The study commissioned by AusRegistry and the .au Domain Administration (auDA),  is the first of its kind to assesses the true extent of the .au domain’s influence on the Australian economy.

“The key finding from the report was that the .au domain name space contributed $475 million to the Australian economy in 2011.”

“More than 4300 full-time jobs were connected to it.”

“$269 million of that, or 57 per cent, was connected to registration and hosting of .au domains, with services such as web design and infrastructure provision also contributing.”

“The Internet has clearly become the starting point for consumer research and purchasing decisions,” Deloitte Access economics director, Ric Simes, said.

“The contribution to the Australian economy of the industry administering .au is significant, particularly in terms of employment, and this will continue to grow with the ongoing shift to e-commerce.”

Despite the attraction of the cheaper and more accessible .com domain, the .au domain has experienced exponential growth in the number of registrations over the last decade, reaching a total of 2.3 million in 2011 for a 600 per cent increase from 2002.

“.The report found that the .au name space is a labour-intensive industry, with 58 per cent of the $475 million contributed to the economy being attributed to employees.”

You can read the whole story here.

 …

The  High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi has just upheld an arbitrators determination that the domain name Internet.in should be taken away from the domain holder, its registration cancelled and ordered the domain to be held at the registry level,  based on an Indian trademark for the term “Internet”.

It’s a complicated case but to the extent any of you have any .in domain names you should really read the opinion.

.In have become somewhat popular as a Hack outside of India.

Also you should keep in mind that many ccTLD’s are governed by different rules than TLD’s and this is a prime example.

The take big take away from the case is that if you park a domain and offer it for sale (not necessary to the TM owner) your registration is in bad faith under the .In rules.

Basically .In has a UDRP like system but it has some differences which the Court explains in its opinion.

The basic facts of the case is that someone has a trademark on the term Internet bought the equivalent of a UDRP on the domain against the domain holder who has parked the domain and offered it for sale on Sedo.com

The Arbitrator based off the trademark held that the domain should be cancelled and held at the registry level, not given to the trademark holder or the domain holder and the High Court agreed.

Here are the edited facts and findings of the Court

“”The dispute regarding the domain name ‘internet.in’

Respondent Mr. Jagdish Purohit filed a complaint before the .IN Registry of NIXI on 31st January 2003, under Para 4 of the .IN Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (‘INDRP’) to the effect that the domain name ‘internet.in’ registered by the Petitioner, Mr. Stephen Koenig, was identical and confusingly similar to the registered trade mark ‘internet’ of Respondent No. 2; that the Petitioner had no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the said domain name and that the Petitioner’s domain name had been registered or was being used in bad faith.

The learned Arbitrator passed the impugned Award on 5th July 2006 in which inter alia he concluded that the domain name ‘internet.in’ should be struck off and confiscated and kept by the .IN Registry.

He rejected the prayer of Respondent No.2 that the domain name should be transferred to him.

‘internet’ is a now common word. It also acknowledges that to access a ‘site’ on the internet, the user usually has to key in an IP address. ”

In the instant case Respondent No. 2 on 17th March 2003 applied under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (‘TM Act’) for registration of its trade mark ‘internet’ in respect of ‘Tobacco, raw or manufactured, smokers articles, matches included in Class 34′. The trade mark certificate was issued on 13th July 2005

Admittedly, Respondent No. 2 did not avail of the sunrise policy of NIXI and therefore did not get any domain name registered using its trade mark.

Meanwhile the Petitioner, a resident of the U.S.A., got the domain name ‘internet.in’ registered with the .IN Registry on 16th February 2005.

On 31st January 2006 Respondent No. 2 submitted a complaint to the .IN Registry seeking the cancellation of the registration of the domain name ‘internet.in’ in favour of the Petitioner.

Respondent No. 2 contended that he had been using its trade mark ‘internet’ for over three years.

The domain name ‘internet.in’ was confusingly similar to his trademark ‘internet’. The Petitioner had registered in the .IN Registry several domain names in which he had no right or trademark.

These included air.in, computer.in, ink.in, internet.in, toner.in, usa.in, wise.in.

The Petitioner’s intentions were to sell the domain name to either Respondent No. 2 or to another organization for a profit.

It was alleged by Respondent No. 2 that the Petitioner had parked the domain name and was making money by luring customers to the website and tricking them into clicking on ads.

In response to the notice issued to him, the Petitioner contended that the burden was on Respondent No. 2 who held registration of a highly descriptive or generic word like ‘internet’ to prove that the word was at all capable of being a trade mark or had acquired a secondary meaning.

