Vice.com just did a story of about Gary Millin of World.com who has one of the great domain name Portfolio’s in the world.
Unfortunately the author of the story, Jason Koebler chose to go with the “S” word to describe the amazing portfolio of assets they have put together (“Squatting”) rather using the proper term Domain Investor.
World Media Group, LLC is the owner of such amazing domain names as Teacher.com, Accountant.com, Post.com, and World.com to name a few (you can see the chart at the top of the story for some others they own or have leased out).
“Having already sold Kosher.com, London.com, and England.com for a couple million bucks, Millin realized that there was a lot of money to be made in the domain name game. In 2007, he started World Accelerator, which is where things get a bit weird.
“You can no longer buy a domain name from Millin. Instead, he will work with your company (or your idea for a company) to build out a product, then he’ll lease or lend you one of his domain names in exchange for partial ownership. In some cases, he says that companies will buy the domain name entirely, but only once they’ve become successful businesses.”
“for the last 21 years, Gary Millin and his colleagues at World Accelerator have been slowly accumulating a veritable treasure trove of seemingly premium “generic” domain names. For instance, Millin owns, has sold, or has bartered away world.com, usa.com, doctor.com, lawyer.com, comic.com, email.com, cyberservices.com, and more than 1,000 other domain names that can be yours (including yours.com, which he owns), as long as you’ve got the startup idea to back it up.”
Millin is quoted as saying:
“”A lot of times, a strong dot com domain is a great brand, even before a business is even built,” he said. “We have these underutilized assets, and we want people to use them. It’s like, we have a giant parking lot on Madison Avenue. It hasn’t been developed, but it’s there. You match the right team and the right idea, and then you have this brand to accelerate its growth.””
Instead of a rags to riches story or a story about a visionary who saw things years before others did as you would find about any other industry, the story still carries that negative taint of cybersquatting.
That’s some portfolio he’s ammased. Really like Berlin.com
sounds more like a riches to even more riches story but the media loved the buzzword, squatter.
and he even found the time to go after second level domains like KIP.com in 2009
Excellent strategy!
he is playing a weird yet clever game, a domain stockist. he better release domain so businesses can use them to serve economy. who will give him share of business in exchange of domain name merely? I understand the fact that they are popular ones but still.
Who decides the proper term?
Isn’t it clear that the term squatter as it applies to real property is not the same as the term squatter as it has been applied to domain owners? Perhaps this will be incentive to drive away from the useless real estate analogy.
Free Dictionary says (and this is the same as the Collin’s dictionary)
cybersquatting
(ˈsaɪbəˌskwɒtɪŋ)
n
1. (Telecommunications) the practice of registering an internet domain name that is likely to be wanted by another person, business, or organization in the hope that it can be sold to them for a profit
There you go. Go fix them all so you can all feel less persecuted.
@ h4ck3r,
If you feel that “cybersquatter” accurately depicts what you do, then by all means call yourself a cybersquatter. If the term being bandied about were “cyberthief”, it would be defined in the same place in the same way; and by your reasoning, the “cyberthief” would also be completely acceptable.
The rest of us are not obliged to suffer fools – nor to be forcibly branded by the ignorant with an offensive slur.
A dictionary will catalogue terms as they are used. And terms are used inexactly and offensively. Every derogatory term for every minority imaginable, however repugnant, belongs in a dictionary. Citing a bad definition of a relatively new and still very fuzzy term does not legitimize that definition nor the misguided public perception behind it.
An example: Merely because the word “kike” has been used to designate jews does NOT mean that jews are obliged to consider the word ok. Such words (though clear enough regarding to whom they’re applied) are not socially acceptable. Why not? Because they entail pernicious misperceptions and very damaging practical consequences.
Merely because a term is used to identify a group is no license for that term’s use when those designated find the label insulting. We all have the right to name ourselves and to object to ugly names foisted upon us by those who either don’t know us or who wish us ill.
Domain investors are (in no legitimate sense whatsoever) squatters.
Anyone who wants to may call me a slimy bastard – just not a cybersquatter. The first is arguable, but the second is not.
This isn’t about feeling persecuted. This is about standing up for reality.
Great comment Mr. Peterson.
That’s a good and thoughtful response. Perhaps lobby to change their definition or add “derog” tag which I am sure kike has.
By your very words you call the term squatter (presumably in an internet context) a new and very fuzzy word. Yet despite this fuzziness you associate the very worst (illegality) with it when I think the majority of people don’t.
I’m comfortable telling people to use slimy bastard instead. If you think by minor language changes you can change perception of what someone thinks of the collective of domain investors then keep fighting the good fight.
Squatter, scumbag, hogger, domain investor, name hoarder, entrepreneur..it’s all the same to me when spoken by some people. It doesn’t mean anything illegal…Despite the fact the term is used in the language of the ACPA – where it is further defined for legal specificity.
In the end if you’re a racist it doesn’t matter if you call someone a kike or a “jew”. Context is what matters. You’re the target of disrespect either way.
As I said…moving away from the poor real estate analogies will help. A squatter in a land and Internet sense are almost polar opposites.
But I agree with your point of view up to where you think you can control how language is used rather than just not giving a shit what some people say.
2/3 of battles are fought over words. The remaining 1/3 are fought with violence when the verbal fight was lost.
I would say most wars occur because of misrepresentation of events by leaders (intentional or otherwise).
No one yet has specifically cited where domain investors were even called cybersquatters (let alone with malice) but yet the masses rise.
Maybe I missed it but even so the response is to be defensive.. its all about the pre-emptive striking these days.
Misrepresentation requires people to accept a glib meaning of contentious words:
“terrorist”
“detainee”
etc.
Also (albeit with less severe repercussions):
“cybersquatter”
I am a mail.com customer. Gary started mail.com. In 1998 I signed up for a mail.com e-mail address, with the promise of never having to change my e-mail address again. The other day I got an e-mail saying that mail.com no longer owned the domain name and that I am not going to be able to use my e-mail address for much longer. At first I wondered how they could be so careless as to let go a domain that they service, then when discovered that world.com owns the domain. It seems that when Gary sold mail.com he kept the domain names. To me this doesn’t seem quite right. I don’t mind him searching for and buying valuable domains, but considering he made a promise to me, which I have a copy of, that I’d never have to change my e-mail address again, he could at least continue to allow mail.com users to use the domains which he still owns.
Actually I wrote to him and he sent me a very nice reply so I take back my criticism.
The domain changed from Mail.com Media Corporation to InterNetX GmbH on 8/14/2010. 10/1/2010 changed to GMX Internet Services with a 1and1.de email address. 4/18/2011 whois changes to 1&1 Mail & Media Inc. with the hostmaster@schlund.de registrant email address which is the current registrant.
So it appears the domain sold in August 2010.
The site currently offers free email… so not sure why you wouldn’t be allowed to use the email?
So World doesn’t own mail.com currently from what I can tell (1&1 does and has since 2010). World.com does offer email on most domains they own thought that I’m aware of.