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

ICANN Allows .COM Price Increases, Gets More Money

namecheap.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 132 posts

Re: ICANN Allows .COM Price Increases, Gets More Money

#111

Post by im3w1l »

ohazi wrote: post #57

This is not going to end. ICANN has revealed their hand -- they are corrupt. But we don't actually need them. What we do need is a "Let's Encrypt" style initiative to replace the DNS roots in their entirety, run by competent, principled people. It would be difficult, but the people who are pissed off about this have clout at Google, Microsoft, and Mozilla (the web browser gatekeepers) and might actually be able to pu…

The issue is that DNS registrations should cost money to dis-incentivize excessive parking. And the money it should cost vastly exceeds operating costs. It's not clear what you should do with that money - someone is bound to be unhappy.

Re: ICANN Allows .COM Price Increases, Gets More Money

#112

Post by nikolay »

It's about time for the US Government to intervene and dissolve ICANN and transfer the domain business to Mozilla! She should not piecemeal the problem - we should solve it once and for all. We should start a Whitehouse petition and ask the government to end this legalized scam!

Everything regarding domains is designed to scam the regular folk and pour money into registrars and domainers!

Imagine you forgot to pay your phone bill, and then all your competitors start bidding, and they get your number in 30 days. This cannot happen in the real world, because it's wrong, but it happens with much more valuable ones (yet cheap in terms of annual cost) - the domains.

All this is designed to steal money from all of us and pour it into the greedy bellies of some of the sketchiest folks in the digital space - the domainers. I'd say that even the SEO scammers are much more sophisticated and nice than the domainers! Yet, ICANN allows them to exist, and guarantees their profits!

Re: ICANN Allows .COM Price Increases, Gets More Money

#113

Post by nikolay »

giovannibonetti wrote: post #68

Bear with me for a moment: I firmly believe that in order for good .com domains to be available for a smaller price the registry fee should be far higher. The reason for that is speculation: even though a .com registration is dirty cheap, getting a decent .com domain is very expensive because for many companies it is worth it to keep the domains parked, and when someone wants to buy one of them it gets very expensive…

This will only get rid of the small domain investors with their insignificant portfolios you don't care about anyway.

Re: ICANN Allows .COM Price Increases, Gets More Money

#114

Post by bad_user »

kodablah wrote: post #29
NikkiA wrote: post #16

I have mixed feelings about this, the increase by ICANN is outrageous, but at the same time NameCheap are positioning themselves as heros here, and I've been burnt multiple times by the byzantine way their renewal system tries to fool you into paying for the wrong thing (put 'registration period as 10 years? suuure, we won't tell you you're paying for 10 years of privacy guard over 1 year of domain registration thoug…

Separate the issues and it'll make your conscience clearer. I too have issues w/ how NameCheap presents things (sale prices for other TLDs don't clearly state renewal rates for example), but that is orthogonal to their position here.

Actually they do clearly state renewal prices and I can't remember a time in which they didn't:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/5fpqtji40aprg1w/IMG_4790.jpg?dl=0

Note that I'm not even a native English speaker, so you'd think that such misunderstandings would happen more to people like me.

Re: ICANN Allows .COM Price Increases, Gets More Money

#115

Post by dawnerd »

tptacek wrote: post #86
dawnerd wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

After that DNSSEC outage the other day with no notification or anything from them before or afterwards, I've been slowly moving my domains away from them. If they really wanted to fight back they could do a lot more than just post on their blog. Why don't they fund ICANN like Verisign is and maybe ICANN will start to listen?

Which outage are you talking about? Got a link I can check out? Thanks!

There’s been quite a few. Some Not as widely noticed like this one

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19227618

But this was most recent

https://www.reddit.com/r/NameCheap/comments/epbh7m/namecheap...

Re: ICANN Allows .COM Price Increases, Gets More Money

#116

Post by wahern »

daun wrote: post #107

If you're a California resident and are affected by the price changes, you can file a complaint with the California Attorney General. If you're a US resident outside of California you can file a complaint with the Department of Commerce as well as the antitrust division of the Department of Justice. And if you really want to get revenge against ICANN you can contact Senator Ted Cruz's office and let them know what yo…

Senator Cruz opposed the transfer when it appeared ICANN's governance model was going to be like the U.N., where countries might have veto power over strong transparency, security, privacy, freedom of speech, financial accessibility, etc. Senator Cruz and many in his party are disdainful of the U.N. and similar multilateral international institutions; they oppose them on principal.

