Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Internet

The Ascendancy of .co 164

Posted by kdawson
from the milking-the-cash-cow dept.
An anonymous reader tipped the fact that, with the .com namespace getting pretty well mined out, GoDaddy.com's front page for domain registrations now defaults to .co instead of .com. The article claims that GoDaddy registers about half of new domain names. Neither the article nor GoDaddy makes it explicit that .co is a ccTLD belonging to Colombia, or that registering one costs about three times as much as a .com, at $29.99 per year. And if you select a .co domain name from GoDaddy's front page, a number of TLD variants are presented alongside .co — but .com is not among them.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Ascendancy of .co

Comments Filter:
  • citibank.co (Score:5, Funny)

    by HongPong (226840) <`hongpong' `at' `hongpong.com'> on Sunday November 14, 2010 @06:07AM (#34220976) Homepage

    now with moar than $100 billion in frictionless laundered money. That's what we call .colocation!

    • by Futurepower(R) (558542) <MJennings.USA@NOT_any_of_THISgmail.com> on Sunday November 14, 2010 @07:57AM (#34221268) Homepage
      Here are stories about GoDaddy on Slashdot, in order by date, to 2010-09-11:

      Go Daddy Usurps Network Solutions [slashdot.org] (2005-05-04)

      GoDaddy Serves Blank Pages to Safari & Opera [slashdot.org] (2005-12-08)

      GoDaddy.com Dumps Linux for Microsoft [slashdot.org] (2006-03-23)

      GoDaddy Holds Domains Hostage [slashdot.org] (2006-06-17)

      GoDaddy Caves To Irish Legal Threat [slashdot.org] (2006-09-16)

      MySpace and GoDaddy Shut Down Security Site [slashdot.org] (2007-01-26) That incident prompted this web site:
      Exposing the Many Reasons Not to Trust GoDaddy with Your Domain Names [nodaddy.com].

      Alternative Registrars to GoDaddy? [slashdot.org] (2007-02-03)

      GoDaddy Bobbles DST Changeover? [slashdot.org] (2007-03-11)

      850K RegisterFly Domains Moved To GoDaddy [slashdot.org] (2007-05-29)

      According to this March 11, 2008 story in Wired, GoDaddy shut down an entire web site of 250,000 pages because of one archived mailing list comment: GoDaddy Silences Police-Watchdog Site RateMyCop.com [wired.com]. See below for Slashdot's story about RateMyCop.com.

      GoDaddy Silences RateMyCop.com [slashdot.org] (2008-03-12)

      ICANN Moves Against GoDaddy Domain Lockdowns [slashdot.org] (2008-04-08)

      GoDaddy VP Caught Bidding Against Customers [slashdot.org] (2008-06-29)

      KnujOn Updates Top 10 Spam-Friendly Registrars List [slashdot.org] (2009-02-06, 80 comments) GoDaddy is on the list.

      R.I.P. FTP [slashdot.org] (2009-07-13, 359 comments) The GoDaddy web site is extremely complicated. Quote: "In that case, why don't more people switch to administering their sites via SFTP instead of FTP? Here are the steps it took me to enable SFTP on my GoDaddy hosting account. Feel free to use this as a reference, but the obvious point is that as long as this many steps are required, it's safe to say that most users won't be switching: 1) Go to the 'Hosting' menu and pick 'My Hosting Account.' 2) Next to the name of your website, pick 'Manage Account.' This will open the Hosting Control Center. 3) In Hosting Control Center, click to expand the 'Settings' options. 4) In the 'Settings' control panel, click the 'SSH' icon. 5) You will see a page saying 'SSH is not set up', and prompting you to enter a phone number so that their automated service can call you with a PIN number. After you enter your phone number, the phone rings a second later, and you enter the PIN in a form on the GoDaddy website. 6 ) You will then see a page which says: Current Hosting Account Status: Pending Account Change -- Your request to enable SSH is being processed. This upgrade may take up to 24 hours." [Punctuation and emphasis changed for clarity.]

      Registrars Still Ignoring ICANN Rules [slashdot.org] (2009-07-22, 122 comments) Quote: "GoDaddy (and their reseller arm, Wild West Domains) have a different problem: They still block transfers for 60 days after a registrant's contact update, even after the ICANN update specifically prohibited doing so. They freely admit it, too."
      • Help those of us who have domains registered with GoDaddy. What registrar would you recommend?
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by cjcela (1539859)
          I use dreamhost for both registrar and hosting. So far it has been excellent.
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by characterZer0 (138196)

          gandi.net

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by kyrio (1091003)
          Try Dynadot at www.dynadot.com
        • I've been registering with 1&1 for years now. I have a free hosting account (developer preview) from 5 years ago. In any case, they charge $10 a year for .com - used to be $6 a year.

