Live data from Hacker News

_for-sale DNS records

specification.website

151–160 of 179 posts

Re: _for-sale DNS records

#151
post #29

Yeah cause we really had to improve domain squatters lives. In my opinion domain squatting should be banned instead.

Maybe domain hoarding should be illegal. 1 domain per person, 1 per registered business. That would make the world a better place but I am dreaming.

Re: _for-sale DNS records

#152

Nice! I just implemented it for my portfolio [0], and I'm waiting for the DNS zones to update! Thank you! [0]: https://namegarage.com

Were you able to sell any domains before? Especially with those prices, considering their quality? Or is this just a placeholder site made with ai with made-up numbers?

Yes, of course. You think I'm subsidizing the renewals without a return on my investment? My prices are low compared to the 3 popular appraising services. I won't consider GoDaddy, as I've always been able to sell my domains well over their appraisals, but I use their pricing as a signal in my blended price as well. I didn't come up with any of these prices - it's all an algo based on credible appraising services: GoDaddy, Atom, Appraise.net, Dynadot. EstiBot is a joke - sometimes it values domains I've sold thousands of times at an appraisal value for less than the renewal cost.

Re: _for-sale DNS records

#153

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…

Hah. Just now I was reading about how Sony hated Michael Jackson because he owned half of the music licenses, and some say Sony might be been involved in his demise. My point being, maybe Sony is not a nice company.

Re: _for-sale DNS records

#154

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…

Hah. Just now I was reading about how Sony hated Michael Jackson because he owned half of the music licenses, and some say Sony might be been involved in his demise. My point being, maybe Sony is not a nice company.

[flagged]

Re: _for-sale DNS records

#155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This website has been trying to gain a veneer of legitimacy for months now. Half of its contents aren't even published by any real standards body, it's just AI-centric "best practices" for the current generation of hyperscaler models.

That’s not true at all. Do you know who Joost de Valk is? Because it’s wild for you to say that, truly. That man has probably been building websites for longer than you have been alive. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joost_de_Valk

> trying to gain a veneer of legitimacy

> SEO

For me, these terms are synonymous.

Re: _for-sale DNS records

#156

They need Georgism for DNS names. You set your own price for your domain. But you have to pay 2-5% of that price annually to keep it. That way, squatters are incentived to sell it to someone who's going to use it.

Pay 2-5% to who? That's the problem for me - usually this means just another way to expand government. If you would just distribute it equally to all relevant citizens, with none of it going to the government, then I might get on board.

> If you would just distribute it equally to all relevant citizens

Ironically, this approach would give power to an entity that decides who is relevant and who becomes a citizen, which is the government.

Re: _for-sale DNS records

#157

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…

Sony got my domain registrar to transfer my domain to them without a single email or notice to me whatsoever. I had been using it since the late 90s or early 2000s when you still had to apply and renew via paper forms, and they said (according to the reply from my registrar when I asked why it had been transferred) that I was squatting it... for a service they didn't release until the 2010s.

Sony have always been Disney-esque in their legal aggression. They don't care if they're right, they have teams of lawyers and they're quite happy to sic them on any tiny thing because they know you can't fight back even if you wanted to.

Re: _for-sale DNS records

#159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My personal website is a "low quality blog" but I definitely feel that it shouldn't be up for grabs because I don't want to pay thousands of dollars a year.

A "vacant plot" in this context might be example.ccTLD not being associated with a sufficiently large share of Example Ltd taxable income declared in CC, or some 3rd country maintaining suitable double-taxation treaties with CC. (While in the same interval not having their registry lock in forfeiture of voluntary ownership transfers, in order to qualify for some appropriately scoped "currently no commercial intent /…

There are no common policies for ccTLDs. Each country does whatever.

Re: _for-sale DNS records

#160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Domain names are a mess in my opinion. Even though we have over a thousand TLDs only a very small handful are considered for commerce or even thought to be valid. I have a domain name with the TLD of "today". Many people think my email is [email]@[domain].today.com. It's not just the common person's fault but also software engineers / product managers who still have a very restrictive view of what a TLD is (under 3 t…

> I have a domain name with the TLD of "today". I don't like the pollution of the global namespace. If someone thinks, there should be a domain named today, fine, but don't put it in the global namespace by creating a new TLD. DNS is a hierarchical structure, there is no reason domains should all be only 4 segments long. Arguable 'com.' should have really been 'com.us.', but that's history.

The gTLD scam actually decreased global namespace pollution. You used to register .com .org and .net so nobody else could claim the same name as you (nobody cared about other TLDs). Now with the proliferation of TLDs you can just pick a name and there's a good chance it's available under at least one TLD.
Post reply on HN