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

61–70 of 85 posts

Re: Stop Corporate Takeover of New Internet Names

#61

Post by icebraining »

ctoth wrote: post #36
mdc wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

In particular I refer to the .com namespace which, after all, should be used for commercial purposes. We already have .name and so forth for personal sites. Given that .name presents the ultimate namespace collision factory we do come down to a scarcity problem though. Thoughts on how we can handle that? Also: Note that I said we should argue about the value of $X. I did not at all imply that $X should be such that "…

That's an US centered view. No regular person spends anywhere near $100/month on cellphone service where I live, nor could many afford it. For $80/month, you can get a cellphone plan with unlimited sms and calls, 100mbps home internet, 100 TV channels, and a POTS-over-IP line. And yet, many still can't afford cable TV or home Internet.

And this is the problem is pricing global product and/or services; what's reasonable in a market like the US is prohibitively expensive in many others.

Re: Stop Corporate Takeover of New Internet Names

#62

Post by trotsky »

rehashed wrote: post #53
rehashed wrote: post #9

What benefit do these new TLDs bring to the table? If ICANN need additional revenue, why not fractionally increase the cost of the current gTLDs instead of introducing more? All these new domains can possibly achieve, IMHO, is to confuse the consumer and allow corporations to control access to 'desirable' gTLDs. If the domain space is so overcrowded, then by all means introduce a new gTLD - but keep it ICANN controll…

UPDATE3: The more I think about this, the more concerned I become. These new gTLDs, given the proliferation of combined search and location bars in modern browsers are tantamount to a direct keyword to those corporations with $185k to spend. Type in 'antivirus', and you will be directed to symantec - not the search results you would likely expect. This has to stop - NOW.

you already dont/wont have naked tld records because of local addressing: http://www/ becomes http://www.mydomain.com/ inside my os as directed by my dhcp server.

Re: Stop Corporate Takeover of New Internet Names

#63

Post by melloclello »

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…

But that would kill all the cool/gimmicky sites that don't make any money (like zombo.com etc, not to mention all the world's blogs...!)

Re: Stop Corporate Takeover of New Internet Names

#64

Post by bdc »

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.

AOL Keywords ;)

Re: Stop Corporate Takeover of New Internet Names

#65

Post by null_ptr »

larrys wrote: post #60
pifflesnort wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Squatting is an accurate description for rent-seeking behavior that levies a cost on the internet community at large. Unlike land -- a physical, real resource -- domain names exist at the discretion of ICANN, the bodies responsible running the root name servers, the infrastructure providers that default to those root name servers, and ultimately, the internet community. In that regard, they're even more of a manufact…

"domain squatter behavior is damaging to those that would make beneficial use of the domain name space." How would you propose to determine beneficial use of a domain name? For example let's say the domain "pifflesnort.com" was taken by someone in 2003 who decided to use it periodically to post a list of movies they had watched on TV. Now you come along (in 2013) and you want it to do something more than that (say do…

I don't think it's difficult to draw a line between a dude keeping a list of movies he watched and a "This domain may be for sale, meanwhile search for shoes and mortgages" clone page.

We shouldn't be afraid to call things out for what they are. The dude with the movie list is doing it because he enjoys it, so what if only a handful of people in the world ever read it. The clone squatter page on the other hand, provides nothing of interest to anyone and exists solely as a means to extort money.

Re: Stop Corporate Takeover of New Internet Names

#66

Post by larrys »

null_ptr wrote: post #65
larrys wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"domain squatter behavior is damaging to those that would make beneficial use of the domain name space." How would you propose to determine beneficial use of a domain name? For example let's say the domain "pifflesnort.com" was taken by someone in 2003 who decided to use it periodically to post a list of movies they had watched on TV. Now you come along (in 2013) and you want it to do something more than that (say do…

I don't think it's difficult to draw a line between a dude keeping a list of movies he watched and a "This domain may be for sale, meanwhile search for shoes and mortgages" clone page. We shouldn't be afraid to call things out for what they are. The dude with the movie list is doing it because he enjoys it, so what if only a handful of people in the world ever read it. The clone squatter page on the other hand, provi…

Except for one thing.

The "dude" with the movie page could be someone who fully intends to actually sell the domain when the right buyer comes along. People already do this type of thing. Put up a "kinda sorta page" that looks and quacks like a duck.

Once again, how are you expecting this is going to get enforced exactly?

As an aside buying and selling domain names is a valid business model and has been around for quite some time.

People who managed to register domains back in the beginning were confronted with almost unlimited inventory and had to decide what to register at the time at what was $100 per domain (for two years later lowered to $70 for two years). [1]There was no guarantee they would be able to sell the domains that they registered. If there was they would have registered more than they did. Later once the top names were grabbed others took advantage and actually spent real money to buy them with the hopes of reselling (say buying something for $50,000 and hoping to wait a number of years and sell it for $300,000). Some of those people have made money and some are still sitting on those domains.

[1] And of course prior to that domains were free but they actually vetted the applications so there was somewhat of a constraint on what you could register. Additionally the utility wasn't as obvious as it was even a year or two later when Network Solutions (the sole bidder on the contract) asked to be able to charge because of the amount of domains registered exceeded the original intent (or whatever) of the contract.

Re: Stop Corporate Takeover of New Internet Names

#67

Post by pifflesnort »

larrys wrote: post #60
pifflesnort wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Squatting is an accurate description for rent-seeking behavior that levies a cost on the internet community at large. Unlike land -- a physical, real resource -- domain names exist at the discretion of ICANN, the bodies responsible running the root name servers, the infrastructure providers that default to those root name servers, and ultimately, the internet community. In that regard, they're even more of a manufact…

"domain squatter behavior is damaging to those that would make beneficial use of the domain name space." How would you propose to determine beneficial use of a domain name? For example let's say the domain "pifflesnort.com" was taken by someone in 2003 who decided to use it periodically to post a list of movies they had watched on TV. Now you come along (in 2013) and you want it to do something more than that (say do…

> How would you propose to determine beneficial use of a domain name?

"I know it when I see it" (and you probably do too).

> Where exactly do you draw the line and what constitutes "beneficial" use of the domain? Do you plan to have a body of people deciding that?

Sure. We already have that for IP block assignments.

Re: Stop Corporate Takeover of New Internet Names

#68

Post by apayan »

interpol_p wrote: post #7

It's a little unnerving that large companies want control over some entire gTLDs. I wonder if Google will let iOS app developers have ".app" domains? I doubt it. For example, here are some relevant portions from Google's applications for the .app gTLD: (Note: Charleston Road Registry is a company wholly owned by Google.) The proposed gTLD will provide Google with direct association to the term ʺapp,ʺ which is an abbr…

The text you copied explicitly states that they would be opening this up to other platforms:

and mobile applications on other platforms

Not that I necessarily agree or disagree with the expansion of these TLDs, but Google is hardly the kind of bad actor I would worry about.

Re: Stop Corporate Takeover of New Internet Names

#69

Post by ufo »

brackin wrote: post #26

I think it'd be smarter to just add 10 - 20 new names for specific categories rather than an extension for every brand you can imagine ".apple, .amazon, etc". This could lower the resell price of the .com slightly and raise revenue. Like .co did but it wouldn't confuse the user heavily as this move feels like its changing everything.

Like .biz, .travel and .museum? :P
Post reply on HN