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

Namebox - sell your unwanted or unused domains

namebox.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 82 posts

Re: Namebox - sell your unwanted or unused domains

#71

Post by larrys »

benatkin wrote: post #20
reustle wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not just use escrow? https://www.escrow.com/services/domain-and-website-escrow.as...

It's "escrow.com", not "escrow". They try to do a funky thing with their logo to separate the escrow part of it from .com, but they aren't brash enough to leave off the suffix. If they did, I don't think it would fly. I searched for "escrow.com" reviews and found some negative ones. So there's one reason why someone might not use it. Another reason would be that as a general escrow service they may not understand the…

"I searched for "escrow.com" reviews and found some negative ones. So there's one reason why someone might not use it."

With all due respect (as they say) does this really add anything helpful to a discussion? It's like "I've searched online and people say that wordpress has security issues..."

First of all, as pointed out by others in this thread, that is not the case with escrow.com who I have personally used over the years (and seen used) for numerous transactions. And it is who people use for these transactions, is a specialist licensed in all 50 states (no small feat). Additionally the process is as close to bullet proof in terms of protecting both buyer and seller. And they aren't so large (ala ebay) that if you have a problem you can't get someone on the phone to rectify. Lastly, the President (Brandon Abbey) replies to emails (and in fact adopted a suggestion that I had into escrow.com service).

"Another reason would be that as a general escrow service they may not understand the domain escrow process as well as a company that only does DNS escrow."

Let me assure you that they know that process very well and the industry has responded to that. They are used by buyers, sellers, attorneys, everyone. I get the point you are making which in a general sense can be a valid one. But not applicable here.

Re: Namebox - sell your unwanted or unused domains

#72

Post by 67726e »

jtheory wrote: post #59
67726e wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Squatting is squatting is squatting. You may have registered with the intent to use it but now that you are not using it you think you deserve money for the ability to rent it?

I disagree; I have a handful of domains without active sites on them as well, for projects that I still want to do but haven't gotten to yet. I've had experiences in the past of letting a domain expire and then being "ready" to use it a few years down the line. Of course, it was invariably squatted, and had been since I'd let it go, and would cost more than I was able to justify paying to get it back. On the other ha…

I think there is a misunderstanding of my point. I'm trying to say that at the point that you list your domain that you intended to use but do not for a crazy sum, that is when you become a squatter. Simply holding onto a site with the intent to use it for a few years isn't. It's all about the spirit and intention.

Re: Namebox - sell your unwanted or unused domains

#74

Post by larrys »

nly wrote: post #31
lsc wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>because, like me, they probably have tens of domains they don't plan on ever using. So, you mean, small-scale squatters are okay; large-scale squatters are not?

It's not squatting. Squatting is registering a domain for its own sake. Sometimes you register domains for projects and then those projects never get off the ground. I have a dozen domains (I defensively registered all the top TLDs) expiring in 4 days for just that reason.

"Squatting is registering a domain for its own sake."

Actually no.

The closest true definition I [1] can come up with for "squatting" [2] would be defined as such (from wikipedia):

--------------

"Cybersquatting (also known as domain squatting), according to the United States federal law known as the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, is registering, trafficking in, or using a domain name with bad faith intent to profit from the goodwill of a trademark belonging to someone else. The cybersquatter then offers to sell the domain to the person or company who owns a trademark contained within the name at an inflated price."

--------------

So to clear up any misconception there is no problem registering a domain that a) you don't intend to use or b) you plan to sell or c) being in the business of buying and selling domains as long as you don't break any existing laws around trademarks (as only one example). Of course there are also issues with UDRP's and law firms reverse hijacking domains but that's an entirely different subject.

Lastly of course people who can't get the domain they want always will throw around the "c" word as if it's simply not fair that they can't have what they want when they want it. In a similar vein people are also opposing legitimate real estate and other property transactions if it personally effects them.

[1] I operate an ICANN registrar and I've been in this business since 1996. I've been quoted in the NY Times on domains and many other places. I'm one of the people asked about this type of thing and consult on the subject.

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybersquatting

Re: Namebox - sell your unwanted or unused domains

#77

Post by benatkin »

larrys wrote: post #71
benatkin wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's "escrow.com", not "escrow". They try to do a funky thing with their logo to separate the escrow part of it from .com, but they aren't brash enough to leave off the suffix. If they did, I don't think it would fly. I searched for "escrow.com" reviews and found some negative ones. So there's one reason why someone might not use it. Another reason would be that as a general escrow service they may not understand the…

"I searched for "escrow.com" reviews and found some negative ones. So there's one reason why someone might not use it." With all due respect (as they say) does this really add anything helpful to a discussion? It's like "I've searched online and people say that wordpress has security issues..." First of all, as pointed out by others in this thread, that is not the case with escrow.com who I have personally used over…

> With all due respect (as they say) does this really add anything helpful to a discussion? It's like "I've searched online and people say that wordpress has security issues..."

I wasn't arguing against escrow.com. I was arguing against the comment I replied to, where the author presented escrow.com as an obvious choice, with the incorrect name, and no reasons in support of using them.

That's why I said "might" instead of "should". My point is that one can always find reasons not to use something, in absence of reasons why they should use things.

I don't want my comment to be taken without taking into account the comment I replied to, and if that's the only way people are going to read it, I retract it.

Re: Namebox - sell your unwanted or unused domains

#78

Post by nly »

larrys wrote: post #74
nly wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not squatting. Squatting is registering a domain for its own sake. Sometimes you register domains for projects and then those projects never get off the ground. I have a dozen domains (I defensively registered all the top TLDs) expiring in 4 days for just that reason.

"Squatting is registering a domain for its own sake." Actually no. The closest true definition I [1] can come up with for "squatting" [2] would be defined as such (from wikipedia): -------------- "Cybersquatting (also known as domain squatting), according to the United States federal law known as the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, is registering, trafficking in, or using a domain name with bad faith inte…

I think conflating the issue with trademarks narrows my definition. "For its own sake" means registering a domain for no incentive beyond the status or vanity of holding that name, i.e. just because it looks cool or it's short, funny or memorable.

I still think it's squatting if I registered yoursurname.com, even though it's not a trademark and wouldn't meet your definition under the ACPA.

I still think it's squatting if I have no intention of ragging you in to buying yoursurname.com from me. Maybe I just derive satisfaction from having something you want?

Post reply on HN