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

31–40 of 90 posts

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

#31

Post by geofft »

rasengan wrote: post #15

Switching away from ICANN will have a larger effect than a petition. If you don’t support centralized authority over the DNS root, you can vote with your computer for a new DNS root controlled by the commons [1]. [1] https://www.handshake.org

Alternative DNS roots seem like the Internet equivalent of being a sovereign citizen. Sure, there are lots of things wrong with the government that everyone believes to be in power, but simply believing it to not be in power solves none of those problems, neither for yourself nor anyone else. You still need to interact with a world that believes in the government you don't believe in (or worse, believes in their own alternative vision of government).

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

#32

Post by rasengan »

anonsivalley652 wrote: post #24
rasengan wrote: post #15

Switching away from ICANN will have a larger effect than a petition. If you don’t support centralized authority over the DNS root, you can vote with your computer for a new DNS root controlled by the commons [1]. [1] https://www.handshake.org

There has to be a common namespace, even if it's controlled by a different entity that's transparent, fair and non-profit. Fragmentation of the namespace breaks the internet. Starting a parallel namespace doesn't address the core problem: the privitization/commercialization of names, registrars and the meta-registrar were all extremely bad ideas because publicly-traded companies are selfish, omnicidal and suicidal. A…

Handshake isn’t parallel, but instead, it’s a drop in replacement for ICANN that is controlled by the people. All existing TLDs continue to function as they did prior.

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

#33

Post by jasonjayr »

anonsivalley652 wrote: post #28
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.

The term "domain squatting" is a dishonest pejorative; they're not squatting if they're paying for it, like everyone else. In most countries, people are free to buy houses and then not occupy them. Telling other people what they can or can't do with their property isn't democratic, it's fascist. If you can offer someone enough money to sell you an underutilized domain, that's fine too; if they ignore you, that's thei…

While it's true that in many countries it's legal to buy houses and not occupy them, the locals tend to look unfavorably upon this practice, and some municipalities will charge additional taxes for unoccupied properties.

Squatting domain names is the same deal.

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

#34

Post by franga2000 »

ryanlol wrote: post #22
kerkeslager wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>The domain squatting problem is so bad How is the domain squatting problem so bad ? You’ll need to expand on this further.

Not OP, but are you saying you haven't noticed the squatting problem? According to [0], there are only around 1000 single-word .COMs left.

[0] https://www.domcomp.com/blog/the-last-coms.html

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

#35

Post by anonsivalley652 »

kerkeslager wrote: post #19
skrause wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I hate to say it, but "domain squatters" pay for domains like everyone else. You have to take the shit with the sugar in a free society, not shit on everyone's personal liberties with Code of Conducts or "occupation" requirements. There's no perfect policy or "solution" that can fix every moral panic without causing other problems. And not every moral panic needs to be fixed either. That's life, sorry.

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

#36

Post by vibrafox »

kerkeslager wrote: post #19
skrause wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

The MX record should be enough.

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

#37

Post by namibj »

ryanlol wrote: post #21
kerkeslager wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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."? Yes, this is a terrible idea. > Surely you can imagine a set of rules that shuts down a large number of domain squatters but allows your use case. Nope, how do you intend to perform these usage audits?

Random, but focused on those who register many domains?

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

#38

Post by ryanlol »

franga2000 wrote: post #34
ryanlol wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The domain squatting problem is so bad How is the domain squatting problem so bad ? You’ll need to expand on this further.

Not OP, but are you saying you haven't noticed the squatting problem? According to [0], there are only around 1000 single-word .COMs left. [0] https://www.domcomp.com/blog/the-last-coms.html

Why is it such a big problem that you have to pay more than $7 for a single word .com? Is it just that it feels unfair to you for someone to be profiting like this?

I’ve been more than happy to buy domains from these squatters, they’re usually willing to accept prices far lower than the value I can extract from said domains.

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

#39

Post by anonsivalley652 »

franga2000 wrote: post #25
jefftk wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you write rules that allow "this is my personal domain that I use for email" and not squatting? Can't the squatters just say something along those lines?

If the squatters have to do that, then their squatting has no value to them. The point of squatters is to eventually sell the domain and if all the domains look "in use" (so no parking allowed), the amount of people sending offers will fall.

The "domain squatting" meme is intellectually dishonest and based on envy. People who buy zillions of domains must be allowed if people are allowed to buy as many stamps, boxes of paper, cars, jet skis or houses as they wish. It's called freedom, property rights and being consistent. If you want one of their domains that they registered and paid for before you so badly, inquire if they will sell it; if they choose to or not is their choice, and you are not entitled to it simply because you want it.

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

#40

Post by ryanlol »

namibj wrote: post #37
ryanlol wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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."? Yes, this is a terrible idea. > Surely you can imagine a set of rules that shuts down a large number of domain squatters but allows your use case. Nope, how do you intend to perform these usage audits?

Random, but focused on those who register many domains?

That doesn’t really explain the implementation. How would you know that two domains are owned by the same person without completely revamping the role of registrars?
Post reply on HN