Web2.com, web3, web4, how many web dot com domains are registered in numeric order? |

Web 2.0 doesn’t appear to have anywhere near the longevity as Web 1.0, since they have already started talking about Web 3.0. A little research revealed that every TLD for web2 is already taken. If you hurry you can snag the .name extension for web3. The available TLDs as of this writing are in green in the screenshots above and below.
This made me curious how long far numerically one would have to go to get to a numerically ordered dot com that wasn’t already registered? I mean, who wouldn’t want to own a portion of web version history when it rolls around? After all, web 10.0 could be here in no time.
Would one be able to register web13.com? Web27.com? Web49.com? Higher? Lower?
How high a number do you think one would have needed to go before being able to register a dot com domain in web version order before I wrote and published this post?

EXAMPLE. Just so it’s clear, let’s say web337.com was available and web450.com was available too. For this example we’ll assume there were no numeric web dot com available before web337.com. The correct answer would therefore be web337.com.
I will confirm when/if somebody gets the correct answer or in the case that nobody gets the answer (or guesses — yowsa, where’s your competitive spirit?), at some point at least 24 hours from this post. Going to hold back the answer for awhile to give enough time to guess or research and answer in the comments below or via trackback from your blog, whichever you prefer.
Let the guesses begin …
Related Posts- How many new domains are registered every day?
- Can’t find a domain? Try a domain hack
- Spiders inspire eight-legged Post-it notes
- B22: Interactive blogging game: how the forms look
- 1and1.com raises domain prices from $5.99 to $6.99 effective November 2
- More irider - version 2.07 is out






Lets try web122.com
Comment by Rob — November 16, 2006 @ 4:48 pm PST
Good guess, Rob, but that’s not it. I’ll add another clue though: the domain I’m talking about is talking about this post
Comment by TDavid — November 16, 2006 @ 4:55 pm PST