        • www.nearlyfreespeech.net is the best registrar and webhost anywhere. Rock bottom prices, clean website, and absolutely no bullshit. Just sayin' as a satisfied customer for three years.

        • We used namecheap for quite a while, and AWS for hosting. Just recently, we have grown to the point that safenames made a lot more sense, and still with AWS for hosting. We run our own mail, and are considering running our own dns on and internal sever, and an AWS slice for redundancy.
        • by RobNich (85522)

          I had about 30 domains with GoDaddy, and was very unhappy with their user interface and customer service. I wanted to be able to make mass changes to the domains, such as name servers. I tried a few different ones and settled on gkg.net [gkg.net]. It's not the prettiest, but it's inexpensive and reliable, and the website UI is simple (no crazy Ajax, Flash interface, browser requirements, etc). For my highly important business domains, I went with DynDNS [dyndns.com], which is slightly more expensive, but has a clean and beautiful

        • I've been very happy with gandi.net. [gandi.net]

  • It's not mined out. (Score:5, Informative)

    by bmo (77928) on Sunday November 14, 2010 @06:18AM (#34221006)

    It's squatted, sniped, tasted, and front-run out.

    When a speculator can register thousands of names and move them around for free by playing the system, is there any wonder that .com is "mined out"? When a registrar front-runs domain names (Network Solutions) and fills the space with reserved names for itself, is there any wonder that .com is "mined out"?

    Get rid of domain tasting and other shenanigans and the problem will go away.

    --
    BMO

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Nursie (632944)

      This.

      Also 'investors'. A little while back I read an online article by someone congratulating themselves on investing in .com names. He was going through a dictionary, finding obscure words and testing to see if they were available, then buying them up. He had about 30 dictionary words and he was going to make money on the idea, also encouraging others to do the same.

      It's one of those times when you wish you could reach through the screen and strangle the person on the other side. Squatters, 'investors' and

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Kosi (589267)

        The easy solution would be a "use it or lose it" rule where the ownership of a domain that is just parked will be revoked when someone else would like to register it.

        • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 14, 2010 @06:42AM (#34221096)

          You can trivially set up a mail account, subscribe to a few newsletters and ignore any "use it or lose it" kind of rules. The internet is more than just the web, remember?

        • by John Hasler (414242) on Sunday November 14, 2010 @10:24AM (#34221908) Homepage

          I have a domain that I currently use only for email but it is still in use. The Web is not the Net.

          And who is going judge what constitutes "use" anyway? Are you going to visit each of millions of Web sites and determine which are "real" and which are merely parked?

          • by Kosi (589267)

            I know that WWW ist just one of many services. And a definition of "use" (or better of what kind of behaviour leads to losing the domain) that eliminates most of the speculants and cybersquatters but doesn't hurt other people shouldn't be too difficult to find.

            And if it's only done on request by someone with serious interest in using the domain, there would be no need to "visit millions of websites".

            • by nedlohs (1335013)

              I doubt it. Accepting email (and then ignoring it) costs the "speculants and cybersquatters" nothing - they just point them all at the same mail server just as they do with the web servers.

              Plus, why is putting up a page of advertisements not "using"?

              • by Kosi (589267)

                I doubt it. Accepting email (and then ignoring it) costs the "speculants and cybersquatters" nothing - they just point them all at the same mail server just as they do with the web servers.

                Oh my. Just imagine this: guy wants to register $HISNAME-software.com that is taken by a domain grabber. Guy goes to some kind of ombudsman who gives the thing a closer look and easily sees that the running mailserver is just an alibi. Domain will be transferred, grabber maybe fined.

                Sure, you could never really get all of them, if we make sure not to have "false positives", but why shouldn't we at least get rid of the big ones, where it is easy to proove?

                Plus, why is putting up a page of advertisements not "using"?

                Because of the missing content?!

          • Flamebait? Seriously? What a stupid mod.

        • by wkcole (644783)

          The easy solution would be a "use it or lose it" rule where the ownership of a domain that is just parked will be revoked when someone else would like to register it.

