Live data from Hacker News

Internet Society told to halt .org sale by its own advisory council

theregister.co.uk

101–110 of 114 posts

Re: Internet Society told to halt .org sale by its own advisory council

#101
post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, I will say this about the TLD "debacle", when I recently went looking for a domain name made out of real words, but not in what you'd call the "A list" (i.e., not "drugs.com" or "money.com"), they have at least made it ineffectual now for squatters to squat on everything across all the useful TLDs. Someone wanted a couple $K for the .com variant but there were several other useful variants completely unregister…

Does anyone actually use or go to services on super-generic TLDs like that? I can't think of any billion-dollar businesses that exist at .com. I can't imagine they're as valuable as people make them out to be, because businesses have brands that aren't generic words like "money" or "drugs". There's "amazon" but the business has nothing do with rainforests, so it's not like they're benefitting from traffic from people…

weather.com

Re: Internet Society told to halt .org sale by its own advisory council

#102
post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When the centralized monopoly is all for raising prices, it becomes clear that market forces ceased to exist. > In free markets, pricing is controlled by the markets themselves, not by any single actor. I want .org name prices to remain capped at $10, and I want its stewards to take steps to ensure that there isn't a profit motive. That's a big part of what this uproar is -- lots of cash-strapped organizations whos…

> lots of cash-strapped organizations whose Web presence depends on .org continuing to be operated as it was Actually, this is the problem. Cash-strapped organizations should not be forced to pay rent for something that should be owned by them, or the people or the internet at large. This is something Handshake addresses. > If the problem was as easily solved as setting up and running an alternative DNS root, we woul…

> Actually, this is the problem. Cash-strapped organizations should not be forced to pay rent for something that should be owned by them, or the people or the internet at large.

So Handshake does not permit name renewals? What happens, then, if some rich speculator just buys up all the rest of .org and rents them out at waaaay higher rates than $10/year? This is the problem we're dealing with right here -- ICANN permitting rent-seeking. Handshake certainly doesn't stop this; in fact, by design, it rejects the very idea that this could be a bad thing.

> "Less prone to corruption" is an interesting phrase. We've tried, and tried, throughout the history of mankind to create organizations that are "less prone to corruption." Ultimately, it's hard to solve if you choose to do it a social way.

So you're proposing that instead that DNS be governed by an unelected oligarchy of unaccountable miners? You'll have to forgive me if I'm not jumping for joy at the idea.

> Blockchain uniquely solves the issue here and, for the world, the way Handshake approaches the replacement of the root zone, will be the birth of the first time, in mankind, a actual system used by all people is powered, at the core (root), by blockchain.

You have already made it perfectly clear that you, personally, believe everyone would be better off if we all just surrendered DNS to an unelected oligarchy of unaccountable miners. You can spare me the blockchain woo-woo.

Please go back and read my comments on corruption and rent-seeking, since it does not appear that you read them. An unelected oligarchy of unaccountable miners is not going to solve this problem. A blockchain is not going to solve this problem. Technology is not going to solve this problem.

> There are a lot of made up problems that people are trying to solve with "blockchain" projects, ..

Sorry to interrupt this sentence, but Handshake is very much one of these solution-in-search-of-a-problem blockchain systems. We already have DNS. I'd rather we just stop the sale of .org and punish those responsible than destroy and re-implement a core piece of Internet infrastructure with blockchain woo-woo operated by an unelected oligarchy of unaccountable miners.

> and then there's Handshake, a consensus driven decentralized dns root and certificate authority, that helps the coordination of the internet namespace which isn't owned by any one person, but the collective of us all.

Calling it now: if deployed at scale in the absence of government oversight and regulation, Handshake will devolve into an unelected oligarchy of unaccountable miners, just like Bitcoin and Ethereum. I would bet all of my worldly possessions on it.

Re: Internet Society told to halt .org sale by its own advisory council

#103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I paid $12 for my .dev domain. I bought it from Google.

Domain names are not one time purchases? Secondly are you referring to monthly or yearly? They sometimes do flash deals which might be why you got it for one year at that price (assuming you paid that yearly). But the discounts usually don't last forever.

You’re probably thinking of premium domains. Most ngTLDs charge more for high-value names to mitigate squatting—and to take a larger piece of the pie.

