Latest news of the domain name industry

Recent Posts

.co.com launch compares well to new gTLDs

Kevin Murphy, July 10, 2014, 15:21:24 (UTC), Domain Registries

The subdomain service .co.com, which is being managed more or less like a proper gTLD, reckons it outperformed every new gTLD earlier this week.
CEO Ken Hansen and president Paul Goldstone made the claim in a couple of Facebook posts yesterday.

Hansen clarified today that while the company is not releasing precise numbers, .co.com had “single digit thousands of registrations” following its landrush, which ended July 8.
To outperform every new gTLD, .co.com would have had to have beaten .xyz, which had a relatively quiet day (for .xyz) on July 8, adding just 1,267 names.
We can assume .co.com had somewhere between 1,268 and 9,999 registrations, therefore. I’d err to the lower end of that range, personally.
Those names would have been added cumulatively over the course of the three-month landrush and the preceding sunrise.
Still, it’s not bad for a subdomain, given that many proper new gTLDs are struggling to achieve similar numbers on their launch days.

Tagged: ,

Comments (21)

  1. Elena says:
    July 10, 2014 at 3:59 pm

    Doing better than some new gTLDs is not a representation of success.
    Let’s assume .co.com had 2.5K registrations over the course of the 3-month landrush and sunrise. There’s 2.5 billion people using the internet. So in other words 0.000001% of all internet users purchased a .co.com. This is of course assuming that 1 buyer purchases only 1 domain. In reality some people will get multiple .co.com domains so 0.000001% of all internet users is in fact much lower.
    I realize .co.com just started and I realize they may grow to 100K registrations in a few years but even then I would hardly call that a success.

    Reply
    • Kevin Murphy says:
      July 10, 2014 at 4:06 pm

      I’d guess that 100,000 registrations would be a huge success, in financial terms, for the registry. That would be millions in revenue, much more than Goldstone could have hoped for if he’d sold the domain outright.
      But you’re right, a few thousand names is piffle.

      Reply
      • Mark says:
        July 10, 2014 at 6:27 pm

        Kevin, the value of LL.com (CO.com) may be higher than the profit of the registry. Assuming revenue is bellow $1MM a year, there is not so much profit at all. And most likely renewal rate will be very low, so revenue will go down year by year. What a waste of value. If I were a domain owner of this LL.com (CO.com), I would sell it for 7-figure and that’s it…

        Reply
  2. Graham Schreiber says:
    July 11, 2014 at 2:45 am

    Whoever Goldstone is, is going to regret the deal, once they get nailed by the FTC & FBI for participating in Contributory Infringement & dilution of “.com” with CentralNic.
    Sadly, they’ve infringed the 0.000001% person who’s not as tuned-out as Cisco, Coke, Zippo; and all the others who’ve been fleeced by WIPO and their … protection racket.
    Oh my … Trafficking in counterfeit goods or services
    18 U.S. Code § 2320
    (a) Offenses.— Whoever intentionally—
    (1) traffics in goods or services and knowingly uses a counterfeit mark on or in connection with such goods or services,
    (2) traffics in labels, patches, stickers, wrappers, badges, emblems, medallions, charms, boxes, containers, cans, cases, hangtags, documentation, or packaging of any type or nature, knowing that a counterfeit mark has been applied thereto, the use of which is likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake, or to deceive,
    (b) Penalties.—
    (1) In general.— Whoever commits an offense under subsection (a)—
    (A) if an individual, shall be fined not more than $2,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both, and, if a person other than an individual, shall be fined not more than $5,000,000; and
    (B) for a second or subsequent offense under subsection (a), if an individual, shall be fined not more than $5,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and if other than an individual, shall be fined not more than $15,000,000.
    WOW $15,000,000

    Reply
    • Volker Greimann says:
      July 12, 2014 at 12:57 pm

      Graham, a subdomain is no less of a legal product than a domain name is.
      So co.uk, and other thrird level TLDs for that. The owner of a domain name is free to do with it legally whatever he likes, including renting out subdomains as a registry.
      WOW, lunacy!

