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

If ICANN only charges 18¢ per domain name, why am I paying $10? (2014)

webmasters.stackexchange.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 118 posts

Re: If ICANN only charges 18¢ per domain name, why am I paying $10? (2014)

#81

Post by rayiner »

kt9 wrote: post #73
rayiner wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Coase theorem says that shouldn't make a difference.

Coase theorem applies if there are a) zero or sufficiently low transaction costs and b) if parties are able to bargain. If domains have to be returned back to the registrar b) doesn't apply. Auctions ensure that a) doesn't apply either. Furthermore, adding a 7 day waiting period before returned domains become available will further ensure that parties cannot trade domains between each other but must purchase from the…

Right, but both (a) and (b) do apply to the existing system where domain names can be traded. What Coase theorem says is that the resulting allocation will be efficient, regardless of how you do the initial allocation. I.e. it's irrelevant whether people pay squatters to get the domain names they want or ICAAN directly via auctions.

Re: If ICANN only charges 18¢ per domain name, why am I paying $10? (2014)

#83

Post by hartpuff »

thedevil wrote: post #39

An idea I've been tossing around: What if domains cost $100 if more than one person wants it? The idea here is to squeeze the squatters with 000s of domains. Whenever I want a domain, most of the ones I want are taken. Not by people who are making use of it, but by people who are squatting in hopes of extorting anyone who would actually use the domain to produce value. I'd actually be happy if Verisign or any other p…

> An idea I've been tossing around: What if domains cost $100 if more than one person wants it? The idea here is to squeeze the squatters with 000s of domains.

So they dump all their crap, no resale value names that don't bring in more than $100 per year, as opposed to ones that don't make more than $10 per year.

As for non-"domain squatters", it seems like a great way to fuck with someone; just claim you want their domain and force them to cough up $100 or lose it.

This idea - which seems to be based on nothing more than bitterness that everyone in the world didn't sit back and wait for you to have first pick of names - is so transparently nonsensical that I find it hard to believe you are serious.

> Whenever I want a domain, most of the ones I want are taken.

You should have bought them first then, shouldn't you.

> Not by people who are making use of it, but by people who are squatting in hopes of extorting anyone who would actually use the domain to produce value.

Who are you to define value? Where people own 1000s of domains, they are always parked and bringing in money for the owner. Their profitability is the reason they are registered.

Who are you to decide that's not a valid way to make a living from domains? At least they're not spamming.

> I'd actually be happy if Verisign or any other private company or any government extracted such an unfair price

I'm sure you would, because you imagine you'd be a winner in such a situation, unfairly appropriating someone else's property.

> free up so many more useful domains for use.

There are literally millions of possible domain names that are unregistered. If your first preference is taken, do what everyone else does without complaint and think of another name, or pick a different extension, of which there are hundreds now.

>I'd love to hear good arguments against this

I'd love to hear a good argument for it.

Re: If ICANN only charges 18¢ per domain name, why am I paying $10? (2014)

#84

Post by ocdtrekkie »

thedevil wrote: post #39

An idea I've been tossing around: What if domains cost $100 if more than one person wants it? The idea here is to squeeze the squatters with 000s of domains. Whenever I want a domain, most of the ones I want are taken. Not by people who are making use of it, but by people who are squatting in hopes of extorting anyone who would actually use the domain to produce value. I'd actually be happy if Verisign or any other p…

The reason squatters work is in fact, the dispute resolution cost. A friend of mine passed away, and along with him went control of the domain of a site I was a part of. He had, prior to his death, left a note that me and another friend were supposed to keep the site running. And I own two of the other TLDs of this domain.

Domain squatting is supposedly against ICANN rules, and we have a clear brand we're trying to protect.

So when it was squatted, and listed for somewhere around $1,000, I figured this was an open and shut case with ICANN. Until I found out that filing a dispute would cost me even more. Dispute resolution seems to be offered up to a couple of different organizations, all of which charge exorbitant rates to examine your case.

So squatters have a massive range of profit margin they can make, as long as they keep the prices under the ICANN dispute resolution costs.

