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

A domain can now say it is for sale, in DNS

specification.website

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 136 posts

Re: A domain can now say it is for sale, in DNS

#71

Post by crossroadsguy »

delfinom wrote: post #67
pixl97 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Be a big company. Look for interesting sounding domain names that are owned but not being used by individuals. Create a product with the same name. Sue the person with the domain name and take it from them. Win, because you're big.

https://nissan.com/ Archive.org it to see little man beating big corporation

https://web.archive.org/web/20040403145823/http://www.nissan... at least this one says

> In compliance with a ruling issued by the United States District Court in Los Angeles on November 14, 2002, in the lawsuit of Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. v. Nissan Computer Corporation, this web site has been converted to non-commercial use.

And then this https://web.archive.org/web/20050701005403/http://www.nissan... says:

> Nissan Motor is suing Nissan Computer (named after its founder and current President, Mr. Uzi Nissan) for Trademark Infringement, Trademark Dilution and CyberSquatting, seeking 10 Million Dollars in damages

Besides this also indicate not so "little man".

Re: A domain can now say it is for sale, in DNS

#72

Post by axus »

ohashi wrote: post #34
comrade1234 wrote: post #7

Something I've wondered... if you publicly say that a domain is for sale and someone has a trademark for it would you automatically lose in arbitration? Around 1998 I registered a domain. Sony registered a trademark with the same name a few years after that. Someone on a Gmail account asked if he could buy it - I later found out he worked for Sony. I told him no - it's for a game I've been working on. I went on a vac…

full disclaimer, I have worked on https://udrp.tools for something like a decade now as the developer. We're working on an AI chatbot to help answer these types of questions based on our dataset and other data sources (actual wipo guidelines, udrpperspectives.org). The short answer is no, the answer our AI gave with citations/explanation is below if youre curious: Does publicly listing a domain for sale mean you'd au…

I noticed the UDRP rules had changed last year, the main change is of course related to WHOIS respecting privacy now. Looking that up:

"The registrar must provide the full Registration Data to the UDRP provider within two business days after the registrar is notified that a UDRP complaint exists. The registrar must also lock the domain."

Re: A domain can now say it is for sale, in DNS

#73

Post by tredre3 »

Bender wrote: post #49
wbl wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Initial underscore is a reserved namespace for this reason.

Is that universally true on all sites that allow a user to create a sub-domain?

DNS allows any character you want, including underscores. Host names in URLs cannot contain underscores. Therefore any service that create subdomains for user would reject underscores, which is why they're considered de-facto reserved for special uses in DNS. I don't think the reserved nature is codified in any RFC.

Re: A domain can now say it is for sale, in DNS

#76

Post by axus »

germinalphrase wrote: post #54
gronodev wrote: post #41

Sigh, I'm not a fan of domains becoming the new kind of real estate. Wonder how hard will it be in 20 years to get a good, unused name in a reasonable price.

Have you tried getting a good, unused name today? Anything remotely close to a dictionary word, if unused, is squatted with a $xx,000 price tag. Do registrars get a cut of these sales prices because it seems ridiculous to allow squatting.

Registrars get a lot more domains registered at 5-20 $/year this way. How would our lives improve if squatting were "not allowed"?

Re: A domain can now say it is for sale, in DNS

#77

Post by Bender »

tredre3 wrote: post #73
Bender wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that universally true on all sites that allow a user to create a sub-domain?

DNS allows any character you want, including underscores. Host names in URLs cannot contain underscores. Therefore any service that create subdomains for user would reject underscores, which is why they're considered de-facto reserved for special uses in DNS. I don't think the reserved nature is codified in any RFC.

Testing [1] Works in Firefox, Helium and Curl but I do not have Chrome or Safari to test with.

[1] - https://_test.nochan.net/

Re: A domain can now say it is for sale, in DNS

#78

Post by Habgdnv »

I noticed few commenters mention something like a rule: If you say your domain is for sale, they will take it from you because..... And was wondering, few years back, twitter was sold to mr Elon. I will just say it like this: Did they lose all their trademarks and rights to all domains, if someone register twitter.cc or twitter.it or similar, because twitter is for sale and they did not need the trademark for business anymore?

Re: A domain can now say it is for sale, in DNS

#79

Post by TZubiri »

sokoloff wrote: post #19
TZubiri wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting, a binding bid might be more useful than this proposed no-op slop. TLDs like .online actually have a registrar-based dynamic pricing system based on internal rules, like domain size, presence in word lists, plurality, etc... And their distribution of available to taken names is quite good. It's different, which is already good, no one needs yet another TLD with the uncreative allocation system of copying…

> why is everyone such a p**** about We can do a lot better than using non-inclusive language like this. There are better ways to express the underlying concept.

I can't seem to be able to edit out the swipe.

- such a pussy about actually using record types

+ not bold enough to use actual record types

And I know it's not the core of the issue, but I meant "using TXT records for everything" not "for everyone".

Re: A domain can now say it is for sale, in DNS

#80

Post by arcbyte »

wredcoll wrote: post #42
pbhjpbhj wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A reply said this, but it's dead: >If you're offering it for sale, you're clearly not using it for commerce. [...] >if you're selling a domain and someone has a trademark for it, you should have to hand it over. Hell, I'd argue that should apply even without a trademark [...] I disagree, but they made a point and did so clearly. Why that person felt someone else's chosen commercial use of a domain should trump anyone…

I agree with you about assets being for sale (if someone wrote a big enough check I'd sell my house right now) and commercial not trumping non commercial, but there was, at least for a while, a reasonable argument for opposing "domain squatting" under the theory that domain names were a limited resource and society as a whole benefits from those resources being used more optimally. It's like concert tickets or any ot…

A lot of us still consider domain squatters to be trolls. Use it or lose it.
Post reply on HN