Comments on: Video: Why LeWeb Moved to .CO Domain blog featuring domain investing strategy, domain valuation, and domain development commentary from Elliot Silver, founder of Top Notch Domains, LLC. Thu, 24 Apr 2014 01:16:27 +0000 hourly 1 By: – Technology Rants & Raves by Acroplex® » Blog Archive » Oh, to be a cybersquatter! Fri, 11 May 2012 16:02:36 +0000 [...] ‘cybersquatter‘ references in the seemingly light-hearted discussion between the .CO CEO and the LeWeb CEO, [...]

By: jp Fri, 11 May 2012 01:33:41 +0000 Give it a year or 2, soon .co registrations will be about the same price as .com. Let supply and demand do their thing first.

By: Dot Co Wants To Have Their Cake, Eat It, and Then Throw it At the Domain Investor Who Baked It | Domain Shane Fri, 11 May 2012 00:24:37 +0000 [...] I have to chime in on the beatdown of Juan Calle and dot co regarding the video of the LeWeb “Couldn’t get the dot com so I’ll take the dot co” [...]

By: rayy Thu, 10 May 2012 23:35:33 +0000 Juan Calle doesn’t know “domain squatters” definition and therefore cause big insult to domain investors. In this video, It’s wrong that Juan called big domain investors as domain squatters.

Just want to make it clear, Domain investors who bought non-trademark names such as generic names ( eg. ) are NOT domain squatters.

But domainers who bought “trademark names” ( eg. ) are the domain squatters.

Hope this will clear the definition of domain squatters.

By: rob sequin Thu, 10 May 2012 21:38:00 +0000 Fine. I think we all agree with Juan that cybersquatters are scum but Loïc Le Meur said that the person who owns is a cybersquatter simply for owning a domain that he wants.

So, Juan, would you like to help Mr. Le Meur understand the difference?

He insulted your business and your industry and you just smiled… then wrote a blog post deflected the issue.

By: Elliot Silver Thu, 10 May 2012 21:33:09 +0000 Here’s my response to Juan’s blog post:

By: Thu, 10 May 2012 21:31:24 +0000 Juan of .CO Registry responds via blog post:

By: Johnnie Thu, 10 May 2012 20:22:01 +0000 It was dumb to pick a name/start a business when you didn’t have the .com for that business to begin with.

By: Brad Mugford Thu, 10 May 2012 20:13:22 +0000 Nice sense of entitlement there.

There are three options -

1.) Pay for the best option – .COM (if for sale).
2.) Try to use UDRP to steal a domain.
3.) Settle for a much worse secondary option.

They have tried #2, and when they didn’t work now they are onto #3.

I guess there is a 4th option – invent a time machine.

Getting there first does matter. Not just with domains, with virtually anything.

You can’t stumble unto the domain 25 years after .COM was released and just expect a great domain to be handed to you.


By: Thu, 10 May 2012 19:59:43 +0000 We got the following response to our comment at

Hey “Domainsville” yeah I don’t deny having tried to get and I agree it doesn’t seem that I did it the best possible way and I’m happy to dicuss and learn.

Where we will, however, never agree, is that it’s “right” that an empty page with google ads on it can squat for life a domain used by a brand like ours for good reasons. I get the “I got it first” part and understand it, but I think it’s a real shame and frankly, a pain for the whole industry.
No question some people make a business out of it, but it’s a pain.

By: Kevin M. Thu, 10 May 2012 19:22:15 +0000 @Joe – Because .co has no problem sponsoring the domain conferences and shows to ‘sell and promote’ their extension to audiences of 90%+ ‘domainers’, then they turn around and insinuate those domainers that buy ‘too many’ .co’s are – SQUATTERS!!! Uhh..DUHH! Didn’t have problems taking that ‘squatter money’ though did they?!?!? Calle just insulted all the domainers that bought/buy .co’s for any type of investment purposes, but your .co glasses and over admiration for JC (not the biblical one), keeps you from seeing that and the realities of that hack extension. Whatever.

