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

Stop Corporate Takeover of New Internet Names

change.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 85 posts

Re: Stop Corporate Takeover of New Internet Names

#41

Post by davidroberts »

OGinparadise wrote: post #14
wilfra wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the exact opposite of a monopoly. Everybody and their sister is going to have their own extension and anybody who can afford one can still buy their own.

Everybody and their sister is going to have their own extension and anybody who can afford one can still buy their own. so I can get a .shop extension too after Google gets the one and only?

I don't think so. Based on what they wrote in their application for the 'app' tdl, Google, in the name of Charleston Road Registry, plans to totally close the TDLs they get :

Charleston Road Registry intends to operate the proposed gTLD as a closed registry with Google as the sole registrar and registrant. The goal of the proposed gTLD is to allow Google and its Network to manage the domain name space for their application offerings. The proposed gTLD will provide Google and its Network with the ability to customize domain and website name application offerings to signal to the general population of Internet users that .app websites are indeed managed by Google. The specialization goal of the proposed gTLD is to extend the Google brand and reputation to each .app second-level domain. This specialization provides a mechanism by which Google and its Network can easily link and manage their applications and related services. This specialization makes it clear to Internet users that this is the authoritative and designated space where they can find Google’s and its Network’s applications offered in association with the Google brand and accessible via differentiated and streamlined web addresses.

Re: Stop Corporate Takeover of New Internet Names

#42

Post by larrys »

OGinparadise wrote: post #20
wilfra wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

think about them like really expensive .com's and this will be easier to swallow. you can't get google.com or sex.com because they are taken - but you can get any other .com that is available. or you can get on somebody elses domain for free like .blogspot.com .wordpress.com .tumblr.com etc. there are a lot of reasons i don't like that ICANN is doing this but fear that these companies are going to employ abusive mono…

edit: his comment was edited after I typed mine and I'm too lazy to change it back and forth- for $1 million plus in costs. You are confusing the extension with a domain name. The point is not to have ONE company own and control an extension (like .com) and all the domains in it. ICAAN should control them and then allow people and corps to register domains within that extension.

"The point is not to have ONE company own and control an extension (like .com) and all the domains in it."

This has already happened. Afilias controls .info. Public Interest Registry controls .org. (Afilias actually runs the backend operations of .org for Public Interest Registry.)

I operate a registrar and I pay money to both of them. When we call support (rare) the same people take the calls for both TLD's.

I was around when this happened and .info was being floated and passed on an opportunity to invest in it.

Re: Stop Corporate Takeover of New Internet Names

#43

Post by itry »

mdc wrote: post #33
ctoth wrote: post #29

Problem: The .com and similar namespaces are crowded. As someone who has been searching this weekend for a domain, the sad fact is that a huge number of domains are simply "Parked free, courtesy of ..." or "Coming soon", or "Under construction", or "This domain is for sale, please contact..." In short, domains are being bought up and not used, and the commons is ruined. Solution: Increase the price of .com and .net a…

It seems like this solution means that if you want to have your own domain, either you must be rich or the website must be profitable. You're basically saying that only the rich should have access to domain-branded blogs and other non-commercial sites, and everyone else can make do with subdomains like a blogspot or blogger website. I think raising fees would have consequences for well-intentioned users far beyond th…

"It seems like this solution means that if you want to have your own domain, either you must be rich or the website must be profitable"

Not really. Looks like the namespace is big enough for all of us. Your post made me curious how crowded the .com space really is and within 30s of trying, I found this free gem: notrichbuthappy.com Nothing wrong with it for a blog, right?

Re: Stop Corporate Takeover of New Internet Names

#44

Post by AnthonyMouse »

mtrimpe wrote: post #37
ctoth wrote: post #29

Problem: The .com and similar namespaces are crowded. As someone who has been searching this weekend for a domain, the sad fact is that a huge number of domains are simply "Parked free, courtesy of ..." or "Coming soon", or "Under construction", or "This domain is for sale, please contact..." In short, domains are being bought up and not used, and the commons is ruined. Solution: Increase the price of .com and .net a…

You just need to research, pick up the phone or email and negotiate. Even squatters know the relative value of domains fairly well and you'd be surprised how many names are held by someone who doesn't even remember he owns them.