      Reply
      • Kevin Murphy says:
        July 12, 2014 at 1:54 pm

        FYI Volker http://domainincite.com/10490-whacky-lawsuit-targets-icann-enom-centralnic-netsol-verisign

        Reply
      • Graham Schreiber says:
        July 12, 2014 at 3:41 pm

        Volker:
        Lunacy … Thanks for the Defamation. Respectfully, I’d like you to be more careful with the use & application of the English language.
        May I also suggest you educate yourself as to the vast administrative differences between the IANA Root System, with it’s diversified Rules & Laws; and the Domain Name system, on the topic of “Sub Domains” within or of, “.com” under US Law.
        Point 1:
        Sub Domains of ICANN’s own IANA “accredited” ccNSO / ccTLD specifically your stated .co.uk TLD are the subjects in practice of English Law.
        __________________________
        Point 2:
        Domain Names & Sub Domain’s use, such as UK.com are under “.com” regulation, being subjects of two (2) United States Laws.
        1) The “.com” TLD and all related use, is subject under ICANN’s feebly or most accurately stated, selectively enforced RAA; and it’s Capital “R” or Lowercase “r” [R]registry contracts. ICANN and R/r issues having Jurisdiction & Venue in Virginia, at either or State or Federal level, between themselves.
        2) The “.com” is protected by Lanham Act Section 15 U.S. Code § 1125 – False designations of origin, false descriptions, and dilution forbidden, overall and in greater detail at Section (d) Cyberpiracy prevention.
        _________________________
        Additionally:
        CentralNic is bound internally, within & by the NSI / Network Solutions ~ “Service Agreement” rules for use of their “UK.com” Domain Name.
        The Network Solutions “Service Agreement” is very clear!
        11. REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES. You agree and warrant that:
        (i) neither your registration nor use of the any of the Network Solutions services nor the manner in which you intend to use such Network Solutions Services will directly or indirectly infringe the legal rights of a third party,
        (ii) you have all requisite power and authority to execute this Agreement and to perform your obligations hereunder,
        (iii) you have selected the necessary security option(s) for your domain name registration record,
        (iv) you are of legal age to enter into this Agreement (or you are at least 13 years of age and have your parents’ permission to apply for services hereunder); and
        ++++ To funny, NSI missed (v) ++++
        (vi) you agree to comply with all applicable laws and regulations.
        Sadly, resulting from greed, NSI / Network Solutions [ w/VeriSign too ] have cast themselves away from protection secured & enjoyed, under the famous “Lockheed Martin Corporation v. Network Solutions, Inc.” lawsuit.
        When NSI [ or Enom or Websfusion, as ICANN “accredited” firms ] oblige me to fend off both “Dilution” and “Infringement” from inside the “.com” TLD, by purchasing protection from an NSI retail client, being CentralNic, with the UK.com Domain Name, as a “defensive registration” that is racketeering.
        Racketeering is a crime, well outside both the Lanham Act and the RAA!
        In closing, Mr. Greimann, while I may not be as articulate & polished as You, in future please be sure not to shout-down studied people, it diminishes you.
        Although in this tiny forum, I suppose you may do so, surrounded by ICANN’s own supportive Ilk.
        Cheers, Graham.

        Reply
      • Rubens Kuhl says:
        July 12, 2014 at 8:55 pm

        A subdomain is a product that provides far less protections for registrants that usual gTLDs or that ccTLDs provide for in-country citizens. Just see the difference between redelegation process for TLDs (g’s or cc’s) versus the possibility of a domain being lost in UDRP, expiring, change of heart of domain owner… http://domainincite.com/5607-fight-over-gb-com-claims-thousands-of-victims provides one example where it already happened.
        Legal implies it doesn’t violate laws; not every legal product is a good buying choice.

