When actually trying to tackle this problem, you realize it's at an equilibrium (albeit a low level one).
Perhaps the system is already optimized for capitalism and entrepreneurship. There are plenty of domains available for next to nothing. Better ones that others have already come up with will cost more. This means that only better financed companies can afford them. Thus, better names go to better companies (in general). Bad companies fail and disappear and a less valuable domain was taken in the process and is now weeded out.
Of course, with all these 'noble' goals of helping users and entrepreneurs, drawing actual concrete lines anywhere is virtually impossible. When actually trying to tackle this problem, you realize it's at an equilibrium (albeit a low level one).
Domain squatting is a specific term, it means someone who registers in bad faith to infringe on another company's trademark. Let's be clear about that.
Yes, the bad faith intent is the major issue we are trying to deter. There are way too many domain squatters who buy domains solely with bad faith intent to profit from the goodwill of an entrepreneur looking to create a service for the public. This is the fundamental issue at hand.
Yes, the bad faith intent is the major issue we are trying to deter. There are way too many domain squatters who buy domains solely with bad faith intent to profit from the goodwill of an entrepreneur looking to create a service for the public. This is the fundamental issue at hand.
This right is why I don't see a constructive solution ever coming from you. Buying something with intent to profit is bad faith. That's bullshit, plain and simple. We live in a capitalist society. We buy things with the intent to profit all the time. That's what our whole society is BUILT ON. We spend money on labor and capital in hopes of earning a greater return.
You twist this idea by saying someone has registered it with the bad faith intent to profit from the goodwill of an entrepreneur looking to create a service. Goodwill doesn't exist until it is created. It's been show time and time again that you cannot buy something in bad faith before something exists. That's just not possible. How can you simply assume it's blocking something to be created for the public as well? You make way too many broad and wrong assumptions to try and reach a conclusion you simply want for your own selfish reasons disguised as a greater good.
You twist this idea by saying someone has registered it with the bad faith intent to profit from the goodwill of an entrepreneur looking to create a service. Goodwill doesn't exist until it is created. It's been show time and time again that you cannot buy something in bad faith before something exists. That's just not possible. How can you simply assume it's blocking something to be created for the public as well? You make way too many broad and wrong assumptions to try and reach a conclusion you simply want for your own selfish reasons disguised as a greater good.
Don't take this the wrong way, I actually appreciate the dialogue you and I are having. I like debating with an opposing view in order to bring more issues to the surface. My argument is that domain squatters provide very little value in comparison to potential alternative users of that domain. That's the thing, a domain squatter's sole intention is to profit from buying and reselling domains, while a startup's intention is to profit by creating external value through a service utilizing that domain.
> That's the thing, a domain squatter's sole intention is to profit from buying and reselling domains, while a startup's intention is to profit by creating external value through a service utilizing that domain.
This is my problem with your solution. It seems to think that there are only two groups registering domains: squatters and startups. Even if we expand "startups" to "companies", this is clearly bullshit.
This is my problem with your solution. It seems to think that there are only two groups registering domains: squatters and startups. Even if we expand "startups" to "companies", this is clearly bullshit.
It seems to think that there are only two groups registering domains: squatters and startups. Even if we expand "startups" to "companies", this is clearly bullshit.
When speaking of startups/companies registering domains I clearly stated that they would be reserved .coms, for commercial organizations. This was actually their original intended purpose until they were open for unrestricted registration:
The domain name com is a generic top-level domain (gTLD) in the Domain Name System of the Internet. Its name is derived from commercial,[1] indicating its original intended purpose for domains registered by commercial organizations. However eventually the distinction was lost when .com, .org and .net were opened for unrestricted registration.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.com
When speaking of startups/companies registering domains I clearly stated that they would be reserved .coms, for commercial organizations. This was actually their original intended purpose until they were open for unrestricted registration:
The domain name com is a generic top-level domain (gTLD) in the Domain Name System of the Internet. Its name is derived from commercial,[1] indicating its original intended purpose for domains registered by commercial organizations. However eventually the distinction was lost when .com, .org and .net were opened for unrestricted registration.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.com
Most domainers I know also plan on creating services on their domains. Why does anyone else have a more legitimate right to want to build something on a domain name? What if I own cats.com and just want to put a picture of my cat fuzzy wuzzy? Why shouldnt I be allowed if I registered it first or paid for it? What if your startup isnt making any/much money and mine is and we're doing the same thing. Do I have more rights to that name than you?