Re: If ICANN only charges 18¢ per domain name, why am I paying $10? (2014)

#85

Post by [deleted] »

thedevil wrote: post #39

An idea I've been tossing around: What if domains cost $100 if more than one person wants it? The idea here is to squeeze the squatters with 000s of domains. Whenever I want a domain, most of the ones I want are taken. Not by people who are making use of it, but by people who are squatting in hopes of extorting anyone who would actually use the domain to produce value. I'd actually be happy if Verisign or any other p…

[deleted]

Re: If ICANN only charges 18¢ per domain name, why am I paying $10? (2014)

#86

Post by superuser2 »

ANaimi wrote: post #55
thedevil wrote: post #39

An idea I've been tossing around: What if domains cost $100 if more than one person wants it? The idea here is to squeeze the squatters with 000s of domains. Whenever I want a domain, most of the ones I want are taken. Not by people who are making use of it, but by people who are squatting in hopes of extorting anyone who would actually use the domain to produce value. I'd actually be happy if Verisign or any other p…

A simpler deterrent would be to linearly increase cost of the next domain you buy. This is the opposite of bulk discounts, and should make squatting unfeasible (at least not in large numbers).

How would you decide that two buyers are the same entity? Unless you are going to force people to upload photo IDs or something, I don't see how this could work reliably.

Re: If ICANN only charges 18¢ per domain name, why am I paying $10? (2014)

#87

Post by jasode »

jasode wrote: post #3

Previous thread where I explain that the stackexchange accepted answer (now with 78+ votes instead of 41) outlines more of the history rather than answer the question in a technical way for a technical audience: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9358902 (small correction: my previous answer had a typo of "17 million" instead of "11.7 million")

update to avoid confusion: when I wrote the previous post and relinked it this morning, the accepted answer was the "government history" by ShitalShah.

After I wrote today's post, the accepted answer was changed to the "costs dissection" by Stephen Ostermiller. That answer addresses the question better.

I assume either the original poster (Indra) or an admin changed the accepted answer.

Re: If ICANN only charges 18¢ per domain name, why am I paying $10? (2014)

#88

Post by MichaelBurge »

roywiggins wrote: post #80
kt9 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The best way to eliminate domain squatting is to make domains non-transferrable. If you own a domain you shouldn't be able to transfer it to anyone. The only way to "transfer" a domain should be to return it to the domain registry where it may be purchased by any interested party at market price determined by auction. However this probably isn't going to change.

What if I register a domain with a shell corp and a straw "contact" who is an employee of Mossack Fonseca (or whatever)? If I want to transfer the domain I just sell the shell corp.

Then you have to pay an extra $50 or $100 a year to maintain your corporation per domain, which reduces the number of domains you can own with a fixed amount of expenses.

Re: If ICANN only charges 18¢ per domain name, why am I paying $10? (2014)

#89

Post by danharaj »

rayiner wrote: post #81
kt9 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Coase theorem applies if there are a) zero or sufficiently low transaction costs and b) if parties are able to bargain. If domains have to be returned back to the registrar b) doesn't apply. Auctions ensure that a) doesn't apply either. Furthermore, adding a 7 day waiting period before returned domains become available will further ensure that parties cannot trade domains between each other but must purchase from the…

Right, but both (a) and (b) do apply to the existing system where domain names can be traded. What Coase theorem says is that the resulting allocation will be efficient, regardless of how you do the initial allocation. I.e. it's irrelevant whether people pay squatters to get the domain names they want or ICAAN directly via auctions.

Do you really think transaction costs are low enough?

Re: If ICANN only charges 18¢ per domain name, why am I paying $10? (2014)

#90

Post by hartpuff »

Namrog84 wrote: post #79
ANaimi wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A simpler deterrent would be to linearly increase cost of the next domain you buy. This is the opposite of bulk discounts, and should make squatting unfeasible (at least not in large numbers).

I think this is exactly how it should work. Perhaps the first 5-10 are normal priced and then increase at some f(x) from there. I think others made good points about having a few for future or personal reasons like email or whatever. But I don't see a great reason why aside from squatting or having tons of companies why someone should own 200x .coms. Though I don't know if it should be per domain per tld or just plai…

> But I don't see a great reason why aside from squatting or having tons of companies why someone should own 200x .coms.

How about because they paid for 200x .coms?

BTW, for you and some others here:

Domain squatting is when someone registers domains in the hope that trademark owners will shell out cash to get the domains.

Domain squatting is not when someone simply registers domains you happen to like and wish you owned instead.

Post reply on HN