Is Domain Speculation Bust?

The latest Netcraft survey is more interesting than usual, because it reports a drop in the total number of registered domain names, as well as a decreasing number of sites reachable overall by the survey. It's been a traumatic year in the tech world, but the drop in domain names goes back to domain name buy-ups of 1999 (and looks like it will accelerate the same way domain speculation did in 2000). All is not gloom, though, and the number of registered domain names is not the same as the number of active sites. The Netcraft site points out that "as domains bought for speculative reasons are abandoned, we can expect a higher proportion of sites to be active." Read the rest of the survey report for more interesting information on the state of the domain world.

not only that...

[Anonymous Coward]

I have seen some companies with literally hundreds of domains registered that are based on their "brand" and in various TLDs...

As budgets get cut, and people wake up to the reality of the net you will probably see these registrations lapse...

Machines or websites.

[Anonymous Coward]

I notice Apache still has a commanding lead, but wonder how it would look on an actual machine basis. I know much of the low cost hosts run hundreds if not thousands of websites on one machine.

I also wonder how many of those websites are more or less abandoned and/or derelict websites which are no longer maintained.

Speculating

[fm6]

A few people did well reselling domain names (AltaVista Technology, the web hosting company, not the search engine, comes to mind), though I suspect these were mostly names that web pioneers had picked up for their own use, only to discover some deep-pockets company wanted them and were willing to pay.

But once a few people got rich that way, naturally there was a "gold rush". It's no different than the Florida Land Bubble [paulsann.org], the tulip bubble [businessweek.com], or a zillion other speculative bubbles [clarity.net].

For that matter, how different is the stock market, with its rumor-chasing mentality? Or modern currency, which is valuable only because you can use it to buy Goods and Services -- which are produced only because they're worth money!

Which is not an argument for going back to the Gold Standard or shutting down Wall Street. It's just a reminder that speculation and fiat are both essential parts of a modern economy.

$7.5M

[waldoj]

Thus, no one can sell obvious things like "business.com" for $400,000,000,000,000 or whatever.

business.com sold for -- I kid you not -- $7.5M US in November of 1999 [salon.com]. What were they thinking [business.com]?

-Waldo Jaquith

The Anti-cybersquatting law

[www.sorehands.com]

The .com bust did have something to do with it.

But, also the Anti-Cybersquatting laws that put penalties for people cybersquatting and typo squatting. These penalties made it unprofitable to speculate. I'd like to see a law that would make it unprofitable to SPAM.

Sad isn't it...

[Xerithane]

It took them this many years to realize that they were just wasting their money. I'm currently waiting out on a domain because the guy is claiming that he has received bids for $900 for the domain so I have to beat that. I told him, "Sure - send me proof of one claim that I can verify and I will gladly bid higher to secure the domain name." It successfully terminated the conversation.

I think it's really funny that all these nimrods are finally starting to realize that hoarding domain names only works if you get things like 'doctor.com'. I just have to laugh at all those folks who helped keep the registrars business flowing.

Good article

[nikoftime]

Anyone else find it absolutely fascinating that Network Solutions' policies, even well after the buyout by Verisign, still affect the 'internet economy' greatly. I mean, just their original monopolizing option of making people buy a two year registration caused us to have a major fallout after that time period. It's always seemed odd to me that companies can have that much effect and general will over the economy and society as a whole.

Query re: netcraft

[BillyGoatThree]

I run a perfectly legitimate domain (a book review site) from my house. Due to Verizon's brain-dead policies, though, I have to run it on a non-80 port. Is there a way to point Netcraft at this server so I can register it with my choice of server software?

You may be inclined to answer "If you aren't on 80, you aren't a Big Player" but that's bullcrap. They count all those "build your own site" pieces of crap, plus everybody who forgot to turn off Personal Web Services. Why not me, too?

Re:Not quite yet...

[dushbeer]

... ensures the registered business can have their online presence without having to negotiate around people already there and wanting $$$ for what you already essentially own...

It works the other way around too. Take for example http://www.google.com.au/ which has been registered by a web hosting group that apparrently has nothing to do with the Google Inc. (the search engine we all know and use). Note that except for the URL, the word google is not mentioned anywhere on the abovementioned site, not even on their contact page, where the company is named as Dedicated Hosting Pty Ltd. Also note that Google Inc. owns an Australian Trademark for the word "google" in several computer related classes. Activities like this seem to be contrary to the spirit of the .au requirements for domain name registration.

Anyone can effectively obtain an Australian business name to facilitate the registering of a .com.au domain, some companies even offer a business name/domain name combination for offshore visitors eg: http://www.instra.com.au/auzpack.htm

Is this an example of an Australian business that has been registered with the sole purpose of domain squatting/speculation?

Who listens to analysts

[lseltzer]

Interesting that the curve shoots up as Gartner tells people to ditch IIS [zdnet.com].

Re:$7.5M

[rebbie]

The $7.5M was not really what the domain was worth or what was paid for it. It may look that way at first, but if you look at the facts you'll see that it was really a way to get the guy who sold it to come on board and to also garner publicity by paying a big name for the domain.

It turned out to be more of a signing bonus at the expense of shareholders.

Where'd the Microsoft Spike Come From?

[Crispin Cowan]

IMHO, more significant (to say nothing of distrubing) than the domain name reduction is the huge spike in use of Microsoft web servers starting last June. The spike continues unabated [netcraft.com] through the summer of Code Red [cert.org] and Nimda [cert.org].

What is it that caused this surge in Microsoft web servers? And what is it that causes these clueless dweebs to ignore the substantial risks [zdnet.com] of employing Microsoft web servers?

Crispin
----
Crispin Cowan, Ph.D.
Chief Scientist, WireX Communications, Inc. [wirex.com]
Immunix: [immunix.org] Security Hardened Linux Distribution
Available for purchase [wirex.com]

Re:Hurrah!

[rebbie]

Yes -- and the buyer? The dolts at Idealab! who have squandered $800 million or so of their investor's money on their various hair-brained ideas.

Re:Bubble burst?

[b1t r0t]

I have a 3-character .com domain name which I intentionally picked by using the random number function of a Casio calculator and a lookup table, just so I could have a 3-character name, and I thought it was a pretty decent one, too, for being random. That was back in March 2000.

But that's not the interesting part. The interesting part was back in September 2000, when I noticed someone had taken the .net of my domain. Sure enough, some idiots with more money than sense had registered every possible 3-character .com and .net name that hadn't yet been taken. Not surprisingly, they didn't renew the .net of my domain in 2001.