Josh sends link:
"Mark Sutcliffe of CanWest News Service calls for end to "domain hogging" "If you don't use a domain, it should get thrown back and opened up."
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/printedition/story.html?id=93656a38-c4c2-45cf-a03c-667bdd89e98f
I'm sure corporations would love that.. Is AOL a domain-hog taking the love out of the Internet (Love.com) and redirecting it to their dating site? How about CNET with their terrific inactive names like Kids.com ..it's a dressed-up paid-search parking page.. Couldn't Disney or Nickelodeon do a better job with Kids.com? How about companies like IAC, Demand Media and Marchex who have invested collective billions buying domains (for cash) and developing them to limited and varying degrees? How many domain-names are too-many? Who gets to say what is 'active' or 'developed'? Who gets to judge what is acceptable development progress year to year? A lot of domain registrants are making a fortune slowly developing media companies around their names. Can latecomers rewrite the rules surrounding name ownership because they fell asleep at the wheel and missed one of the greatest opportunities of their lifetime... or because they are not satisfied with the pace of a potential competitor's development? Should we live in a "domain police state", under the constant specter of being unseated from our names because somebody else might want what we have? Does this apply to large companies or just to cottage industry folks without the means to resist such proposterous inequity.
Funny enough you never read stories like this relating to hard assets, real estate.. tangibles.. but there is an entitlement mindset on the Internet where old-schoolers wax philisophical about the simpler times and many of those folks feel like they shouldn't have to pay for things, they should be free on an as-needed basis, forever. I view this article as high minded socialist fluff mixed with a twist of naive utopianism, but the fact that he wrote the piece at all indicates to me that some traditional media folks are starting to realise they have been outflanked. They are slowly "getting" the importance and value of .com domain names and are shocked to find them 'gone'. If everyone could just be satisfied with those traffic-less .info's, .mobi's and .biz's, you wouldn't read a story like this.
In the end if you want to see the culprit responsible for the lack of "good" available domain names in the coveted .com suffix, look in the mirror. There are nowhere near enough meaningful domain combinations in .com land for everyone to own even a single name. It is simply not possible. There are just too many people, too many businesses on this planet. So if Mark wants a great .com domain name.. or even an average domain name.. he is going to have to do what everyone who wants something of finite quantity and great desirability does.. He will have to reach into his wallet and pay the party he wishes to displace. Just as they will have to pay him once he owns a domain name and doesn't wish to give it up.
Welcome to capitalism and free-enterprise Marko!~ ;)
As I'm fond of saying: "Next time you bite into your Big Mac you should thank God we have capitalism.. lest you wake up from your dream in North Korea chewing on a raw rutabaga".
Hi,
I cannot even bring myself to click on the link to this story. I know Franks commentary has to be 'spot on' about it...without me having to read it.
Thanks for saving me the aggravation of reading it.
Peace!
Dan
Posted by: Danno | October 22, 2007 at 04:52 PM
Bwwwaaaaaaaaaa hahahahahahaha!
And companies should return all land they aren't using, trademarks they aren't using, etc.
Posted by: Robb | October 22, 2007 at 05:03 PM
From the article:
"Forbes found that every possible two-character and three-character combination of letters and numbers is gone."
No Kidding!!
Posted by: JP | October 22, 2007 at 05:08 PM
My neighbor hasn't made good use of his yard and most of the front yard is vacant execept for some grass. I'm taking it from him.
Posted by: Jeffrey Reynolds | October 22, 2007 at 05:16 PM
The same discussion is happening over here in the UK:
http://www.affiliates4u.com/forums/affiliate-marketing-lounge/67019-morals-domain-buying.html
I can't understand why some people are so against domain ownership. Sure I wish I had all the great generics, but I make do with what I can get. I don't complain about the system.
Posted by: Steve Browne | October 22, 2007 at 05:36 PM
On the other hand, there are already laws made regarding absentee landlords. Reforms have occurred throughout history. People who own large *undeveloped* domains should beware of the possibilities. Do not just park the pages, but at least have a one page website that tries to do some business. Or risk the law taking it away.
Posted by: Chui | October 22, 2007 at 06:29 PM
Reading the article feels like going on a time warp back 10 years ago when this kind of commentary was actually news,
"Every English word with four letters has also been taken including, of course, all the four-letter words. The most common 1,000 words in the English language? All gone. The 1,219 most-common male names, 2,841 most-common female names and the 10,000 most common surnames in the U.S. are also registered."
Posted by: Snoopy | October 22, 2007 at 08:00 PM
What a dick!
Yeah right.
Like all the people who went west in the 1800s to claim land should give it all back and let me have it for the same price of like $1 an acre.
Greedy bastards!
Posted by: Rob Sequin | October 22, 2007 at 08:54 PM
"Do not just park the pages, but at least have a one page website that tries to do some business. Or risk the law taking it away. Posted by: Chui | October 22, 2007 at 06:29 PM"
How is parking not doing business on a domain?
Posted by: Snoopy | October 22, 2007 at 09:45 PM
I posted this on Rick's Blog on oct 14th:
edward,
"please stop paying attention to him." ??? You have got to be kidding! Read and learn..there is still plenty of opportunity for anyone with some chutzpah! My Dad bought vacant farm land in 1973 for $90,000.He has leased it to farmers for their cows to graze(parking!), which wiped out his taxes to under $300 (registrar fees!). Meanwhile, has sold 2 parcels, and his remaining parcel for sale will net him a cool 7 figures in the next year!!! See the parallel? Somehow, you have missed the boat on business. My Dad never needed to develop the land to make it legitimate. Business is business. Get on the boat (any boat!) If you are reading the blog edward than You are paying attention to him....
Posted by: kelly lieberman | October 14, 2007 at 03:57 PM
Posted by: kelly lieberman | October 22, 2007 at 10:30 PM
...and can you believe this...all those many empty wombs out there belonging to beautiful, intellegent, athletic women in their 20's...why shouldn't all the couples deperate to have a child be able to use (take) them for themselves...for free?
Well, why not--THEY'RE not using them, right?
Sheeesh.
Posted by: Steve | October 22, 2007 at 11:30 PM
Check out Snoopy...telling it like it is.
As long as your not violating anyones TM...
IT BE BUSINESS!
Peace!
Dan
Posted by: Danno | October 23, 2007 at 01:19 AM
It's not who owns the domain, it is what they do with it and who is affected as a result of what is done with the domain.
We already have so much yet we complain about who owns a domain.
When we leave this earth, our domain portfolio won't come with us.
Posted by: Blue Bandit | October 23, 2007 at 01:21 AM
The fell asleep at the wheel analogy has some resonance, as German dot DE IDNs are now more or less on terms with their ASCII counterparts and just about to bash through the $XXX,XXX mark.
Posted by: David Wrixon | October 23, 2007 at 07:25 AM
Frank,
Would somebody tell Mr. Forbes to allow all the poor folks who have no money free access to his bank account. Heck, he is probably sitting on a stash he's not using.
Posted by: Ted | October 23, 2007 at 11:24 AM
Is it worth it to buy long-tail key phrases, SEO the page for the phrase and provide a link to your main site or is that going to get you penalized by SEs and/or irritate the users?
***FS*** Can't speak to user irritation etc.. but buying longtail generics is good. IMO.
Posted by: CD Rates | October 23, 2007 at 01:23 PM