One should never pay money to squatters. It only encourages them to proliferate. If everyone would just let them keep paying yearly fees for thousands of domains nobody ever buys then they would eventually go out of business.

Re: Stop Corporate Takeover of New Internet Names

#45

Post by AnthonyMouse »

ctoth wrote: post #29

Problem: The .com and similar namespaces are crowded. As someone who has been searching this weekend for a domain, the sad fact is that a huge number of domains are simply "Parked free, courtesy of ..." or "Coming soon", or "Under construction", or "This domain is for sale, please contact..." In short, domains are being bought up and not used, and the commons is ruined. Solution: Increase the price of .com and .net a…

>Solution: Increase the price of .com and .net and other tlds to approximately $X.

I don't like it. Makes things more expensive for normal people.

How about this: Impose a fixed $20,000 fee on the sale of an existing domain name. You can transfer for free if you like, but if you sell the domain then $20,000 is due immediately. Maybe make an exception if the sale is part of the sale of an entire business or other such things that normal people might do but squatters couldn't easily craft sham transactions around.

Re: Stop Corporate Takeover of New Internet Names

#46

Post by OGinparadise »

netrus wrote: post #22
OGinparadise wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google has the clout to make it happen by favoring the domains they want to control on search. Others not so much.

This would get them into big troubles, at least in the EU.

Doubt it, Google will add another section like they do for News, Images, Products etc.

Re: Stop Corporate Takeover of New Internet Names

#48

Post by brownbat »

TLDs were originally going to communicate something to the user, they never actually did.

Now they represent... how many wasted keystrokes per day? If Berners-Lee agonizes over the second slash after http, then ".com" has to be one of the biggest failures of usability in history.

TLDs were designed by folks who guessed most of the internet would be used for governments and non-profits, and commerce would be this token side niche. Now that nearly everything's .com (or under a quirky country domain to sidestep the whole system), it's lost any significance.

We should scrap it as soon as possible.

Re: Stop Corporate Takeover of New Internet Names

#49

Post by MatthewPhillips »

brownbat wrote: post #48

TLDs were originally going to communicate something to the user, they never actually did. Now they represent... how many wasted keystrokes per day? If Berners-Lee agonizes over the second slash after http, then ".com" has to be one of the biggest failures of usability in history. TLDs were designed by folks who guessed most of the internet would be used for governments and non-profits, and commerce would be this toke…

And replace it with what? If everyone has to fight over a global namespace we just wind up with a different sort of problem.

Re: Stop Corporate Takeover of New Internet Names

#50

Post by thaumasiotes »

MatthewPhillips wrote: post #49
brownbat wrote: post #48

TLDs were originally going to communicate something to the user, they never actually did. Now they represent... how many wasted keystrokes per day? If Berners-Lee agonizes over the second slash after http, then ".com" has to be one of the biggest failures of usability in history. TLDs were designed by folks who guessed most of the internet would be used for governments and non-profits, and commerce would be this toke…

And replace it with what? If everyone has to fight over a global namespace we just wind up with a different sort of problem.

I think the point of the comment you're replying to is that everyone is fighting over a global namespace now, but one that unnecessarily appends ".com" to everything in it.

That interpretation might be overly colored by my personal view of things.

However much I might be inclined to agree that we have a global namespace now, I can't agree that ".com" is 'one of the biggest usability failures in history'. The point has been made before, but seeing "facebook.com" immediately signifies a website to people, using fewer characters than "find us on the web at facebook" ever really could. I found it very interesting to see mainland chinese advertisements with web addresses - for example, renren.com might appear in an ad as "人人网". The two 人 would be written in pinyin as "ren", and directly represent the name of the site; the 网 is pronounced "wang" and means net (here, the internet), but actually represents the unpronounceable suffix ".com". Thus I argue that ".com" is not even a clear loss in usability; it's providing context that people want.

Post reply on HN