But ICANN ended up being run more like a private company in a free market. The fact that it also resulted in poor financial accessibility or any of the other feared consequences is irrelevant to Senator Cruz unless it somehow furthered the vilification of social media outlets and his attempts to repeal Communications Decency Act Section 230 protections. Don't forget, Cruz also opposes net neutrality, believing it to be "the biggest regulatory threat to the Internet".

Re: ICANN Allows .COM Price Increases, Gets More Money

#117

Post by tastroder »

mdorazio wrote: post #103
IceWreck wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Youre thinking about yourself. Students etc who have .com domains cant afford $100 a year for their domain? Should they be forced to give up their domains because people like you couldnt get their chosen domains from squatters/

I'm not sure why students etc. need specifically .com domains.

Right, they can use free .tk, .xx.yy domains that highjack their content to serve ads. It's fine. /s

We've been there people and it sucked, hard. Neither anybody here, nor ICANN, should get to decide what people can or cannot use domains for. Stipulating such restrictions or unreasonably raising prices to exclude any group that is neither rich or a company would essentially break the TLD. In that case you can just get rid of .com and tie it into the US trademark system if you like. Maybe that's where the internet is going these days but it's neither natural nor a good direction in my book.

Re: ICANN Allows .COM Price Increases, Gets More Money

#118

Post by thiht »

gowld wrote: post #96
KerrickStaley wrote: post #58

I sent this email to comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20@icann.org. Feel free to borrow/edit it: I oppose Amendment 3 to the .COM Registry Agreement. I believe that allowing wholesale prices for .com domains to rise 72% over 12 years, which is far more than the rate of inflation and also far more than Verisign's underlying costs of maintaining the registry could possibly increase by, will dramatically hurt the internet…

Write to your government, not ICANNN. ICANN is accountable to no one, except the US government where their offices sit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICANN#Democratic_input

ICANN is actually independent from the US government since 2016

Re: ICANN Allows .COM Price Increases, Gets More Money

#119

Post by henvic »

GauntletWizard wrote: post #84
henvic wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Come on. Squatting is when you're doing som with the purpose of reselling. If you just were lucky and registered a 3 letter domain back in the 90s, why is it anyone else business? Let it be. I have got a 5-letter domain myself that I keep a website of mine that never worked out online mostly for portfolio and because I really like the domain name. I've no plans to sell the domain or free it so others can register, ev…

You know, I do agree and respect that, but I also see that these are a (artificial) constrained resource - There's value in them. They're a constrained public good, and prices should be charged appropriately - And yeah, I think that the really short domain names should be $XXXX per year to renew, if not more. Squatting isn't just with the purpose of reselling. It's an overloaded phrase, from "living in someone's buil…

Well, I'd argue your model of usefulness and the concept of a public good is broken.

We are living in the Internet and names are cheap. If for some historical reasons (I'd say, maybe even related to artificial scarcity), .com|.org|.net got more popular than they probably would, this is fine. gTLDS (generic top-level domains) are here now, and if they don't suffice, something else will eventually appear.

Re: ICANN Allows .COM Price Increases, Gets More Money

#120

Post by L3viathan »

xoa wrote: post #78
GauntletWizard wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd call, without the slightest of doubt, the latter to be squatting. Maybe ICANN should specify a shorter internal lab domain (There's already .local for your use, which I would think is plenty short, even adding a prefix), but I would most certainly say that given there's only ~50,000 2 or 3-letter domains, the price for one should be high enough to make an individual flinch.

> There's already .local for your use, No? Yeah at one point a lot of us used that one, but it was never official and has long since been eaten by mDNS. And with ICANN happily selling off whatever TLDs anyone wants you can’t count on anything unused and unreserved either. Local only DNS TLD use has been explicitly discouraged if anything, which has long been intensely irritating and argued over. Ones like .test are r…

Isn't .local reserved by RFC 6762?
Post reply on HN