        Reply
        • Graham Schreiber says:
          July 13, 2014 at 4:54 pm

          Bom dia Rubens & Kevin também:
          Muito obrigado por se aprofundar no passado publicado, de CentralNic como registrado por Kevin.
          Eu particularmente gosto citação de Kevin, com ênfase em “adequado”, observou:
          “Registrar um novo domínio em uma TLD adequada (. Uk,. Com)” …
          “Então cancelar o domínio gb.com”.
          Aqui está a resposta para a pergunta de Kevin: “Também vale a pena ponderar – onde está todo o e-mail para gb.com com domínios indo.?”
          Resposta: Ela passa por google mail como Robtex ilustra.
          Kevin, que está sendo educado tão bem na nação que trabalhada do idioma Inglês, Você artisticamente e habilmente identificou portfólio CentralNic como “20 pseudo-TLDs” Veja como você está tão sem querer preciso.
          pseudo · fazer
          adjetivo: pseudo
          1 não genuíno.; farsa. “estamos a falar de verdadeiros jornalistas e não o tipo pseudo”
          . Dois sinônimos:
          . 3 falso, fingido, falso, artificial, falsa, falso, quase, falso, falso, falso, enganoso, assumiu, artificial, afetado, insincero;
          Mais engraçado ainda, é o que tradução do Google definido como o exemplo na 1.
          Talvez Kevin você vai fazer algum estudo; e “liberal interpretar” o meu esforço, cuidadosamente investigando a acusação de declarado.
          Se você puder, você vai ver a conectividade com a praga de não apenas eu, mas outros “prejudicados” e financeiramente agravada sob a “liderança” de nomeada da NTIA na OMPI.
          Aqui está um desafio Kevin:
          Compor um artigo que justifica os luxos CentralNic são concedidos e apreciar, através de “tratamento diferenciado” do / pelo “Causalidade” rendeu a partir da negligência da NTIA e ICANN.
          Para simplificar a sua pesquisa, vá para o Twitter e olhar para cima Qui_Tam @ USCourt @ AmicusCuriaeUSA, onde poderá encontrar muitas questões levantadas, com links URL relacionada com a fonte dos problemas.
          FYI ~ O principal elemento de grande jornalismo é a integridade, tendo uma capacidade de escrever objetivamente, sem viés ou motivo.
          Aqui, eu ainda desafiá-lo a perder receitas de CentralNic como por:
          https://manage.centralnic.com/front/new_registrar?utm_source=domainincite&utm_medium=banner&utm_term=mexcom125&utm_content=banner4sm&utm_campaign=rotating <
          Estou ansioso para ler o seu artigo; e ver se você tem a coragem de remover TODOS os links de receita, e não apenas CentralNic, mas a sua "credenciados pela ICANN" laia.
          Cheers, Graham.

          Reply
          • Rubens Kuhl says:
            July 13, 2014 at 6:06 pm

            I dnn’t think Kevin or anybody else besides me and Michele Neylon reads Portuguese around here…