Respondent No.2 had not adduced a single document of usage of the said trademark, the quantum and amount of sales under the trademark, the nature and extent of advertising, consumer surveys and media recognition.

The Petitioner further asserted that he had not put up the domain name ‘internet.in’ for sale.

A letter from SEDO GmbH, Germany confirming that the Petitioner’s domain names, including ‘internet.in’, “are not and have not been sale on our trading platform’ was enclosed with the reply.

It was submitted that the Petitioner had over the years developed internet businesses like fax.de and toner.com for legitimate purposes and therefore, was a legitimate and a bona fide trading entity

The Petitioner has registered the domain name ‘internet.in’ in good faith to resolve a website to it for use in relation to internet related goods and services.

It was desirous to use the domain name in respect of internet services and “this amounted to merely a generic or descriptive use.”

The Petitioner specifically raised the plea of ‘reverse domain name hijacking’ by Respondent No. 2.

The Petitioner alleged that the complaint itself was a blatant attempt by Respondent No. 2 to claim exclusive right in the domain name ‘internet.in’. The complaint had been filed with the sole aim to harass the Petitioner and usurp rights beyond the registration of Respondent No. 2. It was stated that Respondent No. 2 was free to register

There was no proof adduced by Respondent No. 2 to show that the Petitioner’s registration of the domain name ‘internet.in’ was in fact in bad faith or that the Petitioner wished to sell the domain name to Respondent No. 2 or to some other organization.

The learned Arbitrator, in the impugned Award dated 5th July 2006, concluded as under:

(a) The domain name ‘internet.in’ of the Petitioner herein was identical and confusingly similar to a trade mark of Respondent No. 2. However, Respondent No. 2 failed to show/prove that he had a right in the trade mark, which was a generic word;

(b) The Petitioner had no right or legitimate interest in the domain name;

(c) The Petitioner got registered the domain name ‘internet.in’ in bad faith. He had registered the domain name in order to sell, transfer or rent it or to prevent other owners of the mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name.

(d) Consequently, the Petitioner was not entitled to retain the domain name and it was required to be struck off from the Registry;

(e) Respondent No. 2 was also not entitled to transfer of the domain name in his name as he had also not established in his bona fide rights in the trademark; and

(f) The Petitioner could not, in the circumstances, allege reverse domain name hijacking by Respondent No. 2.

(g) The domain name ‘internet.in’ was to be confiscated by the .IN Registry and kept with it.

The domain name is identical to the registered trade mark

Any person who considers that a registered domain name conflicts with his legitimate rights or interests may file a complaint to the .IN Registry on the following premises:

(i) the Registrant’s domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a name, trademark or

service mark in which the Complainant has

rights;

(ii) the Registrant has no rights or legitimate

interests in respect of the domain name; and

(iii) the Registrant’s domain name has been registered or is being used in bad faith.”

Para 4(a) of the UDRP reads thus:

“4. Mandatory Administrative proceedings.

This Paragraph sets forth the type of disputes for which you are required to submit to a mandatory administrative proceeding. T

There are at least four differences between the above para 4 of the INDRP and the corresponding Para 4 (a) of the UDRP.

The first is the opening part of Para 4 of the INDRP indicating the ‘premises’ on which a complaint could be filed is absent in para 4 (a) UDRP. This is significant when read with the last line at the end of Para 4 (a) UDRP which states: “In the administrative proceeding, the complainant must prove that each of these three elements are present.” The said line is absent in Para 4 INDRP. This is the second difference. The third difference is that at the end of sub-para (i) of Para 4 UDRP, the word ‘and’ figures. The fourth is that in sub-para (iii) of Para 4 of the UDRP it is to be shown by the complainant that the Registrant’s domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. It is not for the court to speculate whether these differences in Para 4 INDRP were intentional or accidental. However, the court has to interpret the INDRP as it exists. It is not expected to supply the omissions read into the INDRP words that are absent.

The learned Arbitrator proceeded on the basis that in terms of Para 4 (i) INDRP the burden was on the complainant to show that (a) the domain name was confusingly similar to the trademark of the complainant and that (b) the complainant has a right in the trademark. As regards the first

2. In any event, Respondent No. 2 had by securing registration of the trademark in his favour demonstrated his right in the mark, irrespective of its use or the fact that it was a generic word.

