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

51–60 of 90 posts

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

#51

Post by anonsivalley652 »

jasonjayr wrote: post #33
anonsivalley652 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's irrelevant. Local control doesn't apply to a global, shared resource. And, that mismatched metaphor describes infringement on individual property rights because you can't have it both ways.

There can be only one internet namespace if it's to operate correctly, and it can't be controlled by corporations or greedy individuals who think they should get things other people had, and paid for, before them.

If you want a freedom, you must give everyone the same freedom, even if they misuse it. That's the definition of a free society. An unfree society digs into peoples lives and makes value judgements about them and tries to control them to their views.

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

#52

Post by kortilla »

zchrykng wrote: post #42
anonsivalley652 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Someone else has a personal page with my last name under .com. Squatter or not, I don’t get to use it. I don’t see how squatters make it any different.

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

#53

Post by ryanlol »

StavrosK wrote: post #50
ryanlol wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Of course ticket scalping is fine, many venues go out of their way to enable it.

I’ve often benefited from the scalpers by being able to buy last minute tickets. Same goes for domain squatters.

You think squatting is bad? Ok. What if my low-effort personal website was “doctor.com” and someone emailed me an offer of $2M for it, should I be allowed to accept that?

I don’t think there’s a meaningful distinction to be made there.

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

#54

Post by jasonjayr »

anonsivalley652 wrote: post #51
jasonjayr wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's irrelevant. Local control doesn't apply to a global, shared resource. And, that mismatched metaphor describes infringement on individual property rights because you can't have it both ways. There can be only one internet namespace if it's to operate correctly, and it can't be controlled by corporations or greedy individuals who think they should get things other people had, and paid for, before them. If you wa…

It becomes a "tragedy of the commons" situation unless there is some regulation of this one shared namespace. Even the FCC has "use it or lose it" rules in place for the limited wireless spectrum.

I mean, isn't that what's happening with property in real life? The ones that can afford to do so keep buying it up, and renting it out, and perpetuating the cycle of inequity?

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

#55

Post by bobbydroptables »

anonsivalley652 wrote: post #35
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…

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.

The fact that they can pay for it doesn't mean they're entitled to it as a logical matter.

I'm not saying a fix is or isn't needed, but there are all kinds of things we restrict despite ability to pay. For example, you can't buy a social security number without a person or a physical address without physical land to tie it to.

Your comment doesn't prove your conclusion.

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

#56

Post by anonsivalley652 »

wan23 wrote: post #47
anonsivalley652 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You come across as possibly stuck in a scarcity and/or entitlement mindset too. There are effectively an unlimited supply of domains, and you're perfectly free to pick another one. If you want the right to register as many unregistered domains as you wish, bid on registered ones and generally live in a free society, you must accept that there are some unpreventable problems that come with it: like suicidal idiots with knifes, jerks who cut you off in traffic and "domain squatters." Aren't there bigger things to worry about, rather than worrying about what other people are doing with their property? It's not yours, after all, just because you covet it like Golum.

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

#57

Post by bobbydroptables »

kortilla wrote: post #52
zchrykng wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Someone else has a personal page with my last name under .com. Squatter or not, I don’t get to use it. I don’t see how squatters make it any different.

>I don’t see how squatters make it any different.

Because one person is using it for it's legitimate intended purpose and one person is using it as a speculator (and blocking legitimate use without paying a toll).

Should someone be able to buy all existing insulin and then charge a toll to use it at a price closer to it's value to the consumer (multiples of the current price)?

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

#58

Post by geofft »

rovr138 wrote: post #13
Hamuko wrote: post #4

No one likes a price increase, but 30% increase to ~$10/year over four years is not making my blood boil.

I’m not opposed to it if needed. This part is the one that convinced me it shouldn’t happen right now, > $7.85 of your registration or renewal payment goes to Verisign. The actual cost to Verisign to provide the expensive infrastructure and the management of the registry has been estimated at between $2.50 to $2.90 per domain name per year. Other registries have said they can offer the same services for cheaper. I’m…

"Has been estimated" by others?

I'm not a fan of government-style lowest-bidder procurement for something as critical as .com. Among other things, I assume this involves operating the .com DNS servers, and it seems like the current operators are probably uniquely positioned to understand what makes that different from operating e.g. .party or .racing, what weird load patterns it sees, maybe even how much to pay the folks who know the hard parts to keep doing this, etc. Obviously it would be better for the world if Verisign were transparent about their operations and it could be moved, but for potentially $5/domain name/year, forcing the change doesn't seem valuable. (If it were $50, sure, it'd be worth thinking about.)

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

#59

Post by bitxbitxbitcoin »

buboard wrote: post #12

Isn't it odd that prices are going UP instead of down ,even though they flooded the market with tlds? The issue is obviously their monopoly, and it needs to be broken down. Petitions are petty Actually what would be even better is if browsers started supporting ENS or some similar competing name system

Agreed.

Handshake[1] is another such similar competing name system that specifically is aimed at taking down ICANN's monopoly - which they've abused time and time again.

[1] https://www.handshake.org

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

#60

Post by toyg »

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…

Domains are real estate. Periodic land reform / redistribution is a staple of human history, when things become patently unbalanced for society as a whole.
Post reply on HN