What if I own cats.com and just want to put a picture of my cat fuzzy wuzzy?
I'm sure a .meow domain would suit your personal purposes just fine. A .com, however, would be better suited for commercial purposes if you intend to profit off of your fuzzy wuzzy photos.
I'm sure a .meow domain would suit your personal purposes just fine. A .com, however, would be better suited for commercial purposes if you intend to profit off of your fuzzy wuzzy photos.
You're really not worth it anymore. You're reaching for ridiculous arguments about how something was originally planned over two decades ago. Things changed, you can't realistically regress to some original purpose when it is outdated. Sorry. You're wrong.
How would you define squatting though? It's a really tough issue to legislate.
A great example of how sticky this can get - the nissan.com domain name. Nissan Motors and Nissan Computer have been fighting over it for years now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nissan_Computer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nissan_Computer
It is a tough issue, but I think setting some clear requirements for owning a domain name could go a long way. Restricting domain owners from placing parking pages and requiring them to actively work on an online service, be that a web app, web site, blog, or other online medium which provides sincere value to users. Obviously, these guidelines will go into greater detail and be adjusted as time moves on, but it's better to try to resolve this issue than allow it to continue to deter start-ups.
That's just nonsense. You were going to fail already if you give up because you cannot find a good domain name. Domains are merely a single tool in a giant toolbox to create successful companies. Just because you don't have the absolute best one shouldn't stop you, and if it does, you're doing it wrong.
Just because you don't have the absolute best one shouldn't stop you, and if it does, you're doing it wrong.
It may not stop you, but the system right now sure doesn't help the situation. Shouldn't we work towards improving it for start-up entrepreneurs instead of just ignoring the problem altogether?
It may not stop you, but the system right now sure doesn't help the situation. Shouldn't we work towards improving it for start-up entrepreneurs instead of just ignoring the problem altogether?
You have a very narrow lense it seems. You focus solely on one interest group and single purpose while ignoring all the others. I suspect the answer is no, we shouldn't just focus on helping startup entrepreneurs with the domain name system. There are many stakeholders from various backgrounds that all need to be considered before trying to push through one specific and narrow interest group. In theory, that's what icann and specifically the ALAC is for.
There are many stakeholders from various backgrounds that all need to be considered before trying to push through one specific and narrow interest group.
Yes, each type of "stakeholder" could be reserved a certain type of domain suffix based on their intended purpose of use. These guidelines should of actually been set in place at the onset so we wouldn't have all of the domain squatters we have today. Also, I'd much prefer to discuss potential solutions with you, but I see you've disregarded the notion completely.
Yes, each type of "stakeholder" could be reserved a certain type of domain suffix based on their intended purpose of use. These guidelines should of actually been set in place at the onset so we wouldn't have all of the domain squatters we have today. Also, I'd much prefer to discuss potential solutions with you, but I see you've disregarded the notion completely.
Too late. Trillions of dollars have been spent by the various stakeholders branding .com into the minds of the global audience. You cannot simply undo that.
As per my other comment, you're not interested in finding a potential solution. You've got one specific interest and aren't interested in hearing why your solution isn't viable. You simply are waiting for agreement, not a discussion. Here's a solution for startups, use a less than perfect domain until they've proven their worth, got more money and buy a better name. Or, use a lesser extension/subdomain. New gTLDs are around the corner, go pay the 185k fee and get .startup or .beta and create an official startup tld and regulate how you see fit. Let it compete, like a startup should.
As per my other comment, you're not interested in finding a potential solution. You've got one specific interest and aren't interested in hearing why your solution isn't viable. You simply are waiting for agreement, not a discussion. Here's a solution for startups, use a less than perfect domain until they've proven their worth, got more money and buy a better name. Or, use a lesser extension/subdomain. New gTLDs are around the corner, go pay the 185k fee and get .startup or .beta and create an official startup tld and regulate how you see fit. Let it compete, like a startup should.
Go pay the 185k fee and get .startup or .beta and create an official startup tld and regulate how you see fit. Let it compete, like a startup should.