Relying on the observations of this Court in Manish Vij v. Indra Chugh 97 (2002) DLT 1 it is submitted that where no exclusivity can be granted to marks that are generic, the Court should permit the registered owner of the trademark to use it in relation to tobacco, the goods for which it was registered and in relation to which it would be distinctive rather than permit a domain name holder of the generic word to use it in a generic sense in relation to

O.M.P. No.132 of 2007 Page 16 of 27 internet related activity.

Para 4 INDRP is different from Para 4 (a) UNDRP in a significant way.

While each of the sub-paras (i) to (iii) of Para 4 (a) of UNDRP are required to be ‘proved’ by the complainant cumulatively, as far as Para 4 INDRP is concerned the complainant can file a complaint on the ‘premises’ outlined in sub-paras (i) to (iii) of Para 4.

There is no requirement that “each of the three elements” are shown to exist. If this is understood in light of the fact that the conjoint “and” is missing at the end of sub-para (i) of Para 4 INDRP, then it is possible to interpret Para 4 INDRP to mean that a complainant can succeed if he proves that the ground in sub-para (i) exists by itself. Alternatively he can succeed if he proves that the grounds in sub-paras (ii) and (iii) exist.

There is little difficulty in concluding in the instant case that the domain name ‘internet.in’ and the trademark ‘internet’ are identical.

The said domain name is likely to cause confusion in the minds of actual or potential customers with ‘imperfect recollection’ as regards the source of the goods and services when going on the net to search for a website using the said domain name. The mere fact that the goods for which Respondent No. 2 holds registration is different from internet related services which the Petitioner proposes to offer using the domain name does not mitigate the possibility of such confusion, given the nature of e-commerce and the range of products that can be purchased on the net. The finding of the learned Arbitrator that Respondent No. 2 complainant had proved the first limb of Para 4 (i) INDRP that the domain name was identical to the registered trademark of Respondent No. 2 and was confusingly similar does not call for interference.

The learned Arbitrator appears to have proceeded on the basis that since the word mark was generic, and Respondent No. 2 had not demonstrated any use of the said mark, Respondent No. 2 had no ‘legitimate’ right in the mark.

This Court is unable to appreciate the said finding which appears to overlook the statutory provisions of the TM Act referred to above which do confer rights on the registered proprietor of a mark.

As far as the present case is concerned, Respondent No. 2 had satisfactorily proved that the domain name was identical to the registered trade mark; that it was likely to cause confusion and that Respondent No. 2 had rights in the trade mark.

Petitioner not having right or legitimate interest in the domain name

At the outset, this Court concurs with the view of the learned Arbitrator that once the complainant discharges the initial burden of showing that the Petitioner had no legitimate interest in the domain name, the burden of showing that he did have such interest shifted to the Petitioner.

Evidence of Registration and use of Domain name in Bad Faith:

For the purposes of paragraph 4 (iii), the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Arbitrator to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith:

(i) circumstances indicating that the Registrant has registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise

transferring the domain name registration to the Complainant, who bears the name or is the owner of the trademark or service mark, or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the Registrant’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or

(ii) the Registrant has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding

domain name, provided that the Registrant has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or

(iii) by using the domain name, the Registrant has intentionally attempted to attract internet users to the Registrant’s website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s name or mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Registrant’s website or location or of a product or service on the Registrant’s website or location.”

The learned Arbitrator has categorically found that the Petitioner as Registrant “has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name” and that the Registrant has engaged in a pattern of such conduct. The factors that led to this conclusion were that the Petitioner had registered 1747 domain names in .de Registry for the purpose of selling such domain names. Secondly, the .in domain names were parked with SEDO which made it likely that the domain names were meant to be sold. Thirdly, the meta tags in the page of SEDO where the domain name internet.in was parked showed that the domain name was intended for ultimate sale.

This Court has examined the impugned Award of the learned Arbitrator as regards the above conclusions and is unable to discern any patent illegality, much less a finding that could be said to be contrary to the public policy of India.

The learned Arbitrator was justified in doubting the purposes of the Petitioner in having to register as many as 1747 domain names to carry on its business.

The learned Arbitrator held that although the Petitioner had countered the allegations of Respondent No. 2 about his indulging in cyber squatting, there was no evidence of the Petitioner proposing to carry on any business himself using the .in domain name in question.

Additionally, it is difficult to believe that the Petitioner, who is obviously an experienced hand in registering domain names, did not do any homework before registering domain names in a series of generic words like internet, toner, computer, ink etc. with the .IN Registry.

