.co.me domains list

What is .co.me TLD

Despite the name, .co.me is not a standalone top-level domain; it operates as a second‑level namespace under Montenegro’s .ME ccTLD, offering third‑level registrations (example format: brand.co.me). In this structure, .co indicates a commercial orientation, so .co.me domains are typically positioned for business identity, while .co.me websites mirror the ccSLD convention used in many countries. Compared with direct .me registrations, the .co.me space may come with different eligibility, contractual terms, and naming practices set by the .ME registry or designated operators. We monitor policy nuance, delegation arrangements, and adoption patterns across registrars to benchmark stability, renewal behavior, and use cases against peer namespaces. Explore .co.me domain datasets from webatla.

History and key features of .co.me TLD

Following Montenegro’s transition to .ME in 2007–2008, structured second‑level zones such as .co.me emerged to accommodate third‑level registrations oriented toward organizations. As a result, .co.me domains inherit the technical baseline of the .ME registry—global resolution, standard DNS configurations, and broad registrar access—while policy specifics can differ from open second‑level .me names. We analyze portfolio composition, lifespan, and DNS hygiene across .co.me websites to understand how this ccSLD is used relative to alternatives like .co.xx formats in other countries. Key features include the commercial label, predictable subdomain format, and potential alignment with local corporate conventions, which can simplify internal taxonomies and multi‑site management. Review .co.me domain datasets from webatla.

Why and who choose the .co.me domain

Organizations choose .co.me domains when they want a clearly commercial signal within the Montenegrin namespace, need structured third‑level naming for divisions or locations, or wish to align with .co conventions common worldwide. For .co.me websites, advantages can include consistent labeling across portfolios, clearer audience expectations, and separable policy governance versus direct second‑level .me holdings. Trade‑offs include potential dependence on intermediary operators and varying eligibility or dispute procedures, so due diligence on lifecycle terms remains important. We profile registrant types, hosting geographies, and security posture to help assess fit relative to .me or alternative ccSLDs. Interrogate .co.me domain datasets from webatla.