Will be interesting to see now:
1) which upcoming domain conferences accept .co as a sponsor (to sell to ‘squatters’??)
2) .co renewals and how many will concede ‘they’re a squatter’, and give more of their ‘over priced’ renewal money to the one who just insinuated such.

Bet Calle’s favorite quote is from PT Barnum.

By: Scott Thu, 10 May 2012 19:12:32 +0000 @Joe Targeting .co to end users and startups is one thing, but I believe the backlash is coming from the fact that he called domainers “squatters”. Squatter is such a derogatory word in the domain industry in my opinion. It’s a word drenched in ignorance for those holding non-trademarked names.

By: Joe Thu, 10 May 2012 18:26:19 +0000 Why is everyone upset at JC’s words? He and his team have said like a million times that their target is endusers and not domainers and that’s why they set the $30 reg fee.

By: Gnanes Thu, 10 May 2012 18:25:40 +0000 .org is a better alternative than a .co.

By: rob sequin Thu, 10 May 2012 17:59:32 +0000 Loïc Le Meur
 is a douchebag.

At 1:37 in the video he says that “has been taken since before we started leweb” and it is being used by the most famous domain squatter of Japan.

Boo Hoo.

You started your brand and now you are pissed because someone else registered the .com before you? What an ass.

He says he has been trying to buy it but he “can’t get it back”.

Get it back? Screw you Loic. How are you entitled to

Juan goes on to say that he is proud that .co is more expensive than .com because it is better and deters squatting?

Greed doesn’t have anything to do with it, Juan?

I was curious to know where this video was first posted. It was a you tube post by Loïc Le Meur
 here .

He has a video series called Build Your Own Brand which he runs from NOT .com.

Maybe he can UDRP that one too.

What an idiot.

By: Scott Thu, 10 May 2012 17:44:08 +0000 @Rick Juan is probably already working on a way to spin what he said into something else. He had a big time Freudian slip and now people know he considers domainers (in any form) to be a squatter. I won’t be renewing my .co domains, that’s for sure.

By: Jacek Thu, 10 May 2012 17:37:48 +0000 This is HUGE !
Some of the Domain industry Tycoons go there

By: Rick Schwartz Thu, 10 May 2012 17:11:49 +0000 AS,
That video was very revealing and glad you pointed that out.
Referring to us as “SQUATTERS” is really a BAD move!

If we are squatters that the .co registry is a bunch of snake oil sales people because they KNOW what happened at and with a 61% traffic loss because of confusion if I remember correctly.

This video is a window how some that take domainers money really feel about domainers and the domain industry. I am THRILLED it is on youtube!

Juan, I think you stepped in shit on that one. Funny huh??? Squatters??

By: Rick Schwartz Thu, 10 May 2012 17:04:51 +0000 Juan and his team have done a great job selling the concept. But the concept does not dovetail with increasing sales. It dovetails with loss of sales. It dovetails with confusion. It dovetails with many things that all make sales harder.

.Net to .Co is jumping from the Kettle to the Fire.
But the 3rd is a charm.
Congrats to the guy that owns
Traffic will be going up and someday these .net/.co guys might even figure it out.

Hint: The dotcom version is FREE when you factor in lost traffic and the lost business that happens day after day, month after month, year after year. Companies like this are afraid to do the math and afraid to ask SIMPLE “What if” questions.

This won’t be another Overstock moment because they are coming from a .net.

As for the video, every domainer should watch it.

By: AS Thu, 10 May 2012 16:53:35 +0000 So .co pricing is designed to deter people from “squatting” ? Yet they sponsor parties and events at TRAFFIC and DFG to get domainers to “buy-in” to the extension as well. They also sell domains for premium prices, just like a “squatter” would do . Talking out both sides of your mouth here a bit no ?