These factors have also to be examined in light of the fact that within an hour of the start of the .IN Registry there were around 7000 domain names registered, of which a vast majority was by a handful of speculators located outside India. According to Respondent No. 2, 3000 names were registered by only 30 individuals with some speculators registering over 500 names each. The Petitioner was one such speculator who was taking a chance at getting a number of .in domain names registered, using generic words, not with a view to himself conducting business using any of them. Even if the Petitioner was not going to offer ‘internet.in’ for sale to either Respondent No. 2 or anyone else immediately, he managed to prevent a registered proprietor of a trademark in that word using it as part of his domain name or getting a domain name registered in the said word mark. Further, the Petitioner had been shown to indulge in a pattern of getting domain names registered in bulk. This was sufficient in terms of Para 6 (ii) to render the registration as being in ‘bad faith’. In the circumstances, the finding of the learned Arbitrator that in terms of Para 4 (iii) read with Para 6 (ii) INDRP, the Petitioner’s registration of the domain name ‘internet.in’ was in bad faith does not warrant interference.

The remedies available to a Complainant pursuant to any proceeding before an Arbitrator shall be limited to requiring the cancellation of the Registrant’s domain name or the transfer of the Registrant’s domain name registration to the Complainant. Costs as may be deemed fit may also be awarded by the Arbitrator.”

In terms of Para 10 of the INDRP if the complaint succeeds then it should result in the cancellation of the domain name registration in favour of the Registrant “or” in the transfer of the domain name to the complainant.

In this case, as held by the learned Arbitrator, Respondent No. 2 had successfully made out a case for cancellation of registration of the domain name. However, the further order of the learned Arbitrator directing confiscation and retention of the said domain name by .IN Registry is without any legal basis.

The cancellation of the registration of the domain name ‘internet.in’ in favour of the Petitioner would not automatically entitle Respondent No. 2 to its transfer in his favour.

Clearly Respondent No.2 was unable to show that he was actually using the trademark ‘internet’ in his business. Additionally, the fact that the word ‘internet’ is generic and that the trademark ‘internet’ of Respondent No. 2 is therefore a weak one, are relevant considerations that support the decision of the learned Arbitrator to decline the prayer of Respondent No.2 for transfer of the domain name ‘internet.in’ in his favour.

Consequently, the impugned Award is upheld to the extent that registration of the domain name ‘internet.in’ in favour of the Petitioner has been directed to be struck off. The Award is also upheld to the extent that it holds that Respondent No.2 is not entitled to the transfer of the said domain name in his favour.

However, the direction in the impugned Award that the domain name ‘internet.in’ should be confiscated and kept by the .IN Registry is hereby set aside.”

According to FT.com in a recently concluded auction, the average price for a single letter .co.uk domain name was £39,000 or roughly $60,000.

“In all Twelve single-letter domains, including x.co.uk and 0.co.uk, fetched an average of £39,000 each in an auction run by Nominet, which administers the UK’s internet infrastructure.”

“Including two-letter domains, 2,831 web addresses were sold, raising £3m for the Nominet (roughly $4.6 Million)

“Notable buyers include Facebook, which bought fb.co.uk, the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, snapping up hr.co.uk, H&M buying hm.co.uk and Mercedes-Benz purchasing mb.co.uk.

But in the highest-priced auction, Google was outbid for the rights to g.co.uk by Any-Web, a company which collects, builds and resells domain names and is believed to be the auction’s biggest spender.”

“Any-Web paid a high five-digit figure for g.co.uk, one of more than 170 domains the company acquired for a total investment of almost £500,000, which also acquired VC.co.uk and PE.co.uk.

“”Other individuals and companies each acquiring multiple domains include XYZ Invest LLC, which acquired no.co.uk; Registration Transfers Limited, buyer of gm.co.uk; and Domain Developers Fund, which bought pr.co.uk. ”

According to the story some of the domain has already traded, some several times.

“The registrar of x.co.uk, for example, has changed hands three times in the past week and is currently owned by Kiss Ltd of Mayfair.”

Interesting that Google would spend reported 7 figures for g.co but wouldn’t spend 6 figures for a much longer established g.co.uk.

$60k on average is not a bad price for a single character .co.uk,  compared to the current asking price of a single letter .co which is said to be $1.5M

Please read the FT.com story for more info.

The highlight of the program will be a special event held on 11 October on the first floor of the Eiffel Tower with the French internet community to celebrate the 25th anniversary of the .fr namespace. There will an award ceremony for the winners of the contest, at which more than 300 guests are expected.