          It is non-trivial to define "parked" in regards to a domain name in a way that is fair. I have 2 .com domains registered. One I've used since the price of a .com name was writing a justification memo to the InterNIC. I registered the other one in the late 90's when I thought I might want to migrate off the old one (complicated story) but I've never done so. My old registrar consideredd both of those domains "parked" simply because I didn't use their DNS servers for either of them, but in fact the old domai

          • by Kosi (589267)

            Oh, "registering a domain in order to treat it as a good to be sold", maybe with an added "especially when not making any real use in terms of running stuff like websites, mail, ssh, VPN, ..." seems like a good starter to me.

            And in your case, I would suspect that - assuming your business is not selling domains - your (businesses') name or what you do and the domain name give clear evidence that you had no malicious intent.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Apologies in advance; this is going to be harsh... It's called capitalism - supply and demand, scarcity, etc. The hippielove ideal of the internet is long gone. These days it's nothing for a company to spend $5k, $50k or more for a generic domain that drives traffic to their site. A single magazine spread can cost that much for a month. It's not squatting or anything else you want to label it, it really is investing in a valuable asset.

        What you're really saying is that you're jealous you didn't registe

      • by kyrio (1091003) <(slashdot) (at) (lurkmore.com)> on Sunday November 14, 2010 @10:00AM (#34221766) Homepage
        If idiots stopped paying more than $10 for a domain then it wouldn't be a problem. Every time I've contacted a domain owner about a domain I laugh at them and re-offer $10 for their shitty domain when they tell me it "costs $595".

        The problem is that you have idiots accepting ridiculous amounts for worthless domains when the domain doesn't even matter anymore. I've been to many a site with a meaningless domain or a domain that is very long or a domain with a random tld and they've had no problem with traffic because they have a good website or provide something that people need.
        • by Sycraft-fu (314770) on Sunday November 14, 2010 @11:17AM (#34222278)

          The squatters may just think people will pay. Remember that for something like this to happen there doesn't have to be an actual worthwhile market, just the perception of one. You get all kinds of dumb, greedy, people who get in to shit.

          A great example is back in the day when eBay was young and some domain squatters decided to buy up domains they thought might be worthwhile and try to sell them. So the funniest one I came across was a guy who had registered generalmills.cc and wanted to sell it for $10,000,000. That's right, ten million dollars. His sales pitch was you could buy it and then "Make them pay whatever you liked for the rights." Of course General Mills happily owned generalmills.com at the time and didn't seem to have an interest in others. What's more, a company can nab a domain name that is their trademark if they wish (these days through ICANN, back then through the courts). I e-mailed him calling him an idiot more or less and got one of the most caustic, hate filled responses defending his business claiming he made millions "regularly" on sales. I pointed out to him that he had no sales on eBay thus far, and got more hate in response.

          It was quite clear that he though he'd got a brilliant scam, which was successful only in his own mind. He was just waiting for his big payday... Which of course never came.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by lwsimon (724555)

          In some cases, it makes financial sense to pay some. I was looking to start a gun reviews site a while back, and had a $500 budget for a domain name. I found one - I think it was gunreviews.org - and sent them an email offering $500. I got an automated response that they would not be accepting any offers under $2,500.

          Meawhile, something like "buyviagraonline.com" would be worth thousands.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Hazelfield (1557317)
      Yep. When you can type in http://slashdo.org/ [slashdo.org] and get to a junk "search portal", you know it's too easy to register a domain name.
    • A money grab (Score:5, Insightful)

      by KingSkippus (799657) on Sunday November 14, 2010 @07:31AM (#34221222) Homepage Journal

      Disclaimer: I loathe GoDaddy.com. Their commercials are downright offensive, their service is expensive crap, and I've known many people burned by them.

      Having said that, I can't imagine that this is anything but a money grab by GoDaddy.com. When I read this, two thoughts came to mind.

      First, they'll probably catch a lot of people who are not technically savvy enough to noticed that they're registering a .co instead of a .com. I know, how can someone be technically savvy enough to know they need a domain name and go through the process of registering it, but not know they need a .com? The easy answer is marketing goobs. Where I used to work, the marketing decided that .biz would be the next "hot" thing, and changed all of the company letter head, business cards, and ad copy to [company].biz, even though we still owned our .com name. It was a dismal failure, of course. We even got complaints from employees and customers because e-mails were bouncing due to spam systems and/or software that didn't recognize .biz as a legal address didn't work with our domain name. Eventually, the powers-that-be finally made the marketing department relent and they changed it back, but it was still an expensive, needless, unmitigated disaster.