          • Graham Schreiber says:
            July 13, 2014 at 6:18 pm

            Good Morning Rubens & Kevin too:
            Thanks very much for delving into the published past, of CentralNic as recorded by Kevin.
            I particularly like Kevin’s quote, with emphasis on “proper” noted:
            “register a new domain in a proper TLD (.uk, .com)” …
            “Then cancel the gb.com domain.”
            Here’s the answer to Kevin’s question: “Also worth pondering — where’s all the email to .gb.com domains going?”
            Answer: It goes through google mail as Robtex illustrates.
            Kevin, being schooled so well in the nation that crafted the English language, You’ve artfully & skillfully identified CentralNic’s portfolio as “20 pseudo-TLDs” here’s how You’re so unwittingly accurate.
            pseu·do
            adjective: pseudo
            1. not genuine; sham.”we are talking about real journalists and not the pseudo kind”
            2. synonyms:
            3. bogus, sham, phony, artificial, mock, ersatz, quasi-, fake, false, spurious, deceptive, misleading, assumed, contrived, affected, insincere;
            Funnier still, is what Google translation set as the example in 1.
            Perhaps Kevin you’ll do some study; and “liberally construe” my effort, thoughtfully investigating the accusation’s stated.
            If you can, you’ll see the connectivity to the blight of not just myself, but others “harmed” and financially aggravated under the “Leadership” of the NTIA’s appointee at WIPO.
            Here’s a challenge Kevin:
            Compose an article that justifies the luxuries CentralNic are granted & enjoy, via “disparate treatment” from / by the “Causation” yielded from the NTIA & ICANN’s negligence.
            To simplify your research, go to Twitter and look up Qui_Tam@USCourt @AmicusCuriaeUSA where you’ll see many questions raised, with related URL links to the source of the issues.
            FYI ~ The primary element of great journalism is integrity, having an ability to write objectively, without bias or motive.
            Herein, I further challenge you to forfeit revenue from CentralNic as per:
            https://manage.centralnic.com/front/new_registrar?utm_source=domainincite&utm_medium=banner&utm_term=mexcom125&utm_content=banner4sm&utm_campaign=rotating <
            I look forward to reading your article; and seeing if You have the fortitude to remove ALL revenue links, not just CentralNic, but to their “ICANN accredited” Ilk.
            Cheers, Graham.

  3. Jeff Neuman says:
    July 11, 2014 at 2:41 pm

    Is there a copy of their “zone file” that is being made available to anyone? Would love to see that published as the new gTLDs have to publish theirs. That would allow others to corroborate their tweets.

    Reply
    • Kevin Murphy says:
      July 11, 2014 at 3:06 pm

      Not to my knowledge.

      Reply
    • Rubens Kuhl says:
      July 11, 2014 at 6:42 pm

      .co also doesn’t have zone files available, and yet they make claims about number of registered domains.

      Reply
    • John McCormac says:
      July 12, 2014 at 9:09 am

      Well .co.com isn’t really a TLD in the truest sense and there does not seem to be any zonefile available. However one external effect that is seen when a TLD begins to show signs of use and development is that it starts to appear in nameserver names and URLs. Given the target market of .co.com, it is unlikely to be used by people who run their own nameservers so what migh appear are one hit wonders (hosters/nameservers which are only authoritative for their own domain names and are automatically set up by registrar/hoster software using a template for new sites/registrations).

      Reply
  4. Graham Schreiber says:
    July 11, 2014 at 4:45 pm

    Maybe inter alia, CentralNic being the ~ Trademark.Guru ~ they are, aided “between the cracks” by WIPO, they should be able to make the list public.
    With no prospective Dilution, Infringement or Confusingly similar websites appearing to “harm American consumers” or sell counterfeit stuff … everything’s above board.
    After all, the “CO” Domain Name Holder / Registrant has no paid services contracted “Inter-State” between themselves and VeriSign’s “CAPITAL R” Registry in Virginia, or the dual serving Capital R and ~ simultaneously local ~ Lowercase “r” Moniker folks in Oregon, or their own “CO” business in Ohio.
    Oh, in this Inter State cash flow list above, I must not forget ICANN, who get their fee!
    Of course ICANN are “outside US Jurisdiction” doing business in / from California, as a California not for profit Corporation “accrediting” VeriSign et al, with an RAA enforcement Jurisdiction & Venue in VaED.
    Certainly all that clever WIERD Boot-Strapped code eliminates Interstate Commerce, sufficient to keep the NTIA at peace and away.
    Finally, since it’s universally known that the “.com” TLD imparts no “effect on American consumers” everything should be clear to publish!
    So CentralNic, put your “CHIP” on the table and be just like a “REAL” IANA / ICANN Accredited TLD; and publish your sub-data.
    Cheers, Graham.

    Reply

Add Your Comment