[via Press Release]

(c) 2011 DomainNameNews.com (9)

EPAG, based in Bonn, Germany, is an ICANN-accredited registrar with over 400,000 domains under management and is notable for offering over 200 Top Level Domains (TLDs). Tucows plans to continue serving EPAG customers and resellers via existing EPAG tools and will also integrate EPAG’s domain services into its own OpenSRS wholesale domain registration service.

“We believe combining the power of OpenSRS’ 12,000 active resellers in over 120 countries with EPAG’s ability to register such a broad range of TLDs will make OpenSRS unique in the industry,” said Tucows President & CEO Elliot Noss. “We expect that the deep expertise in registry integration we gain from EPAG will add invaluable bench-strength to our team as we prepare for ICANN’s roll-out of new TLDs.”

See the full press release after the jump.

TORONTO, Aug. 2, 2011 – Tucows Inc. (NYSE AMEX:TCX, TSX:TC), a global provider of domain names, email and other Internet services, announced today that it has acquired all the shares of EPAG Domainservices GmbH from QSC AG for approximately US$2.5 Million (€1.5 Million to purchase the shares and the settlement of a working capital adjustment of €0.25 Million) through an all-cash transaction.

EPAG, based in Bonn, Germany, is an ICANN-accredited registrar with over 400,000 domains under management and is notable for offering over 200 Top Level Domains (TLDs). Tucows plans to continue serving EPAG customers and resellers via existing EPAG tools and will also integrate EPAG’s domain services into its own OpenSRS wholesale domain registration service.

“We believe combining the power of OpenSRS’ 12,000 active resellers in over 120 countries with EPAG’s ability to register such a broad range of TLDs will make OpenSRS unique in the industry,” said Tucows President & CEO Elliot Noss. “We expect that the deep expertise in registry integration we gain from EPAG will add invaluable bench-strength to our team as we prepare for ICANN’s roll-out of new TLDs.”

This acquisition further strengthens OpenSRS’ position as a leader in wholesale domain registration and extends its commitment to providing broad TLD coverage to its resellers. Currently OpenSRS manages 11 million domains across 33 TLDs. With this acquisition OpenSRS will now manage over 11.5 million domain names and by the end of the year OpenSRS resellers will have access to over 200 TLDs.

“We congratulate Tucows on their acquisition of EPAG and are confident that this change of ownership helps to accomplish the strategic goals of both QSC AG and EPAG”, said Ingo Hattendorf, responsible for the transaction at QSC AG.

The acquisition of EPAG adds hundreds of new German-language resellers to the OpenSRS channel, providing Tucows access to a market to which it had relatively little exposure previously. Dave Woroch, Tucows’ EVP Sales noted, “We are happy to welcome EPAG customers to OpenSRS and assure them they will continue to get the same great services and support they have come to expect from the EPAG team. Over time we look forward to providing additional features and services that can help EPAG customers grow their businesses.”

About QSC AG

QSC AG, Cologne, is a service provider for voice and data communication, as well as ICT services. Established in 1997, the company has been focusing on small and mid-size business customers. QSC AG is the first provider to operate an Open Access platform in Germany, which unites a wide range of broadband technologies to offer national and international site networking, including Managed Services. QSC AG additionally supplies its customers and distribution partners with a comprehensive product portfolio that can be modularly adapted to every need. QSC AG was the first provider in Germany to build its own Next Generation Network (NGN), and therefore enjoys long years of experience in connection with IP-based telephony solutions, in particular. QSC AG has been listed on the TecDAX index since 2004. The QSC AG group employs a workforce of some 1,300 people.

About Tucows

Tucows is a global Internet services company. OpenSRS manages over eleven million domain names and millions of email boxes through a reseller network of over 11,000 web hosts and ISPs. Hover is the easiest way for individuals and small businesses to manage their domain names and email addresses. YummyNames owns premium domain names that generate revenue through advertising or resale. Butterscotch.com is an online video network building on the foundation of Tucows Downloads.

DNN spoke to Xavier Buck Executive Director and CEO of the new owner – domain registration company EuroDNS: “Our company always stood for promoting ccTLDs and that we believe the forum suits our services we believe in“.

The company is looking for local country partners to manage individual sections/ccTLDs within the forum. Buck went on to say:

We want to open it up to the community and hope to get local players to contribute to the forum. These partners would be allowed to manage their own sections as it were their forum. Our goal with ccTLDs.com is not to make money with it but to to make sure a dedicated place exists that regroups knowledge and exchange for all cctlds.

