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

Let ICANN know if you support .com price hikes

internetcommerce.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 90 posts

Re: Let ICANN know if you support .com price hikes

#11

Post by skrause »

foo101 wrote: post #8
StavrosK wrote: post #6

I kind of want the price to increase, to combat domain squatting. That said, I'd much prefer it if the money went to some charity instead of the ICANN.

Squatting can be easily prevented by reclaiming domain names without refund when the domain names have not been used or used illegitimately for more than a fixed threshold period of time. Parking pages or any other use that intends to work around the restriction can be deemed illegitimate use.

> Parking pages or any other use that intends to work around the restriction can be deemed illegitimate use.

My personal domain doesn't even have an A record in the DNS, only an MX record because use it for all my email. By your definition that would be an "illegitimate use" and I should lose my domain...

Re: Let ICANN know if you support .com price hikes

#12

Post by buboard »

Isn't it odd that prices are going UP instead of down ,even though they flooded the market with tlds? The issue is obviously their monopoly, and it needs to be broken down. Petitions are petty

Actually what would be even better is if browsers started supporting ENS or some similar competing name system

Re: Let ICANN know if you support .com price hikes

#13

Post by rovr138 »

Hamuko wrote: post #4

No one likes a price increase, but 30% increase to ~$10/year over four years is not making my blood boil.

I’m not opposed to it if needed. This part is the one that convinced me it shouldn’t happen right now,

> $7.85 of your registration or renewal payment goes to Verisign. The actual cost to Verisign to provide the expensive infrastructure and the management of the registry has been estimated at between $2.50 to $2.90 per domain name per year. Other registries have said they can offer the same services for cheaper.

I’m wondering why the ICANN wouldn’t simply go to another company that would provide them the same service at that same rate. Is Verisign innovating somehow?

Re: Let ICANN know if you support .com price hikes

#14

Post by TorKlingberg »

foo101 wrote: post #8
StavrosK wrote: post #6

I kind of want the price to increase, to combat domain squatting. That said, I'd much prefer it if the money went to some charity instead of the ICANN.

Squatting can be easily prevented by reclaiming domain names without refund when the domain names have not been used or used illegitimately for more than a fixed threshold period of time. Parking pages or any other use that intends to work around the restriction can be deemed illegitimate use.

Good luck defining "legitimate use" in a way the squatters won't get around.

Re: Let ICANN know if you support .com price hikes

#17

Post by josteink »

Hamuko wrote: post #4

No one likes a price increase, but 30% increase to ~$10/year over four years is not making my blood boil.

> No one likes a price increase, but 30% increase to ~$10/year over four years is not making my blood boil.

We're talking about something which has become a central piece of the modern internet largely by being perceived as a well governed non-profit organization.

Unreasonable price-hikes undermines that position and seems like a clear violation of the natural monopoly they have obtained through good will so far.

Maybe the internet just needs to learn a lesson or two, once again, about the problems with centralization.

Re: Let ICANN know if you support .com price hikes

#18

Post by kuku4 »

skrause wrote: post #11
foo101 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Squatting can be easily prevented by reclaiming domain names without refund when the domain names have not been used or used illegitimately for more than a fixed threshold period of time. Parking pages or any other use that intends to work around the restriction can be deemed illegitimate use.

> Parking pages or any other use that intends to work around the restriction can be deemed illegitimate use. My personal domain doesn't even have an A record in the DNS, only an MX record because use it for all my email. By your definition that would be an "illegitimate use" and I should lose my domain...

what's wrong with that?

Re: Let ICANN know if you support .com price hikes

#19

Post by kerkeslager »

skrause wrote: post #11
foo101 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Squatting can be easily prevented by reclaiming domain names without refund when the domain names have not been used or used illegitimately for more than a fixed threshold period of time. Parking pages or any other use that intends to work around the restriction can be deemed illegitimate use.

> Parking pages or any other use that intends to work around the restriction can be deemed illegitimate use. My personal domain doesn't even have an A record in the DNS, only an MX record because use it for all my email. By your definition that would be an "illegitimate use" and I should lose my domain...

Would it be an undue burden to require people like you to put up a page saying, "This is my personal domain which I use primarily for email."?

Can we just agree that nobody is posting the full proposed set of rules on HN, and nobody is trying to take away your domain?

Every time this solution to domain squatting is proposed, someone counters with your objection as if it's a huge problem with the idea, but it just isn't. Surely you can imagine a set of rules that shuts down a large number of domain squatters but allows your use case.

Re: Let ICANN know if you support .com price hikes

#20

Post by kerkeslager »

StavrosK wrote: post #9
foo101 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Squatting can be easily prevented by reclaiming domain names without refund when the domain names have not been used or used illegitimately for more than a fixed threshold period of time. Parking pages or any other use that intends to work around the restriction can be deemed illegitimate use.

I don't see that as very easy, given that there are degrees of parking pages and it can be hard to figure out where to draw the line.

Yes, but can we agree that one company owning thousands of domains with a "buy this domain for $XXXX" homepages crosses any line that we would draw?

The domain squatting problem is so bad, that even just solving the most egregious cases would be a big improvement.

Post reply on HN