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

41–50 of 90 posts

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

#41

Post by StavrosK »

ryanlol wrote: post #38
franga2000 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"More than $7" is disingenuous, since $100,000 is also "more than $7".

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

#42

Post by zchrykng »

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…

No one is arguing that it is illegal (at least at the moment), but it is a really shitty thing to do. As anyone with even a semi-common last name, it is basically impossible to find a TLD using it. Not because people are using them for anything, but because someone decided that they could extort money from people by registering it and just sitting on it until someone is crazy enough to pay the ransom.

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

#43

Post by kortilla »

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.

This is a very myopic view of what domains are used for. Putting up web pages is certainly a huge use-case, but it’s not the only one (email, server naming, iot naming, network infra naming, etc).

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

#44

Post by zchrykng »

rasengan wrote: post #32
anonsivalley652 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If it is an exact mirror with no differences, there is no reason to use it. Either it will start to diverge, or it is pointless for it to exist.

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

#45

Post by ryanlol »

StavrosK wrote: post #41
ryanlol wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"More than $7" is disingenuous, since $100,000 is also "more than $7".

Why is it a problem that some domains cost $100,000 or more?

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

#46

Post by kortilla »

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.

What a joke, within days of such rules being announced, a system would emerge to discover which domains might be willing to sell even though they would put up an “in-use” page.

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

#47

Post by wan23 »

anonsivalley652 wrote: post #30
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...

Yep. Busy bodies and control freaks shouldn't be allowed anywhere near power because they will abuse it and subject others to their fascist views. People should be allowed to do whatever they legally please with their domains.. it's their property, so long as they continue "leasing" them.

Domain names are a limited resource and some are more valuable than others. They should be treated more like the way we treat land, where highly valuable land is heavily taxed to incentivize people to actually use it or sell it.

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

#48

Post by ryanlol »

anonsivalley652 wrote: post #39
franga2000 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> The "domain squatting" meme is intellectually dishonest and based on envy

Yup. Still waiting to hear a more nuanced explanation of the supposed “problem” than this.

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

#49

Post by rasengan »

zchrykng wrote: post #44
rasengan wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If it is an exact mirror with no differences, there is no reason to use it. Either it will start to diverge, or it is pointless for it to exist.

It will absolutely diverge, although it’s probable that ICANN will likely continue to mirror the Handshake Naming System on their end.

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

#50

Post by StavrosK »

ryanlol wrote: post #45
StavrosK wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"More than $7" is disingenuous, since $100,000 is also "more than $7".

Why is it a problem that some domains cost $100,000 or more?

Do you also find ticket scalping to be fine? If not, what's the difference with squatting?
Post reply on HN