(c) 2011 DomainNameNews.com (8)

With this announcement, a total of 27 countries/territories requests have successfully passed through the String Evaluation. Of these, 17 countries/territories (represented by 27 IDN ccTLDs) are delegated in the DNS root zone; with the remainder either readying to apply, or actively applying for, delegation of the string.

ICANN is looking forward to enabling the availability of non-Latin country-code domains for countries that qualify. ICANN will continue to accept applications for new requests in the Fast Track process, as well as processing requests through the String Delegation function. Staff support is available to help all countries and territories interested in participating in the Fast Track Process. Please email idncctldrequests@icann.org for any inquiries for participation.

(c) 2011 DomainNameNews.com (1)

At the meeting Nominet said they have already shut down more than 3,000 websites in cooperation with investigators.

While Nominet says that “most of the domain names suspended so far were accused of involvement in selling counterfeit goods”…. “authorities are lobbying against limits on the types of allegations they could make to trigger domain name suspension.”

“Law enforcement authorities indicated resistance to the creation of a fixed category of offenses since it could limit responses to newly developing e-crime.”

Of course in London like in the US civil liberty groups and other worry about law enforcement abusing  such powers and as an example the Telegraph tells the story of the Fitwatch, a website offering advice to student protesters which was removed from the web by Metropolitan  Police Central e-Crime Unit.

Here back in the states 80,000 sites were temporary seized as child porn domains.

Shortly after EURid the .eu top-level domain (TLD) registry, sent out a glowing press release marking the domain’s fifth birthday, TechCrunch blasted the extension and the press release in a post entitled  “3.4 Million .EU Domain Names Registered In Five Years I Call Dismal Failure”

In the Press release EURid said:

“Today we celebrate .eu’s public launch five years ago. Steady growth since then has reinforced .eu’s position as one of the world’s ten largest top-level domains,” said Marc Van Wesemael, General Manager of EURid. “This proves that .eu gives companies an effective means to present themselves online as open for business across Europe.”

“Five years on and going strong”

“EURid celebrated .eu’s fifth anniversary at the European Parliament in Strasbourg with a birthday cake cutting ceremony yesterday.”

TechCrunch appearently didn’t get a piece of the cake saying in its post today:

“Is it really an achievement worth crowing about? I beg to differ.”

“Let’s look at the raw numbers, shall we?”

“Less than 3.4 million .eu domain names have been registered to date. To put that in perspective, half of those (that would be 1.7 million) were registered in April 2006, the first month of availability. That means it effectively took five years for the number of domain names that were secured within the first month of availability to double. Five. Years.”

“How many companies do you know that actively advertise their .eu domain name rather than the .com or the local country domain? How many times have you thought of a good domain name and immediately thought to yourself: I need to get the .eu domain name, pronto.”

You can read the rest of the TechCrunch Story here.

The general availability of the .So extension opened yesterday April 1st 2011.

Yes on April’s Fools Day.

No joke.

I guess its poetic justice that the ccTLD for arguably the most rouge nation on earth didn’t even know any better than to open up its extension on April’s Fools Day

I didn’t write about it yesterday because I knew everyone would think it was a April’s Fools Day Joke.

But the extension, which is the country code for the Republic Somalia, did in fact go live for General Registrations yesterday.

According to one domainer who participated in the Land Rush for the .So registry said they got the domains, books.so for $51 and Pirates.So for $10.

The fact that the registry even made the domain name Pirates.so available is quite a sad statement as to how little the registry knows about domain names and the domain business.

How many .So domains did we register?

Zero

Zip

None

.So there should be plenty of good domains left.

Here are some of the details:

“The policy for the TLD .SO is liberal, there are no restrictions concerning the registrants, no local presence service is needed. The registration period for domains registered during General Availability has to be at least one year and maximum ten years. .SO domain names must be made up of a minimum of 3 characters and a maximum of 63 characters (excluding the extension). Only the Latin alphabet letters a-z, digits, and hyphens will be accepted.”

“Domain names beginning or ending with hyphens, as well as domain names with hyphens on the third and fourth position are prohibited. Technical operator of .SO is the Japanese company GMO Registry, for the operative tasks the Somali SO registry is responsible. The “sponsoring organization” of the TLD is the Ministry of Post and Telecommunications of Somalia.”

As the CEO of Key Systems Alexander Siffrin proclaimed yesterday:

“Many memorable .SO domain names are still available”

That maybe the understatement of the year.

DomainMonster.com is charging $24.99 per year for a .So registration.

Name.com is charging $23.99 for a .So registration.

As an extra added bonus it does not seem that the registry whois is working properly.