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

How many .com domain names are unused?

singaporedatacompany.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 213 posts

Re: How many .com domain names are unused?

#191

Post by amdavidson »

randiantech wrote: post #154
Tepix wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Source? Also what's the proof that private organizations are a better solution to the problem? Just look at the US prison system.

Not to undermine your point, but you have used the worst possible example. In the top 1000 of worst prisons around the world, most if not all of them are not private. Just take a look a Brazil prison system as en example.

Does Brazil have private prisons that are much better than their public ones?

If not, I don't think you have contradicted his point at all.

There are not too many places that we can look at public vs private institutions for direct comparisons (in the contexts that they operate). Prisons are one, I can think of FedEx/UPS/DHL vs the Post Office as another, and it's difficult for me to come up with much after that.

Re: How many .com domain names are unused?

#192

Post by YjSe2GMQ »

techaddict009 wrote: post #167

"Domain Usage, from a sample of 2,188 domains" isnt that to low sized sample to analyse data of more than 20 million domains?

It should be fine - strong law of big numbers. They even computed some confidence intervals (99% CI ±3%), but it's not precisely explained how, just references a paper.

Re: How many .com domain names are unused?

#193

Post by degenerate »

tqkxzugoaupvwqr wrote: post #101
degenerate wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm still waiting for ICANN to approve some scammer that realizes he can buy the rights to the .conn TLD and phish the entire world with apple.conn / google.conn etc... talk about juicy ROI

Hmm, .corn would be even better. With modified kerning, links will look like .com.

Yes that would be even more devious!

Re: How many .com domain names are unused?

#194

Post by bo1024 »

richardwhiuk wrote: post #138
austincheney wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is mathematically simple to fix. Charge US$0.50 per month ($6 per year) for every domain reservation regardless of who is reserving. The fee must be charged per month and not per year, which intentionally results in greater maintenance overhead. I don't care if you are a registrar, government, charity, school, or whatever. US$0.50 each and every month for each and every name. Registrars can slap whatever markup…

All you've done is increase the registration fee by $6 per year as the registrar will happily handle the monthly aspect. The money will just increase the profit of the rent seekers who control DNS.

I don't know, it might work. For me as an individual, my costs go up $6 per year. For a domain squatter, their costs go up hundreds of thousands.

It makes sense to me, like a property tax. You are basically renting a valuable natural resource from everybody else, so you pay a little bit to repay them and prove you're getting some use out of it.

Re: How many .com domain names are unused?

#195

Post by bo1024 »

giancarlostoro wrote: post #175
prickledpear wrote: post #174

One intriguing proposal to limit domain name squatting is "Harberger Taxation"[1] Under this scheme, every owner of a domain would declare a value for the domains they own, and pay a percentage of that value as a tax (replacing the current annual registration fees). Owners are incentivized to post an accurate value for their domain because they must sell their domain for the price they list if anyone offers to buy at…

> While it makes sense in theory, I think there are some practical problems that would have to be addressed before such a system could be put into use. For example, what stops a company with a large bankroll from squashing competitors by purchasing their domain? They don't have to sell if the offer sucks.

To clarify, under the scheme being proposed, they actually do have to sell. Otherwise you would just declare your domain has zero value, you'd pay no tax, and then if anyone offered to buy it, you'd say the offer sucks and refuse to sell. So declaring a value is a commitment to sell and pay the tax.

Re: How many .com domain names are unused?

#196

Post by darpa_escapee »

randiantech wrote: post #157
darpa_escapee wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With the government, you get a vote. With other institutions, you have to hope their stakeholders' interests align with yours.

I can have a vote, but government will still force me to pay tributes at gunpoint. On the other hand, im not forced to buy most of private goods. At the end, the evil organizations are those that became monopolies, no matter if it is public or private.

> I can have a vote, but government will still force me to pay tributes at gunpoint

No, at most you'll get a letter in a mail and a lien if you aren't actively trying to evade taxes. No reason to engage in hyperbole.

Re: How many .com domain names are unused?

#197

Post by boyband6666 »

lunchables wrote: post #180
boyband6666 wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

hugedomains, as mentioned above for being one of the worst, do this. They own their own registrar/are part of the same company / some convoluted ownership structure (namecheap LLC I think)?

Do you have a source for that? Because it's a pretty big claim. I have used namecheap for years, and they have been absolutely wonderful, but if they are also hugedomains I will start migrating.

I just googled for the thread I remember reading, and it is namebright that is apparently linked to them: https://www.scottphillips.com/post/2010/buying_a_domain_from...

This is the thread where someone mentions they /had/ their domain with namecheap, which is why I confused them: https://www.namepros.com/threads/held-hostage-by-huge-domain...

Personally I've never used either - I'm in the UK so it is different companies (oneandone are who I've used, who have been fine)

Re: How many .com domain names are unused?

#198

Post by air7 »

Domain names are incredibly underpriced (I'm referring to the "good" ones). With the evolution of the internet, where startups are now willing to spend 10k-100k on a domain, it makes no sense that its original cost was 10$, and that insentivises speculators.

If prime domains would cost 100$ or even 1000$ per year it wouldn't affect a running business much, but would almost completely eliminate the viablilty of domain squatting. And if you're an individual you'll still have many other options.

This could be applied to the entire COM TLD (it does stand for commercial after all) or only for parts of it under some criteria (like length etc).

Re: How many .com domain names are unused?

#199

Post by forgottenpass »

rafiki6 wrote: post #56
zanny wrote: post #52

I'm not really well informed about the politics of DNS at the top, but I've always had the impression ICANN has been grossly negligent / corrupted over the last twenty years. At the end of the day there is profound capital interest in making name records unfair and noncompetitive in order to rent seek fortunes off the Internet and I see no indication ICANN is anything but compromised by those interests in the way the…

Couldn't agree more. Not sure why the task of operating DNS' isn't the domain of governments the world over. It's kind of like operating a post office. Post office's are the ones who have the routing information and capability to route physical messages and packages. They are still operated on a for profit model, but they are also generally very well regulated. Same thing should apply with registrars

>It's kind of like operating a post office.

The reason that there is a namespace problem in the first place is that most people don't want the kind of domain name that post office numbering would give them.

When the internet was newer, my school email address was @schooldistrict.k12.state.ca.us, by the time I graduated highschool it was @schoolname.org.

Re: How many .com domain names are unused?

#200

Post by giancarlostoro »

bo1024 wrote: post #195
giancarlostoro wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> While it makes sense in theory, I think there are some practical problems that would have to be addressed before such a system could be put into use. For example, what stops a company with a large bankroll from squashing competitors by purchasing their domain? They don't have to sell if the offer sucks.

To clarify, under the scheme being proposed, they actually do have to sell. Otherwise you would just declare your domain has zero value, you'd pay no tax, and then if anyone offered to buy it, you'd say the offer sucks and refuse to sell. So declaring a value is a commitment to sell and pay the tax.

> To clarify, under the scheme being proposed, they actually do have to sell.

That just sounds broken to me. If I buy a domain, I should own it. Someone who wants it should offer what they are willing to pay for it, if I don't like their offer, they can find another domain.

Post reply on HN