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

_for-sale DNS records

specification.website

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–177 of 177 posts

Re: _for-sale DNS records

#171

Post by 1718627440 »

inigyou wrote: post #160
1718627440 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> there's a good chance it's available under at least one TLD.

So more similar names unsorted in random locations in the tree. Aka. more pollution. We seem to have a different idea of the concept of pollution.

Re: _for-sale DNS records

#172

Post by inigyou »

1718627440 wrote: post #171
inigyou wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> there's a good chance it's available under at least one TLD. So more similar names unsorted in random locations in the tree. Aka. more pollution. We seem to have a different idea of the concept of pollution.

Namespace pollution is when all the good names are squatted.

Re: _for-sale DNS records

#174

Post by mdavids »

Hi, author of RFC 10023 here.

I appreciate the interesting discussion!

If you’d like to get a better understanding of the concept, have a look here: https://rfc10023.nl

The biggest use case today, at SIDN (the registry for the .nl ccTLD), is described here: https://github.com/SIDN/ForSale-RFC10023/blob/main/examples/...

Re: _for-sale DNS records

#175

Post by Anoian »

bigbuppo wrote: post #106
Anoian wrote: post #29

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

And what is the definition of a domain squatter?

Renting a domain for the the sole sake of selling the ability to rent it to someone else or even worse: Renting it at a higher price to someone else and pocketing that extra money every year without providing any additional service. Bonus points if you also track recent companies that have been created and immediately buy also the related domains and social media handles and extort the founders of the new companies.

Re: _for-sale DNS records

#176

Post by account42 »

Fordec wrote: post #116
asdfman123 wrote: post #97

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.

Sounds like a great way to have larger competitors with more capital bid for your site to take down your domain that your users were using. Rather than Land Value Tax a better analogy might be a Vacant Property Tax which only targets squatting.

Perhaps even better would be to limit transfers including post-hoc revoking domains that are found to have been sold.

Re: _for-sale DNS records

#177

Post by account42 »

slig wrote: post #96
Anoian wrote: post #29

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

Do you have any domains that you purchased with the intention to use and haven't been able to use them yet?

Will you ever make use of them though? At some point we should just say that you had your chance and should let someone else use those names.
Post reply on HN