191–200 of 210 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. It doesn't.
Why? Consider the scenario of a domain name owner dying and his relatives not caring/not knowing he/she owned a domain. With the current system the domain will be eventually available again. What alternative to you suggest?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The registration would show the name of the real owner. I don't think this is a good example.
That doesn't really change much though? It can still be taken from you for non-payment. What does it matter if some piece of paper says you "own" it if the courts will still allow someone to repossess it? Also this depends on the state, some US states are set up where the bank owns the title until the borrower pays it off, and others have the borrower on the title from the start but with a lien on the car by the lend…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Americans may find that inconvenient, more radical tongues call it a sign of US imperialism that .com is often associated with the home for US companies. I'm not sure why you felt the need to try and make some point about US imperialism in a discussion about a TLD with an extra dot when plenty of countries have a TLD that is customarily used without an extra dot: .de, .ch, .nl, .es, .ie, etc. It's simply a matter o…
How the TLDs work is a really classic example of US imperialism. For example .gov is impossible to get for non-US entities, yet literal towns have .gov domains within the US, and there are even examples of people using .ca to mean california. Meanwhile outside countries have to resort to things like .gov.uk. That's right, tiny rural towns in the US have a better domain than the main UK government sites. Likewise .com…
I'll gladly concede this point. I do agree that ICANN favors the US for .gov (and .mil). It would definitely be preferable if these weren't approved at all or at least weren't restricted to US entities.
> Likewise .com typically implies US, as affirmed by the .com.mx, etc variants
I responded to this in my previous comment. As far as I know there wasn't a decision to systematically favor US companies, so I'm not sure what this has to do with US imperialism. There are many websites in the UK and other countries that use .com, even if it's still far more common for US entities, and there's nothing stopping more from doing so.
I’m involved with a URL shortener service. Service had to ban this domain as sub-domains from this domain seem to be loved by spammers/scammers to host their scams…
Do you ban all the other free sub-domain services too? There's no reliable or honest statistic proving that eu.org is widely used for bad purposes. And what about URL-shortener services, such as the one you work with? Should they be banned all together? They seem to be popular with spam and scammers...
We ban as we see spam. Most free shorteners end up getting banned as there is no need to double shorten a url other than for double obfuscation which is usually shady.
I’m involved with a URL shortener service. Service had to ban this domain as sub-domains from this domain seem to be loved by spammers/scammers to host their scams…
On a similar note, most URL shorteners are also on all kinds of blocklists because of their tendency to get abused by spammers. That's just the way things go when you provide easy and accessible services.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are already projects like Handshake, ENS, Unstoppable domains that try to do this. Honestly I like the need for renewal fees for domains personally, since it means you can't just buy a domain once and squat on it forever.
yes you can. it costs 10$ a year to squat a 10 million dollar .com, and I bet there's a bunch of them that had been parked since the 90s the registration fee does prevent someone from squatting the entire Library of Babel though
Earlier quoted context omitted.
yes you can. it costs 10$ a year to squat a 10 million dollar .com, and I bet there's a bunch of them that had been parked since the 90s the registration fee does prevent someone from squatting the entire Library of Babel though
Well true, I don't know what a good way to deal with this would be, blockchain based solutions also suffer from same problem, where early adopters squat on domains and offer to sell them for 10000x markup
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That doesn't really change much though? It can still be taken from you for non-payment. What does it matter if some piece of paper says you "own" it if the courts will still allow someone to repossess it? Also this depends on the state, some US states are set up where the bank owns the title until the borrower pays it off, and others have the borrower on the title from the start but with a lien on the car by the lend…
Actually if I remember correctly (at least in NJ) the registration shows the name of the creditor as the owner. That was my only past experience. Mine was a vote in the "no you don't own it" direction and mine was financing not even a lease. (Not that they are fundamentally so different)
A vehicle's registration papers show the keeper's name and details but the document states in large letters "This document is not proof of ownership".
[0] https://www.gov.uk/vehicle-registration/new-and-used-vehicle...
It seems more like "free sub-domains" not domains. EU.org is not endorsed to any European Union initiative. These things are quite unstable. I've seen URL shorteners (even one from goo.gl) and URL "redirectioners" and a lot of things like that disappear. Like Geocities in the wind. Sadly only archive.org is a source of memories.
EU.org predates the European Union.