I'm sorry but most start-ups can't afford 185k for a domain. Plus, re-branding takes another major investment a start-up may not be able to afford. You say "let it compete", but you're defending domain squatters who are making it more difficult to find a good name and market new services to consumers. Hell, there are even some domainers that can't even find a single name for their customer reviews startup. ;)
I'm sorry but most start-ups can't afford 185k for a domain. Plus, re-branding takes another major investment a start-up may not be able to afford. You say "let it compete", but you're defending domain squatters who are making it more difficult to find a good name and market new services to consumers. Hell, there are even some domainers that can't even find a single name for their customer reviews startup. ;)
185k isnt a domain, it's a registry. Buy the rights to the TLD .startup or .beta and compete with .com for startups business.
I don't know any domainer in that position. You've really run out of arguments.
I don't know any domainer in that position. You've really run out of arguments.
I don't know any domainer in that position.
You don't? By the look of your website's About Page you do:
My Current Job(s):
Working on my own startup - Still looking for a name, but I am working on a customer reviews startup.
Writer at MO.com - I interview entrepreneurs. I've done ~80 interviews as of February 2011 including some big names like Alexis Ohanian (Reddit), Aaron Wall (SEOBook) and David Hauser (Grasshopper.com).
Domain Investor (or Domainer) - I buy, sell, and develop domain names.
I now see why you are so adamant in your defense of domain squatters.
You don't? By the look of your website's About Page you do:
My Current Job(s):
Working on my own startup - Still looking for a name, but I am working on a customer reviews startup.
Writer at MO.com - I interview entrepreneurs. I've done ~80 interviews as of February 2011 including some big names like Alexis Ohanian (Reddit), Aaron Wall (SEOBook) and David Hauser (Grasshopper.com).
Domain Investor (or Domainer) - I buy, sell, and develop domain names.
I now see why you are so adamant in your defense of domain squatters.
Us too - our original business name got squatted because we searched for it in the wrong engine. There are always other reasonable options, though.
How can I get a recent copy of the Verisign .com TLD master zone file?
You need to send a fax to get it from their website so I figure there's got to be a quicker way(http://www.verisigninc.com/en_US/products-and-services/domai...)
UPDATE: I downloaded the forms. Filled them out. Signed up for a HelloFax $4.99 account. Created a new fax using HelloFax. Uploaded the 2 documents. Attached my signature. And sent it. 26 minutes after making my original comment. Not too hard :). I'll update this when I hear back.
UPDATE 2: You can also pay $24.95 a month and get them here: http://www.premiumdrops.com/zones.html
You need to send a fax to get it from their website so I figure there's got to be a quicker way(http://www.verisigninc.com/en_US/products-and-services/domai...)
UPDATE: I downloaded the forms. Filled them out. Signed up for a HelloFax $4.99 account. Created a new fax using HelloFax. Uploaded the 2 documents. Attached my signature. And sent it. 26 minutes after making my original comment. Not too hard :). I'll update this when I hear back.
UPDATE 2: You can also pay $24.95 a month and get them here: http://www.premiumdrops.com/zones.html
If you're not contractually prohibited from sharing it, it'd be great if you could share it here.
95,743,705 are currently being used. The amount of available domains is virtually unlimited due to the fact that you could have 'dsdijhfjkdf.com' as a domain.
And, for an estimated $150K and some ICAAN paperwork, www.google.dsdijhfjkdf could be yours!
bastiat(1)
And out of those, how many are parked?
It is a study we would like to do. The plan is to select a random sample of domains for each length and query a source, e.g., Alexa, show a confidence interval by length for domain traffic.
The stats hypothesis would be to test whether length can be used as a predictor of traffic.
The stats hypothesis would be to test whether length can be used as a predictor of traffic.
I was taken aback by the 13 character length, I wonder how many of those are parked, what the average length is for the top 100,1000, 10000 sites according to Alexa/Google/Etc. I suspect there there is a nice split between the parked longer names and the shorter actually used as a website names.
ycombinator - 11
facebook - 8
Wikipedia - 9
googleusercontent.com - 21
Shorter domains definitely make sense, but probably not a good predictor in itself though they have aesthetic value.
Shorter domains definitely make sense, but probably not a good predictor in itself though they have aesthetic value.
That's hard to analyse, however web traffic follows a power law distribution, http://www.hpl.hp.com/research/idl/papers/ranking/adamicglot....
