The New Yorker Magazine just did a cover story on the new gTLD program entitled “The Great Internet Land Grab”
“Suddenly reorganizing the way we navigate the web with new strings like .guru, .club, or .google might seem frivolous or strange, but entities like ICANN and its stakeholders insist that they will make the Web more intuitive and user-friendly; an address like AdoptA.dog is slightly more logical than PetAdoptions.com, which is currently occupied by a squatter”
For the record in this case the “squatter” is Name Administration which is owned by legendary domain investor Frank Schilling’s which also owns Uniregistry which was one of the largest applicants in the new gTLD program applying for over 50 new gTLD’s.
As those in the domain community know, Name Administration has the best generic domain portfolio on earth and hasn’t lost a UDRP in 10 years.
Interestingly on the other than the article calls Donuts, Inc. Domain investors:
“In 2010, a group of well-connected domain-name speculators—sometimes referred to as domainers or “Internet real-estate investors”—quietly raised a hundred million dollars for a venture called Donuts Incorporated”.
The author showed his ignorance in calling those behind Donuts, Inc., Domainers/ Internet Real-Estate Investors, while calling the owner of the best generic domain name portfolio on earth a Squatter.
The story goes on to chat about Donuts, Google and Amazon the results of the private auctions held to date and well as the ICANN Last Resort auction.
Here is the next best quote from the article:
“Donuts is wagering that holding vast swaths of potentially desirable domains will itself be a business.”
“If it’s correct, and Web sites seek to annex or relocate to these radical new addresses in droves, Donuts could find itself very rich—while the first generation of cyber squatters will find themselves sitting on suddenly worthless territory.”
Shame on you Frank! Now you just go to your room and think about what you’ve done… registering a two-word generic domain. Shame on you.
I wonder if there is a value in Domainers suing for slander over these Squatter claims. They could be quite damaging actually. For example next time Frank gets a UDRP the complaintant can quote the New Yorker which is a respected source calling him a squatter.
And new gTLD guys like Donuts they called a domain investor when of course they don’t actually own any domains
u guys do realize regular people use the term “cybersquatter” and “domain investor” interchangeably and they do not always mean for them to have negative connotations…
yes it would be nice if they knew the difference and used the right words but nearly everybody doesnt.
to them, and most people when they speak about this… it is just another passing topic… they dont want to become an expert or learn the proper words no more than i want to learn the technical workings behind the airplane im boarding..
i mean, you can tell me about it and ill listen but im really not going to care and will still call the most un-technical piece of equipment a “thing-a-ma-jig” even though you told me the correct term 3 times… i dont remember or care because its not my field of expertise.
Well the New Yorker is as mainstream media as you can get, so there is no excuse for the author not educating themselves on a topic before writing about it.
Its a very old, well established publication, not a blog or some fly by night publication.
You can’t just excuse them for interchanging two existing terms especially where term describes conduct actionable under federal law and another term that is an perfectly legal activity.
I hope Frank goes out and holds the publication liable on this one
If people started suing folks like The New Yorker for slander (I think that is the correct term) then there would be stores printed about that it this behavior would slow down and the public would slowly become more aware. They ought to be accountable for their actions like they expect us to be.
JP
Libel is for written words or statements, slander is for verbal words.
Don’t correct the lawyer
))::
A factual article like this could have been very useful about two years ago or sooner when the application process was open to anyone, and actions to apply, or even contest others during the earliest phases were still permitted. It would be very relevant now to include information on dotNYC “.nyc” since some readership of the THE NEW YORKER could participate in the ongoing online MEETUPS which is open to NYC residents and relevant communities. I agree with the other comments that I also do not like the definite slant to the article which uses the term “squatter”.
@Michael
fair point and i guess its a sign of how early it is still… some of the early mainstream news stories about the internet itself smacked of the same kind of fly-by-night research.
so the new yorker isnt just some guy in a bar telling a story but ive noticed some domainers seem to think that if they explain the difference to regular people that somehow they’re going to go OOHHHHH I SEE and suddenly have a different viewpoint. like that guy in the bar saying:
“yeah, i went to check on the perfect website name and it was taken by a squatter so i have to think of another one.”
in cases like that the other person doesnt care the correct term is “domain investor” because they are paying the renewel fee on a generic term, therefore not “squatting.”
nah, to them it is the exact same thing because the point of what they were saying is “the domain i want is taken by somebody who isnt using it for a developed site” and asking them to use a different word is semantics a lot of times.
so i guess at least one of the new yorker’s writers are just “that guy in a bar.”
We have been writing about the new gTLD thing for over 3 years.
There were plenty of articles about the program before the application period opened, once it was opened but like with most things in life people don’t pay attention to new opportunities until its too late.
Don’t worry a second round for new applications will open my guess in 2015/2016
Frank is a “squatter” have you seen his gluts? if not check them out next time he dawns his speedo and dips into the Ritz carlton pool.
“like with most things in life people don’t pay attention to new opportunities until its too late.” Sadly and amazingly I must agree with you. Thankfully there apathy is an opportunity for you, me, and a select few other investors who hold GTLD names who’s value will soon be realized IMO.
Owen
Thanks for the visual think I’ll pass
Sorry Mike wasn’t contradicting you. I missed the part where you said it was Liable and I was still rambling.
NP
dumb question:
liable = Libel ?
OH Frank ! We All Love You ~~
“Despite the fact that the last handful of domains released by ICANN in the early aughts, like .biz and .info, never quite caught on—using a .biz domain today is dowdier than a Hotmail e-mail address”
ja ja
so true!
What’s hilarious is their belief that an “address” such as AdoptA.dog is “more intuitive”.
Liable = legally responsible.
Libel = a written defamation.
Labelle = singing group from the 70’s.
First Mike, your website has a message for you: “WordPress 3.6 is available! Please notify the site administrator.”
Second, Thank you for this Donuts press release, but i prefer grilled fish.
Ha, they called Frank Schilling a squatter and Donuts.CO the investors? That’s rich
For the record – this is the first new yorker article I’ve read, and the last, and I’m a new yorker 😀
If anyone feels like suing for defamation, they should consider where to do it. England is a popular forum of choice. That’s not legal advice BTW. 😉
@bnalponstog
a lot of domainers cant even figure out what a “good domain” is how do you expect regular people to know?
i’d imagine the thinking here is: they know most all popular intuitive .com phrases like “AdotptADog.com” are already taken of course, and removing .com makes the domain shorter, therefore better.
thats why like i was saying… the article isnt necessarily malicious, probably more on the ignorant uninformed side.. because a shorter domain isnt necessarily more intuitive.
It would be disappointing to see The New Yorker write such un-researched nonsense — except that the standards set by mainstream journalism on the subject are already so laughably low that accuracy is not expected. A publication like The New Yorker has never been paid for reporting facts, in any case. Its readership wants entertainment. Cocktail party gossip will do in lieu of research.
Mr, Schilling’s Name Administration also owns AdoptADog.com
More “maybe” “if” “could” “might”
..’but I’m not putting my money on the line’ attitude.
yeah, im sure people would have taken the author more seriously if they had planned on running a registry…
you guys realize business is sometimes all about the MAYBE, IF, COULD and MIGHT…. right?
there isnt a whole lot of money made or lost in them super safe savings accounts with .0000001% APY
LazyReporters.com is available to be “squatted”
Mike
good one