      Second, even for technically savvy people, if .co becomes a popular alternative, it's yet one more TLD that competent businesses will have to register. Any business worth its salt now has to register [company].com, [company].org, and [company].net. I run some hobby gaming sites, and even I register those three for my sites to make sure that no one tries to squat my site names. It seems painfully obvious to me that GoDaddy wants to add another TLD--and another $30 to their coffers for every domain name registered--by "legitimizing" .co domain names. If I were dumb enough to use them as a registrar, that means if I don't want someone squatting my site name, now I'll have to register [site].co as well. Worse, I really need to make double sure that I register that one because it's so easy to mistype .com as .co.

      So no thank you. As far as I'm concerned, unless you run a business out of Bogotá, having a .co domain is like having a .biz domain--kind of stupid, and any non-Colombian business or organization that tries to use one instead of .com will be treated as fly-by-night by me, most likely a scammer or spammer.

      • Re:A money grab (Score:5, Insightful)

        by axx (1000412) on Sunday November 14, 2010 @08:01AM (#34221286) Homepage

        Small thing: many people don't even type in the domain name in full, with the TLD.

        A *lot* of people type in “facebook” to go to facebook.com, or even “facebook login” to login to facebook, completely unaware of the magic that happens behind the scenes.
        Do you remember what happened on that ReadWriteWeb article about Facebook's new login page ? The comments are unbelievable and yet. http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/facebook_wants_to_be_your_one_true_login.php [readwriteweb.com]

        Also, this is why Google knows that bit more about what sites people visit. Everytime people don't enter the TLD, their browser does a swift “I'm feeling lucky” search and takes them to the result.

        So the .com vs .co problem might not be that much of an issue these days.

        • by hvm2hvm (1208954)
          Holy shit... that's the best way to show just how sheep-like people are. Fuck, I didn't think it was that bad.
          • by sznupi (719324)

            Sheep? I take it you don't utilize any thermostats in the heating of your house? Shun automatic transmission?

            For that matter, why not remember and write in IP in the browser bar?

            • by u17 (1730558)
              You're right, but if the users are not to blame then it's the browser developers who made the irresponsible decision to let google decide how to resolve what users typed in the address entry field. If you release one party from blame then it's nice to point out where the blame actually lies.
            • For that matter, why not remember and write in IP in the browser bar?

              Flashbacks to SUN terminal rooms in college; having a notebook half-filled with IP addresses, passed from person to person, because only the CS grad students got printer time...good times.

        • by selven (1556643)

          To get to slashdot.org (I don't use facebook), I hit Ctrl+T, then the letter s, then the right arrow key, then enter. Once you've been to a site once, you barely need to think at all these days.

          • by u17 (1730558)
            Hold on there, young man, you mean to say that you don't have to type the web site to go to a web site? I can see what you mean by Ctrl (there seems to be a key on the keyboard with that label), but how do I get a capital T without pressing Shift? (You didn't mention Shift there, so I assume I should not press it. Should I use that key I always avoid that makes me type all-capital letters?) Also, can you write this again as a numbered list, so I can ask my grandson to print it out for me and stick it on my
            • by selven (1556643)

              1) Send neural impulses to direct your right arm such that said arm is above the keyboard. You may, if you wish, separate your eyelids so that you might see when you are successful in this.
              2) Send more neural impulses to move your thumb right over the key the light reflecting off of which forms the letters Ctrl upside down on your retina. Similarly move your pinky finger right over the key that looks like a T. Note that although pressing the key normally places a lowercase t on the screen, the key is still

        • by vegiVamp (518171)

          > browser does a swift “I'm feeling lucky” search

          Umm... Maybe this changed, but the last time I checked, Firefox tries .com and a few other toplevels until one resolves.

      • Re: (Score:2, Redundant)

        by houghi (78078)

        So the only reason that you are against it is so you do not need to pay more for another domain name. And yet by registering three daomain names (com, net, org) you and almost everybody else are using up those names.

        I always thought these com, net, org and all others are not a good idea. The best would have been to just use the ones for each country. That would have made this site slashdot.us. "But what about international organizations like debian?" I hear you ask. Well, either take the one where the organ

        • There is a .us TLD. No company wants to use it though, because it has no brand recognition at all. When people want to find a company, they type companyname.com - not companyname.us.

