Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

If ICANN only charges 18¢ per domain name, why am I paying $10? (2014)

webmasters.stackexchange.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 118 posts

Re: If ICANN only charges 18¢ per domain name, why am I paying $10? (2014)

#71

Post by rayiner »

kt9 wrote: post #69
thedevil wrote: post #39

An idea I've been tossing around: What if domains cost $100 if more than one person wants it? The idea here is to squeeze the squatters with 000s of domains. Whenever I want a domain, most of the ones I want are taken. Not by people who are making use of it, but by people who are squatting in hopes of extorting anyone who would actually use the domain to produce value. I'd actually be happy if Verisign or any other p…

The best way to eliminate domain squatting is to make domains non-transferrable. If you own a domain you shouldn't be able to transfer it to anyone. The only way to "transfer" a domain should be to return it to the domain registry where it may be purchased by any interested party at market price determined by auction. However this probably isn't going to change.

Coase theorem says that shouldn't make a difference.

Re: If ICANN only charges 18¢ per domain name, why am I paying $10? (2014)

#72

Post by duskwuff »

kt9 wrote: post #69
thedevil wrote: post #39

An idea I've been tossing around: What if domains cost $100 if more than one person wants it? The idea here is to squeeze the squatters with 000s of domains. Whenever I want a domain, most of the ones I want are taken. Not by people who are making use of it, but by people who are squatting in hopes of extorting anyone who would actually use the domain to produce value. I'd actually be happy if Verisign or any other p…

The best way to eliminate domain squatting is to make domains non-transferrable. If you own a domain you shouldn't be able to transfer it to anyone. The only way to "transfer" a domain should be to return it to the domain registry where it may be purchased by any interested party at market price determined by auction. However this probably isn't going to change.

Given the way transfers work, that would also mean you couldn't move a domain from one registrar to another. So if you had a domain that anyone else would want, and your registrar decided to raise their prices or change their policies, you'd be unable to leave without losing your domain.

Re: If ICANN only charges 18¢ per domain name, why am I paying $10? (2014)

#73

Post by kt9 »

rayiner wrote: post #71
kt9 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The best way to eliminate domain squatting is to make domains non-transferrable. If you own a domain you shouldn't be able to transfer it to anyone. The only way to "transfer" a domain should be to return it to the domain registry where it may be purchased by any interested party at market price determined by auction. However this probably isn't going to change.

Coase theorem says that shouldn't make a difference.

Coase theorem applies if there are a) zero or sufficiently low transaction costs and b) if parties are able to bargain.

If domains have to be returned back to the registrar b) doesn't apply. Auctions ensure that a) doesn't apply either.

Furthermore, adding a 7 day waiting period before returned domains become available will further ensure that parties cannot trade domains between each other but must purchase from the registrar which makes owning a domain and squatting on it for purposes of selling it pointless.

Re: If ICANN only charges 18¢ per domain name, why am I paying $10? (2014)

#74

Post by rhizome »

superasn wrote: post #10

I think if Google and Firefox join forces and create a Dns override in their browsers that resolves domains without querying the root servers it could be a real game changer. I remember this used to be an option in very old versions of IE where some company it using some plugin. This can be an end to all such monopolistic tactics and domain squatting.

You don't get from words in the address bar to pictures in the window without the roots.

Re: If ICANN only charges 18¢ per domain name, why am I paying $10? (2014)

#75

Post by kt9 »

duskwuff wrote: post #72
kt9 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The best way to eliminate domain squatting is to make domains non-transferrable. If you own a domain you shouldn't be able to transfer it to anyone. The only way to "transfer" a domain should be to return it to the domain registry where it may be purchased by any interested party at market price determined by auction. However this probably isn't going to change.

Given the way transfers work, that would also mean you couldn't move a domain from one registrar to another. So if you had a domain that anyone else would want, and your registrar decided to raise their prices or change their policies, you'd be unable to leave without losing your domain.

Domain registrars that engaged in holding domains hostage and increasing prices would probably eventually go out of business.

Even if that ended up not being the case, we'd have to fix how domains are transferred between registrars - same as how telephone numbers can be transferred between telcos but you can't sell your telephone number to someone.

Re: If ICANN only charges 18¢ per domain name, why am I paying $10? (2014)

#76

Post by mjbellantoni »

kt9 wrote: post #69
thedevil wrote: post #39

An idea I've been tossing around: What if domains cost $100 if more than one person wants it? The idea here is to squeeze the squatters with 000s of domains. Whenever I want a domain, most of the ones I want are taken. Not by people who are making use of it, but by people who are squatting in hopes of extorting anyone who would actually use the domain to produce value. I'd actually be happy if Verisign or any other p…

The best way to eliminate domain squatting is to make domains non-transferrable. If you own a domain you shouldn't be able to transfer it to anyone. The only way to "transfer" a domain should be to return it to the domain registry where it may be purchased by any interested party at market price determined by auction. However this probably isn't going to change.

