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

71–80 of 90 posts

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

#71

Post by wan23 »

anonsivalley652 wrote: post #56
wan23 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wit…

I'm not sure why you think domains are property. When you "buy" a domain you're really leasing the right to use it for a fixed length of time. And anyway, the system of assigning names is not fixed upon stones sent to us from the heavens. Our goal should be to have a system that is as useful and fair as possible.

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

#72

Post by franga2000 »

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.

I guess you're technically correct in that the several thousands of $ these domains usually go for is "more than 7$" and in fact, I don't have a problem paying a high price for something valuable to me. I have a problem paying an unpredictable unregulated price to a completely third party just because they "got there first". Buying from a squatter benefits the squatter (a 3rd party) and to some extent the providers (registries, registrars, ICANN), but harms the end consumer. To me, that is the exact opposite of how things should be done. Consumer first, companies second, random third parties last.

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

#73

Post by davinic »

franga2000 wrote: post #63
anonsivalley652 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 difference between domain names and let's say cars or boxes of paper, as you put it, is so obvious, I didn't think it needed saying. It's that (usable) domains are a unique and finite, whereas all your other examples are neither. You can't just wait for the next batch of domains to come out of the factory and buy them from their manufacturer (new gTLDs were an attempt at that and failed miserably). It's the same…

You are correct, but our entire economy is setup to reward the exact land hoarding that against which you are arguing. OP is asking why domain name ownership would be treated differently.

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

#74

Post by davinic »

Since domain names are finite, like real estate, why not charge based on demand? In this scenario, in-demand domain names (mostly based on length) would have higher renewal fees than undesirable ones. Perhaps add an order of magnitude in pricing for each character under 7?

  >=7 - $10
  6 - $100
  5 - $1000
  4 - $10,000

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

#75

Post by jdc »

davinic wrote: post #74

Since domain names are finite, like real estate, why not charge based on demand? In this scenario, in-demand domain names (mostly based on length) would have higher renewal fees than undesirable ones. Perhaps add an order of magnitude in pricing for each character under 7? >=7 - $10 6 - $100 5 - $1000 4 - $10,000

Slight nitpick: memorable domain names with specific TLDs are finite

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

#76

Post by ryanlol »

franga2000 wrote: post #72
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.

I guess you're technically correct in that the several thousands of $ these domains usually go for is "more than 7$" and in fact, I don't have a problem paying a high price for something valuable to me. I have a problem paying an unpredictable unregulated price to a completely third party just because they "got there first". Buying from a squatter benefits the squatter (a 3rd party) and to some extent the providers (…

Okay so the complaint is essentially “this doesn’t feel fair!”. I guess this really does come down to envy, just as another commenter pointed out.

>but harms the end consumer

It doesn’t though, without the second hand market someone would be using that domain for something silly and you wouldn’t get it anyway.

> Consumer first, companies second, random third parties last

But companies are the primary consumers in the domain name market. Internet end users benefit from squatting because the companies doing something with value are the only ones who end up actually using the good domains.

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

#77

Post by ryanlol »

toyg wrote: post #70
ryanlol wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is domain distribution patently unbalanced for society as a whole? What does that even mean? Should everyone be able to get a short dictionary word .com domain?

> Is domain distribution patently unbalanced for society as a whole? Not entirely yet, or it would have already entered the political debate. However, in many ways the proliferation (and success) of alternative TLDs indicates that there is an issue. You shouldn't have to use an Indian Ocean domain because .com is squatted to the wazoo. We have lived through the land-grab era, sooner or later the redistribution era wi…

The redistribution is happening every day, every day people are buying land-grab era domains they can extract value from.

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

#78

Post by ryanlol »

davinic wrote: post #74

Since domain names are finite, like real estate, why not charge based on demand? In this scenario, in-demand domain names (mostly based on length) would have higher renewal fees than undesirable ones. Perhaps add an order of magnitude in pricing for each character under 7? >=7 - $10 6 - $100 5 - $1000 4 - $10,000

The second hand market already solved this, why does Verisign need to be the one doing this?

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

#79

Post by ryanlol »

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

It’d be cool if you included a disclosure when you advertise your cryptocurrency scheme.

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

#80

Post by mekster »

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.

Who is going to define illegitimacy? And how to figure if the domain is not used? Domains aren't all about the web...

That's not going to work.

Post reply on HN