4 ms·

You could also just get people to give up the TLDs they're not using. I find it somewhat depressing that emailing folks about domain names they're not using re

You could also just get people to give up the TLDs they're not using. I find it somewhat depressing that emailing folks about domain names they're not using results in either a) being ignored or b) being asked to pay $40,000. I'm of the view if you're sitting on names that you're keeping around exclusively because you think they could net you a windfall in the future then you're a bit of an internet twat.

avar 11y ago
You could say the same about holding on to property you're not using, but people resist the obvious solution: higher property tax, or in the case of domains higher yearly fees.
calinet6 11y ago
The high price was an excellent sign that they were overly scarce (for an otherwise limitless resource), and that more were needed. I think the new gTLDs are great. Most of them aren't exorbitantly expensive, and generally speaking they free you up to have an address on the big wild internet that makes way more sense than the contrived naming conventions we resorted to using in the past (eg: get[???].com, [???]app.com, both of which I can think of prime, famous examples in real world use). Is [???].app really better? Yeah, probably.
- pavel_lishin 11y ago
  Except those will get eaten up rapidly as well. Is [???].horse better than get[???].com?
bhartzer 11y ago
>> You could also just get people to give up the TLDs they're not using. I think you're confused, and probably mean "give up the domains" they're not using. Not "give up the TLDs". This is not a viable option, though. Even though someone may think they're not using the domain, there's a good chance they could be using it (like using it for email even though the a record doesn't resolve to anything) or they could be using it as an investment. Asking someone to give up a domain that "they're not using" is like asking someone to give up the vacant lot they're not using. It's real estate.
- ownagefool 11y ago
  I'm not confused but you're right, I did mean to type domains rather than TLDs. Anyways, I'm actually arguably in favour or a Land Value Tax. Land is a super fininte resource and holding onto it for no reason other than as an investment screws over anybody who isn't there first. This is great if you have land, for whatever reason, but not to great if you grow up poor and want to live anywhere near your place of work in a place like London where the property market is completely broken. The domains landscape is similar, except that it is indeed easier to create new TLDs than manage the mess of domain speculation.
ca98am79 11y ago
What do you propose as the alternative? Should the first person who wants to use the domain get it? What if their project isn't used much or they stop maintaining it? What if it really sucks? What if they have plans to use it but they haven't done anything for years? There isn't a good alternative to the way it currently works. Allowing domain owners to sell their domains results in domains going to those companies that are successful enough to afford them.
tmaly 11y ago
I have a few nice names I get regular emails about. I have one such name where the guys found where I worked and figured out how to reach my office phone. It was a bit annoying, but I told them I had plans for the domain.
tzs 11y ago
> I find it somewhat depressing that emailing folks about domain names they're not using results in either a) being ignored or b) being asked to pay $40,000. Some domains that appear unused are actually being used. I've got a very minimal, largely neglected, web presence on my domain, but would not even consider selling it unless the price was very very high. That's because I am using it--for email. If I were to sell my domain I'd have to update my information with thousands of sites, companies, and individuals. That's not something I'd be willing to undertake lightly. Any place that has my email that I forget to update is a place where my account could be easily hijacked.

avar 11y ago

You could say the same about holding on to property you're not using, but people resist the obvious solution: higher property tax, or in the case of domains higher yearly fees.

calinet6 11y ago

The high price was an excellent sign that they were overly scarce (for an otherwise limitless resource), and that more were needed. I think the new gTLDs are great. Most of them aren't exorbitantly expensive, and generally speaking they free you up to have an address on the big wild internet that makes way more sense than the contrived naming conventions we resorted to using in the past (eg: get[???].com, [???]app.com, both of which I can think of prime, famous examples in real world use). Is [???].app really better? Yeah, probably.

pavel_lishin 11y ago
Except those will get eaten up rapidly as well. Is [???].horse better than get[???].com?

bhartzer 11y ago

>> You could also just get people to give up the TLDs they're not using. I think you're confused, and probably mean "give up the domains" they're not using. Not "give up the TLDs". This is not a viable option, though. Even though someone may think they're not using the domain, there's a good chance they could be using it (like using it for email even though the a record doesn't resolve to anything) or they could be using it as an investment. Asking someone to give up a domain that "they're not using" is like asking someone to give up the vacant lot they're not using. It's real estate.

ownagefool 11y ago
I'm not confused but you're right, I did mean to type domains rather than TLDs. Anyways, I'm actually arguably in favour or a Land Value Tax. Land is a super fininte resource and holding onto it for no reason other than as an investment screws over anybody who isn't there first. This is great if you have land, for whatever reason, but not to great if you grow up poor and want to live anywhere near your place of work in a place like London where the property market is completely broken. The domains landscape is similar, except that it is indeed easier to create new TLDs than manage the mess of domain speculation.

ca98am79 11y ago

What do you propose as the alternative? Should the first person who wants to use the domain get it? What if their project isn't used much or they stop maintaining it? What if it really sucks? What if they have plans to use it but they haven't done anything for years? There isn't a good alternative to the way it currently works. Allowing domain owners to sell their domains results in domains going to those companies that are successful enough to afford them.

tmaly 11y ago

I have a few nice names I get regular emails about. I have one such name where the guys found where I worked and figured out how to reach my office phone. It was a bit annoying, but I told them I had plans for the domain.

tzs 11y ago

> I find it somewhat depressing that emailing folks about domain names they're not using results in either a) being ignored or b) being asked to pay $40,000. Some domains that appear unused are actually being used. I've got a very minimal, largely neglected, web presence on my domain, but would not even consider selling it unless the price was very very high. That's because I am using it--for email. If I were to sell my domain I'd have to update my information with thousands of sites, companies, and individuals. That's not something I'd be willing to undertake lightly. Any place that has my email that I forget to update is a place where my account could be easily hijacked.