Some interesting facts about domain names.
The results of significant number crunching on 3.5GB of .com domain name records yield some intriguing stats - for example, did you know that every single permutation of three letter acronyms is already taken within the .com hierarchy? And that nearly 80% of four letter combinations (not actual words, but just random XSLA.com style gibberish) is reserved? 100% of the top 10,000 family names in America are also booked.
posted by jonson
on Apr 14, 2006 -
It's What Comes After The Dot, My Dear,
that really matters
in Internet addresses, don't you know? A useful list of TLDs (that's Top Level Domain names to you, kiddo
) is also a reminder of the incredible variety of cool ISO country codes. If there are personalized license plates, why not e-mail addresses? I, for instance, am definitely looking into acquiring a prestigious .mc
address. Unless it means actually having to move to Monaco, God forbid. [Via Bifurcated Rivets.
posted by MiguelCardoso
on May 27, 2003 -
Are the days of speculative domain buying and hoarding over? On the one hand we've got places that still expect to get $40,000 for lame domain names like NY1.info
and then there's splorp.com's domain name of the week
, which provides some pretty cool names for the taking.
How many domain names do you own? I only own two, not counting suffix variations and my wife's business domain, but I know some people who have
lots more. My office mate routinely registers domain names (just the other day we were talking about how rollajoin.com
would be a funny name for
a database tutorial site and he registered it that night), and I have another friend who owns laid-off.com
and wants to give it away
. So are domain names still gold or have they been reduced to trinkets?
posted by mccreath
on Dec 5, 2001 -
www.worldtradecenterbombing.com, .net, .org
have been registered. For what purposes, I don't know. I've been wondering if anti-arabic domains, other similar WTC-style domains and if register.com, namezero, etc. have the capability to deny or register for themselves such sites. Whether for hatred purposes or, as vile as it sounds, for $ purposes. I guessing no. And I hope the site above was registered to keep it out of the hands of someone with less than virtuous ideals.
posted by Tacodog
on Sep 13, 2001 -
Domain name game to get hot this summer... Kent Jordan, who represented .info registry Afilias, said the process has been challenged by people who believe that trademark holders should not have first crack at domain names containing their names. "We reject that," he told the audience.
posted by canoeguide
on May 8, 2001 -
New.net lauched today,
with their attempt to create their own TLD registrar that seems like a bastardization of DNS. Most people will need to download a plugin
, is there any chance this could be successful? Is ICANN doing anything to stop them or will they just die on their own?
posted by mathowie
on Mar 5, 2001 -
Register.com to Auction Web Addresses
``My shoes are not for sale, but if someone on the street offers me enough money for them, I'll walk home barefoot. It's the same with domain names,'' Is it really? I would think an identity, as many would argue domain names can become, is a bit more irreplaceable than a pair of shoes.
posted by jmackin
on Dec 13, 2000 -
Anyone know how they got that domain? Which NICs are allowing "unusual" characters, and how widespread is the standard?
posted by owillis
on Jul 3, 2000 -
I've never actually seen this in use (probably because I'm totally amerocentric in my browsing), but apparently you can get some wäĉkŷ characters
in your domain name if you want to, assuming you want a dot-nu domain. If your browser speaks Japanese, you can even have a kanji
domain. That's pretty neat.
posted by endquote
on Jun 27, 2000 -
Yet Another Domain Name Dispute Develops (YADNDD): chunkymunky.com
gets a Cease & Desist from chunkymonkey.com
. One is a windows software site, the other a fan site about a cartoon character. Is there any cause for confusion on the part of users wanting to visit either site (actually, one would have to misspell "monkey" in order to get to the windows site)? Should the chunkymunky.com site owner have taken down his/her site? Who is going to protect domain owners from future things like this happening?
posted by mathowie
on May 23, 2000 -
interNIC lost my business!!!
To take the heat (and any possible lawsuits) off of them, they have now changed thier policy to revoke anyone's domain name at their discretion.
Phil Sbarbaro, NSI's legal counsel, offered a parallel to summarize prevailing law: "You don't own a domain name any more than you own your phone number."
I don't know about you guys, but I am definitely finding another registrar to transfer my domain names to...ASAP!
posted by EricBrooksDotCom
on May 12, 2000 -
I don't believe it...
I actually agree with something Network Solutions has done. They've apparently changed their policy to make domain name squatting more difficult. The story sounds sympathetic to the two ladies in question, but I'm not. Ok, maybe they should have been a touch more careful in how they *rolled out* the new policy, but the policy itself is about 5 years overdue.
Now, if we could just get them to *do what we tell them to*...
posted by baylink
on Apr 13, 2000 -
some good discussion about purchasing domain names. As always, there's a lot of crap in the discussion, but a few informative posts.
posted by fil!
on Feb 27, 2000 -
Page 33 of the latest Red Herring is a full-page ad for Morrison and Forrestor, attorrneys at law. What's great is that in big, yellow print is the firm's URL: mofo.com
. Now, they have
to be aware of the multiple meanings here, but they appear to be playing it straight, and the site is full of MoFo news
and MoFo history
posted by luke
on Feb 8, 2000 -
Thanks to the scarcity of good domain names, we're stuck with stupid ideas like piiq.com
. Here's their deal: you put the letter 'p' and 'q' around anything you want, and their site will come up, like pbookq.com
, and pfoodq.com
. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
posted by mathowie
on Nov 28, 1999 -