So, outside the top 100k sites in terms of traffic you could expect it's either parked or idle domains.
Finding good domains still available is a more interesting problem than just saying there are some.
I was interested a while back in finding short (5 or 6 letter) .com domains still available. Wrote a little script to do a bulk check at Godaddy.
There are a few variables you can alter in my script:
- pre: any text BEFORE the consonant-vowel-consonant string
- suf: any text AFTER the string
- ext: the domain name extension (defaults to .com if left blank)
- max: the maximum number of domain name results (starting at a random character)
Since GoDaddy limits the bulk check to 500, the quickest way to do a domain check is to run the script setting the max at 500, then just copy and paste the result in the bulk domain lookup.
Couple different examples:
http://tonycappaert.com/projects/domaingen.php?suf=it&ma...
http://tonycappaert.com/projects/domaingen.php?pre=go&su...
Paste the result in the Godaddy bulk check at http://www.godaddy.com/domains/searchbulk.aspx
There are a few variables you can alter in my script:
- pre: any text BEFORE the consonant-vowel-consonant string
- suf: any text AFTER the string
- ext: the domain name extension (defaults to .com if left blank)
- max: the maximum number of domain name results (starting at a random character)
Since GoDaddy limits the bulk check to 500, the quickest way to do a domain check is to run the script setting the max at 500, then just copy and paste the result in the bulk domain lookup.
Couple different examples:
http://tonycappaert.com/projects/domaingen.php?suf=it&ma...
http://tonycappaert.com/projects/domaingen.php?pre=go&su...
Paste the result in the Godaddy bulk check at http://www.godaddy.com/domains/searchbulk.aspx
Is there an official channel to compile registered domains?
Verisign com zone file, available for free upon request
We needed to fax a form to them though. Travelling to the nineties was the hardest part of setting it up.
Anyone know where you can download this without sending a fax?
They want the fax likely because it's legally binding.
They also want to ensure that it's clear they are the authoritative source for those zones - so no sharing what you download.
If you want it on any regular basis.. send the fax :)
If you want it on any regular basis.. send the fax :)
E-signatures are legally binding. Likely they want the fax to discourage anyone who actually wants the list from obtaining it.
Shortages are a sign of a flawed market.
What needs to be done is something similar to the radio spectrum; require a regular bidding process on a given domain (or, more likely, the set of domains that are in-demand).
Squatting becomes a less desirable business when you've got to pay $100/year for an in-demand domain.
What needs to be done is something similar to the radio spectrum; require a regular bidding process on a given domain (or, more likely, the set of domains that are in-demand).
Squatting becomes a less desirable business when you've got to pay $100/year for an in-demand domain.
I used to work in a spectrum research lab (http://www.ctvr.ie/). I didn't get the impression the auctioning was working all that well.
I was looking for the zone file during last week. Gladly, it is a fax away.
I believe ICANN is looking to reform zone file access as part of the new gTLD system it's initiating.
http://securityskeptic.typepad.com/the-security-skeptic/2010...
http://securityskeptic.typepad.com/the-security-skeptic/2010...
Barmkin.com is a pretty great domain name, actually.
If only people would stop automatically assuming .com is the only way to go, we wouldn't have a domain shortage problem.
Sadly, they hold the most credibility. Everyone's heard of .com, specifically the casual web users or less tech savvy. I tried .co once, but when I passed a mention of the domain on to someone else, what did they type in? That's right, .com.
Locally (.co.uk for me) there's many more available, but that makes it harder to target a global audience, and also as above, a lot of people tend to try .com first, potentially introducing them to a competitor.
Locally (.co.uk for me) there's many more available, but that makes it harder to target a global audience, and also as above, a lot of people tend to try .com first, potentially introducing them to a competitor.
Shouldn't ICANN's decision to allow the registration of new TLDs more or less solve this problem?
No, those new TLDs will be more or less worthless.
Well, worthless to everyone but ICANN.
I haven't kept up on the debate. Why would new TLDs be worthless, approximately?
I don't think they'd be worth any more or less than any given dotcom. Uniqueness is important (try searching for help on the R programming language without using 'cran' as a keyword), but links and keywords will I am sure get you further.
Our point is that there is not really a problem with shortage...