          Here is proof, in the form of a registry desperatly trying and failing to get people to buy .us domains: http://www.neustar.us/ [neustar.us]
      • And think of the money from all those media companies relocating to Tuvalu! The office space it a bit tight, but still... What a view!
    • by Raenex (947668) on Sunday November 14, 2010 @08:27AM (#34221364)

      Get rid of domain tasting

      It's pretty much gone:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_tasting [wikipedia.org]

      "ICANN reported in August 2009, that prior to implementing excess domain deletion charges, the peak month for domain tastings was over 15 million domain names. After the $0.20 fee was implemented, this dropped to around 2 million domain names per month. As a result of the further increase in charges for excess domain deletions, implemented starting April 2009, the number of domain tastings dropped to below 60 thousand per month."

      I know from personal experience that a domain I had let lapse and was sat on for years became available again after the ICANN policy was put in place.

    • by hey (83763)

      Yes, its frustrating. I am trying to come with the a .com name and most of the a names are squatted (Registered but no website or godaddy.com website.)

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Rudolf (43885)

        Yes, its frustrating. I am trying to come with the a .com name and most of the a names are squatted (Registered but no website or godaddy.com website.)
        The web is not the internet. There are many more things to use a domain for than just a website.

    • by evilviper (135110)

      Get rid of domain tasting and other shenanigans and the problem will go away.

      You're a good couple years behind. "Tasting" is long-dead.

      http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-12aug09-en.htm [icann.org]

      So now would you like to try again to regail us with your extensive insight into the domain name system, and the answers to all our problems?

  • .co for company ? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by whiteboy86 (1930018) on Sunday November 14, 2010 @06:20AM (#34221014)
    .co.uk
    .co.jp
    .co.nz

    are already in use as a company designator so why not ? but what about the collision with the Colombia state domain ?
  • The right question (Score:3, Insightful)

    by geogob (569250) on Sunday November 14, 2010 @06:26AM (#34221046)

    The question we should ask ourselves is whether or not we should accept domain name registration as a commercial practice. The moment we say 'yes' to this question, and it seems to me that this was the general answer since very early in the life of the DNS, we shouldn't neither be surprised nor shocked to see common commercial practices being used by these registrar.

    If you buy the nice looking shirt for twice the price right at the entrance of the store, it's your problem I guess. But still, there's a difference. Most of us are aware of common commercial practice to lure clients into more expensive product. We sometimes choose to ignore or forget them, but we still are globally aware of them. But, somehow, we forget that similar rules apply to online businesses as well, probably due to the lack of personal interaction.

    • by windcask (1795642) on Sunday November 14, 2010 @08:30AM (#34221378) Homepage Journal

      The question we should ask ourselves is whether or not we should accept domain name registration as a commercial practice.

      How about a resounding yes? The vast majority of sites on the internet are used for businesses. ".com" is short for "commercial," you know. If you want to talk about taking ".org" domains out of the commercial registration pool, there are practices that might be put in place to restrict their use in a way that ".edu" and ".gov" are used. I think you would be a little late to the party, though.

      • by geogob (569250)

        Just so we are clear on that, I'm not suggesting anything. I honestly do not know the right answer to this complex question myself.

        But I want to put emphasis on the point that I'm talking about the registration process of a domain name, not the actual websites behind theses names. I'm referring to the fact that registrars are commercial websites themselves, employing commercial tactics I would expect from every other commercial websites or store.

    • Umm... Yes. Why treat DNS any different than real estate? It is a digital form of real estate. If someone wants to buy land at an exorbitant price and not bother to check if it's even what they want, why is it the fault of the system? GoDaddy is being shady, sure, but it's not some kind of fundamental flaw because we let people commercialize domain registration.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Tacvek (948259)

        Real eastate is an extremely good model for how the DNS system should be run.

        In places with significant unused land (for our purposes preserves and protected wilderness would be considered used) it is often possible to obtain ownership of such land by simply claiming it, and using it. (Law varies by nation, but this still occurs, and was far more common in the past).

        In all other cases you buy land from an existing holder.

        Regardless of one one obtains the land though, one must still pay any property tax, or

  • Godaddy mistake? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by wlad (1171323)
    Is it only GoDaddy doing this? In which case it might just as well simply be a mistake. Who, in their right mind, would choose the Columbian domain instead of one of the many new top level domains as new default?
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by amaupin (721551)

      I use Godaddy almost exclusively for my many (too many) domains... that said, let's be honest.