This topic is relevant to my interests. I've googled around a little bit on research on the topic of eliminating squatters, but haven't come up with much. I'd appreciate pointers to papers if anyone has them.

Re: If ICANN only charges 18¢ per domain name, why am I paying $10? (2014)

#77

Post by hartpuff »

wdr1 wrote: post #50
thedevil wrote: post #39

An idea I've been tossing around: What if domains cost $100 if more than one person wants it? The idea here is to squeeze the squatters with 000s of domains. Whenever I want a domain, most of the ones I want are taken. Not by people who are making use of it, but by people who are squatting in hopes of extorting anyone who would actually use the domain to produce value. I'd actually be happy if Verisign or any other p…

If I remember correctly, domains used to cost around $78 to register. When the price dropped dramatically, there was discussion on Slashdot about the effects. Most thought it was great ("hey, I, a poor college student, can get a domain now!"), but there was speculation it would lead to more domain parking.

Domains used to cost $0 to register.

Edit: LOL Which idiot downvoted this? The chronic lack of basic tech/internet knowledge among some people here is ridiculous.

    In 1995, the NSF authorized NSI to begin charging
    registrants an annual fee, for the first-time since 
    the domain's inception.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.com

Re: If ICANN only charges 18¢ per domain name, why am I paying $10? (2014)

#78

Post by ericd »

forgottenpass wrote: post #60
thedevil wrote: post #39

An idea I've been tossing around: What if domains cost $100 if more than one person wants it? The idea here is to squeeze the squatters with 000s of domains. Whenever I want a domain, most of the ones I want are taken. Not by people who are making use of it, but by people who are squatting in hopes of extorting anyone who would actually use the domain to produce value. I'd actually be happy if Verisign or any other p…

I'd love to hear good arguments against this Squeezing out squatters also squeezes out anyone without means from domains they're not using for commercial purposes. I already spend too much money keeping things online. Of the handful of domains I don't do much with, one is just for my primary email account. The same name is registered on other TLDs so there would probably be some demand for it. Am I making a "useful"…

It's a limited shared resource, and if someone else would do something with it that's worth the fairly reasonable sum of $8/mo, when it's not worth that to you, then yeah, I'd rather they have it, especially if it also means that good names aren't all camped on by rent seekers who do literally nothing with the domain. That said, I think we should just price all .com's higher, regardless of demand for specific domains.

We can leave other tld's for things that aren't worth $8/month to their creators.

Re: If ICANN only charges 18¢ per domain name, why am I paying $10? (2014)

#79

Post by Namrog84 »

ANaimi wrote: post #55
thedevil wrote: post #39

An idea I've been tossing around: What if domains cost $100 if more than one person wants it? The idea here is to squeeze the squatters with 000s of domains. Whenever I want a domain, most of the ones I want are taken. Not by people who are making use of it, but by people who are squatting in hopes of extorting anyone who would actually use the domain to produce value. I'd actually be happy if Verisign or any other p…

A simpler deterrent would be to linearly increase cost of the next domain you buy. This is the opposite of bulk discounts, and should make squatting unfeasible (at least not in large numbers).

I think this is exactly how it should work. Perhaps the first 5-10 are normal priced and then increase at some f(x) from there. I think others made good points about having a few for future or personal reasons like email or whatever. But I don't see a great reason why aside from squatting or having tons of companies why someone should own 200x .coms. Though I don't know if it should be per domain per tld or just plain per domain for the counts

Re: If ICANN only charges 18¢ per domain name, why am I paying $10? (2014)

#80

Post by roywiggins »

kt9 wrote: post #69
thedevil wrote: post #39

An idea I've been tossing around: What if domains cost $100 if more than one person wants it? The idea here is to squeeze the squatters with 000s of domains. Whenever I want a domain, most of the ones I want are taken. Not by people who are making use of it, but by people who are squatting in hopes of extorting anyone who would actually use the domain to produce value. I'd actually be happy if Verisign or any other p…

The best way to eliminate domain squatting is to make domains non-transferrable. If you own a domain you shouldn't be able to transfer it to anyone. The only way to "transfer" a domain should be to return it to the domain registry where it may be purchased by any interested party at market price determined by auction. However this probably isn't going to change.

What if I register a domain with a shell corp and a straw "contact" who is an employee of Mossack Fonseca (or whatever)? If I want to transfer the domain I just sell the shell corp.
Post reply on HN