This brings back some fond memories, when my once beloved Netscape Navigator fell from heaven to hell in just a few years by Y2K, and I reluctantly started tailoring websites for Microsoft’s Internet Explorer (even though they did not comply with web standards and were full of holes, at least back then). Not sure if I should be glad or what, but history does repeat itself, and this time around, we witness IE’s market share shrinking noticeably (from 48.16% a year ago) while Chrome almost doubles up (from 13.35%) and Firefox losing its fire (fell from 31.17%).

But unlike 10 years ago, most browsers these days (or at least their up-to-date versions, unless you are still using IE6) are relatively standards-compliant, and web designers know very well how to make their products cross-browser safe and compatible.

More importantly, it’s technically difficult to define “proper use” of domain names. How about an “under construction” page? And how about an under construction page with ad placements? Are we going down the dangerous path of censoring content at the registrars’ level (like some “cowboy” registrars already doing)?

Industry outsiders may not know, but domain names could be used for backend purposes like mail, data and name servers as well. So who is to judge if a domain name is “properly used”?

The closest we could get is perhaps to incorporate a justification policy like that for IPs, but I doubt it’s even relevant when we’re heading to a brave new world of .whatever gTLDs, not to say domain names as we knew have already become less critical (essential) with Facebook and Twitter. (Embrace for impact.)

But then the art and science of hashtagging are not exactly on their minds when common twitters tweet. Professional twitters are good, because this is their business; however, you could guess that spontaneous tweeting makes up the bulk of all tweets.

So we have this occupywallst.org as a domain name; not bad if you take into consideration the visual you get when standing ON Wall Street in person, because you will probably be looking at a sign that reads “WALL ST”, (and .org is still the top pick among social activists). Then comes Twitter.

The reality of Twitter, very much like this now global movement (yes, a new born movement that goes global in just a couple of months), is that it is bottom-up, or grassroot/user-powered, and therefore very difficult to prescribe even the lingo. Correct me, but the loosely organized organizers started using #occupywallstreet when it all began; it was later BEING shortened (and Twitter is all about using less characters, remember?) to #occupywallst (apparently matching their website name). Then comes #ows.

You may have already come across situations when YOUR inner circle “shorthand” is being “hijacked”. For example, #CLE tweets could be totally unrelated to Continuing Legal Education (for lawyers), and #MLS talks about soccer instead of real estates. I’m sure #ows referred to something else just a few months ago, but when this OccupyWallSt movement picks up, it simply OWNS this 3-letter hashtag. Reason? Because this is Twitterland, and people are squeezing as much as they could into 140 characters! In a matter of days, #ows has been “usurped” if not “stolen”, probably for good.

But if you ask me, #occupywallst is still my favorite, because it strikes the optimal balance of using the least number of characters while preserving a visually clear meaning. So which hashtag are you using to spread the word?

Now, I must admit this is VERY smart advertising, because it hits their target clientele (those late baby boomers who still remember postcards AND Pan Am) right on. Perhaps direct mail still works, and perhaps I should give Pan Am (the TV series) a second chance.

Anyway, fast forward to less than 12 months later, the only Swedish entity I know (other than IKEA) came forward (albeit anonymously at first) and made an irresistible offer (of US$3,000, or an ROI of some 900%) to buy out this domain name, apparently for their mobile technology company (originally hosted at IRONROAD.SE). And this is how I sold my grandfather.