Re: Internet Society told to halt .org sale by its own advisory council

#104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Handshake, rather than renting your domain from .org or .com, you own your tld. This means that nobody will be able to charge you for using your own name. No more rent seeking or getting taxed by a pseudo government of the internet.

> In Handshake, rather than renting your domain from .org or .com, you own your tld. Given the conversation we had on https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22312014 , I think this claim is leaving out a lot of information. Handshake is not optimized for ordinary people to buy TLDs the same way they buy .com domains. - There's no market information I can find about what a TLD will cost on average. - Purchasing a TLD wi…

> it's been really hard to get concise, clear information about how it works, even from the main project website.

I'm really glad that you said this. I was just all over the website and was feeling a little dumb because I was having trouble figuring out what this did in any sort of detail.

Re: Internet Society told to halt .org sale by its own advisory council

#105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does anyone actually use or go to services on super-generic TLDs like that? I can't think of any billion-dollar businesses that exist at .com. I can't imagine they're as valuable as people make them out to be, because businesses have brands that aren't generic words like "money" or "drugs". There's "amazon" but the business has nothing do with rainforests, so it's not like they're benefitting from traffic from people…

Disney still uses go.com

Go.com has basically the same header as disney.com, and the main body content is just a list of web assets owned by Disney-- surprised to see FiveThirtyEight listed next to more traditional Disney content, didn't feel very cohesive. I would speculate this site doesn't get a ton of traffic since A/B testing could likely yield a higher level of conversion for whatever they're trying to achieve here.

Re: Internet Society told to halt .org sale by its own advisory council

#106
post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does anyone actually use or go to services on super-generic TLDs like that? I can't think of any billion-dollar businesses that exist at .com. I can't imagine they're as valuable as people make them out to be, because businesses have brands that aren't generic words like "money" or "drugs". There's "amazon" but the business has nothing do with rainforests, so it's not like they're benefitting from traffic from people…

pets.com

Redirects to a major retailer for pet and animal products.

Re: Internet Society told to halt .org sale by its own advisory council

#107
post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, I will say this about the TLD "debacle", when I recently went looking for a domain name made out of real words, but not in what you'd call the "A list" (i.e., not "drugs.com" or "money.com"), they have at least made it ineffectual now for squatters to squat on everything across all the useful TLDs. Someone wanted a couple $K for the .com variant but there were several other useful variants completely unregister…

Does anyone actually use or go to services on super-generic TLDs like that? I can't think of any billion-dollar businesses that exist at .com. I can't imagine they're as valuable as people make them out to be, because businesses have brands that aren't generic words like "money" or "drugs". There's "amazon" but the business has nothing do with rainforests, so it's not like they're benefitting from traffic from people…

DIY.com is the website for B&Q, the largest UK retailer of diy tools, turnover £4bn (owned by Kingfisher).

Re: Internet Society told to halt .org sale by its own advisory council

#108
post #87
post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"vanity" domains are $200/yr or more Including "{firstname}.dev" Nonsense. If Google's worried about domain squatters, it controls the TLD rules and can come up with a less moneygrab strategy. Perhaps require a Github account and limit to one domain per customer? FCFS is fairer than extortion.

require a GitHub account You do know that there are devs that prefer other code hosting platforms, right? GitHub is a proprietary service that's generally terrible for developers.

> GitHub is a proprietary service that's generally terrible for developers.

In what way? I find it incredibly awesome.

Re: Internet Society told to halt .org sale by its own advisory council

#109
post #91
post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"vanity" domains are $200/yr or more Including "{firstname}.dev" Nonsense. If Google's worried about domain squatters, it controls the TLD rules and can come up with a less moneygrab strategy. Perhaps require a Github account and limit to one domain per customer? FCFS is fairer than extortion.

As other commenters have said, they're $12/yr.

Not all of them.

https://support.google.com/domains/answer/6010092#registry

I just checked my Google Domains account, and my .dev domain renews for "$180 plus tax".

The pricing is entirely opaque and you can't find it listed anywhere, but I did find a comment from HN last year that listed several examples:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19201073

Some names cost even more than the $200 I initially cited!

Re: Internet Society told to halt .org sale by its own advisory council

#110
post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

pets.com

Redirects to a major retailer for pet and animal products.

Am I really getting old enough to where modern developers know nothing about the dot com crash?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pets.com

Post reply on HN