      It's not a mistake. Their checkout process is designed to wave as many unnecessary - yet seemingly useful - options as possible in front of novice domain customers, in hopes that one or two will fall into their basket by mistake. No doubt their logs are full of new customers landing and searching for an unavailable .com domain, repeat, repeat, repeat, give up.

      Now by defaulting to .co and hiding .com they can sell

      • Re:Godaddy mistake? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by RDW (41497) on Sunday November 14, 2010 @07:19AM (#34221202)

        Yes, no mistake. They were pushing this even before it became available for sale:

        http://community.godaddy.com/godaddy/co-claim-your-opportunity/ [godaddy.com]

        'Pre-registration is now open for the newest truly global and recognizable domain name extension to come along in years: .co -- It's used everywhere as an abbreviation for Company, Corporation, and Commerce. Let it vault your company into the global Internet marketplace!

        Here's your chance to grab domain names that have been taken for years with the .com extension. Pre-registration includes application periods for trademark holders and others.'

  • No different from .tv or any other new top level domain. It is currently possible to open up any tld you want now (.city .dog .etc) if you have around $100,000 and the capabilities to manage a registrar through Icaan. However, .com, .net .org and country tld will always be king in people minds. .travel has been around forever and nobody uses it. Expect more of the same with all these new domains coming on the market.
    • .co is a country TLD. It's just misused, in largely the same was as .me, .nu, and many others.

      • by KDR_11k (778916)

        So is .tv, Tuvalu.

  • by Englabenny (625607) <ulrik.sverdrupNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Sunday November 14, 2010 @06:53AM (#34221134) Homepage
    It's a scam to sell off .co domains as .com domains, and it should be outed as such by slashdot.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by sdnoob (917382)

      agreed. just another way for godaddy to profit from the clueless or too-lazy-to-read-what-they're-doing... which is a pretty large percentage of their customer base.

      • Yes, it's a shameless scheme to grab money from people not paying attention. Like the car industry, food industry, vitamins, candy, beer, cigarettes, shoes, weapons, and just about every other business. Smoothly mislead people into spending it and thinking they are happy with what they got. *Actually* helping people, as in applying your knowledge of the subject and advising the most intelligent solutions, is not always relevant, and is frequently called stupid, nerdy, or weird. It rules our society, It'
    • by alphatel (1450715) * on Sunday November 14, 2010 @08:24AM (#34221352)

      It's a scam to sell off .co domains as .com domains, and it should be outed as such by slashdot.

      I smell lawsuit. Unwary and dumb users expect to have their hands held in this day and age.

      This is a really uninformed error by the world's largest registrar. If you don't have a big blue banner that says "This is NOT a .COM domain - .CO domains are from COlumbia!" you are automatically setting yourself up for a class-action suit which you will assuredly lose or settle.

      But maybe the GoDaddy lawyers already figured out the cost of the suit, the settlement and the legal fees, and the 90% markup still leaves more on the table than an ultra-competitive .com price. In which case, we are the sheeple and will be eaten soon by the GoDragon.

  • I saw the stupid Twitter-140-character-limit-moronity-mandated URL-shortened http://flic.kr/ [flic.kr] the other day, and I thought, the concept of ccTLDs are dead! Why not just use http://flickr/ [flickr] if you're going to do that.

    Yeah, the Internet is getting stupider and stupider every second...

  • by windcask (1795642) on Sunday November 14, 2010 @08:25AM (#34221360) Homepage Journal
    If you disagree with Godaddy's business practices, vote with your wallet and use other registrars and hosting services. What could possibly be gained by trying to force them back into defaulting to .com again? There's no guarantee that .com will stay the de facto standard for domain names in the future. My money is on .us domains, personally. But I don't see it happening, sadly; people would rather spend hours whining at lawmakers to litigate other tech companies like Facebook and Google into shape than actually stop using their services...
    • by shentino (1139071)

      When a monopoly provides a service you desperately need, it's hard to stop them from milking you for all you're worth.

      You have to maintain an internet presence these days, and failure to "keep with the times" may well jeopardize your ability to do business, hold down a job, and so on.

      So you pay the piper.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by windcask (1795642)
        I got rid of my Facebook and GMail accounts because I disagreed with their policies and their business practices. I had over 300 Facebook friends and my world hasn't come crashing down around me. People sometimes confuse what they need with what they want.
  • Enough of the .com square limits already. People have learned that they don't even have to remember or take note of the full domain, they just automatically fill in .com. Sometimes I think we shouldn't even have domain names, we should all just use random-string addresses for sites. Works for phone numbers. johndoe at x9tvd2k
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by wlad (1171323)
      Indeed. Nowadays, people just type what they want on Google. They don't type URLs anymore at all.
  • by Animats (122034) on Sunday November 14, 2010 @12:52PM (#34223064) Homepage

    With the October 27th change to Google web search, "domaining" may be on the way out.

    Google made huge changes when they merged "Google Places" (which is really Google business search") results into their main web search results. Search for DVD player [google.com]. There are almost no "organic search results" shown. At the top, there's "Related searches for dvd player - Brands, Stores, Types". There are two "organic" results from Amazon and Best Buy, both Google advertisers. Then a big block of "shopping results" A right side column of ads.

    And that's a non-local search. On searches which imply some location ("london hotels" is a good test case), Google displays a map. For a few days, they displayed a big map in the main search area; today it's on the right, above the ads. Between the big ad block at the top, the map at the right, the ads below the the map, and the links in the main search area to the map, only a few organic results are squeezed in.

    Google's organic search isn't any better than it used to be at filtering out the bottom-feeders. Down below the fold on "dvd player" search, there's still a result from "bestsoftware4download" (which tries a drive-by install of some .exe). In the "london hotels" search, there are a few junk entries. Most of the stuff visible on the first screen isn't organic search results, though. This makes "domaining" futile.

    Google is still fooling around with their layout after their big change, and it hasn't settled yet. (Also, Google's layout changes if you're logged into Google and allow "personalization". The results mentioned above are not "personalized".) The trend, though, is clear. The primary results for a search with commercial intent now come from Google advertisers. Google is pushing advertisers to buy ads directly from Google, not from the "bottom feeders".

    So buying up large numbers of ".co" domains may be futile. I expect we'll see many junk domains in ".com" expiring, with nobody picking them up.

  • by Ron Bennett (14590) on Sunday November 14, 2010 @02:14PM (#34223686) Homepage

    Many people, are not aware that country-code TLDs (ccTLDs) are NOT governed by ICANN policies.

    ccTLDs are a whole different breed with their own unique rules and policies. The ccTLD delegated country, which in the case of .CO is the country of Columbia, has total control - the registrant has little to no recourse; ICANN likely can't help.

    Most .CO registrants don't fully realize the risks with the biggest ones being:

    * The country of Columbia could change policy at any time and take away many domains - it's happened many time before in numerous ccTLDs, including with .TM, such as Sex.TM, and even with .US as in the case of FuckCensorship.US that was retroactively deleted - google for more details.

    * Can charge any price they want - so that .CO domain one registers for $29.95 today at GoDaddy could potentially cost far more in the future to renew; no rate caps nor restrictions on variable pricing - .CO can raise prices to whatever it wants anytime for all or selectively (ie. own a real nice .CO and you could be looking at a huge renewal bill; not unheard of either - read up on .TV variable pricing practices).

    Bottom line is ccTLDs (.CO, .TV, .US, etc) are not the same as gTLDs (.COM, .NET, .ORG, etc). Buyer beware!

    Ron

  • 15 years ago, CentralNic pulled a similar stunt with the .com domains - they went around and registered domains like uk.com, us.com, cn.com and ru.com and then brazenly sold subdomains off of those as if they were "top-level domains", completely with hefty charges (32.50 GBP per year for something.uk.com for example).

    It ties in with this story too, because CentralNic have indeed registered uk.co and us.co as well, so I wonder when they'll try to "persuade" the publc that something.uk.co is a legit top-leve

    • by Lehk228 (705449)
      it will also be a good scam against those trying to avoid squatters, own a .co.uk? better buy up the .uk.co as well, especially if you are a bank or other business that would be a likely target of fraud.
  • Why do we even have root domains? Why not simply partition load by say the last few letters of the domain name. Reserve trademarks, proper names, and other forms of identity to their rightful owners - this way say a city can register a "root" domain and sell subdomains. Or a country. Or a DNS hotel like GoDaddy. Small organizations can register with whoever they wish as a subdomain, or run their own top level if they wish. Charge a flat fee per domain to recover load costs.

    And get rid of the annoying

Do not simplify the design of a program if a way can be found to make it complex and wonderful.

Working...