5 ms·

Ignoring the fact that the revenue goes to a private company there's one good reason why 18¢ would be a bad idea - already too many domains are hoarded by a sma

by kukx 10y ago

Ignoring the fact that the revenue goes to a private company there's one good reason why 18¢ would be a bad idea - already too many domains are hoarded by a small group just for resell; I imagine it would be even worse then.

betaby 10y ago
And thus lets charge 5x more and gave this money to the government appointed but not government owned company. Hardly a justification.
- kukx 10y ago
  I can only think of one theory that could defend the US gov decision. Perhaps they didn't want to directly charge for the com domain to make it appear more open and "commercial" to foreign actors (states, companies).
gruez 10y ago
The solution to this should be simple. Every n years, domains are put up for auction. To keep the domain, the original owner must pay x% of the top bid, otherwise the top bidder acquires the domain for his bid price, maybe add a year or two of grace period so the original owner can migrate.
- deftnerd 10y ago
  Interesting idea, but I think a slight modification is in order. Like you said, if someone buys and domain for $5 a year and holds it for a few years, and then someone offers $1000 for it during a renewal auction, the owner could pay $100 to keep it. If they decided that it wasn't worth $100, the new buyer would pay the $1000 to get ownership. In this situation, I think it would be fair that the old owner get $100 of the buyers $1000. The same portion would be returned to the owner as it would have cost to keep the domain. Although, this could lead to attacks if the price didn't drop back down to $5 a year. If someone owns whatever.com, and someone offers $1000 for it, the owner wouldn't just have to decide if its worth $100, but if it's worth $100 a year in perpetuity.
- brianwawok 10y ago
  Wait.. so I am Ford the car company and I own ford.com. A competitor (Kia?) could bid 100 million dollars for ford.com, and I would have to pay 10 million dollars to keep my own domain? Not sure this is great.. I could see non-profits losing their domains to porn sites.
  - gruez 10y ago
    Obviously there would be UDRP.
- inputjoker 10y ago
  That is the stupidest idea ever. If i have a domain name and if somebody rich wants it, it can take over next year. It hijacking.
  - brador 10y ago
    How about if that additional revenue from the sale goes to you?
    - mcbits 10y ago
      Then I will bid $100 quadrillion to keep my domain and pay myself for it out of the proceeds, minus 18 cents for ICANN. Edit: Actually I missed the part about paying a percentage of the top bid.
    - the_ancient 10y ago
      Some people own domains/websites for reasons other than Money....
    - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 10y ago
      What if we did the same with names in general? If someone wanted to be brador on HN, and you didn't out-bid them, they were to get your name. Oh, and your real name, too, of course. If someone pays enough, you have to get a new name. And a new telephone number. And a new house. And anything else you own, really. If someone offers more money than you have, you are forced to sell at that price whatever you have. What could possibly go wrong?
      - brador 10y ago
        So long as i get say 90% of what the final buy price is and I get to bid on my own things too? Yeah that would actually be awesome.
        zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 10y ago
        You do realize that anyone who had more money than you could take away everything you have with no recourse? One simple strategy would be to force-buy from you your bed and all your food at a price a little above the market price. Now, you can either accept the offer and thus get paid only about 90% of the market price, or you can reject and pay 10% of the market price. In the former case, you buy a new bed and new food, and the cycle repeats. In the latter case, the cycle repeats directly. In any case, after a few cycles, you won't have anything left. Also, anything that you own that is more valuable than you have money, will just be taken from you, as people will offer to pay a little more than you can pay, thus forcing you to sell, and then will resell at market value, thus earning money from the difference. So, people without money couldn't own anything anymore.
- joelrunyon 10y ago
  Go home gruez - you're drunk.
reycharles 10y ago
For .dk domains they simply disallowed reselling domains. I think this has mostly solved this problem. I think I remember having heard cases where companies would contact domain owners with an outrageous offer and use their acceptance to 'steal' the domain from the owner.
- adrusi 10y ago
  I'm having trouble fact-checking this, do you have a source?
  - reycharles 10y ago
    In Danish: https://www.version2.dk/artikel/advokat-saadan-lirker-du-domaenet-ud-af-domaenehajen-gratis-18098 https://www.version2.dk/artikel/advokat-saadan-lirker-du-dom... It was passed in 2005, and in 2010 it was in effect for all domains, new and old. The article suggest there's a bigger burden of proof that a domain was registered for resale than what I suggested.

by kukx 10y ago

betaby 10y ago

And thus lets charge 5x more and gave this money to the government appointed but not government owned company. Hardly a justification.

kukx 10y ago
I can only think of one theory that could defend the US gov decision. Perhaps they didn't want to directly charge for the com domain to make it appear more open and "commercial" to foreign actors (states, companies).

gruez 10y ago

The solution to this should be simple. Every n years, domains are put up for auction. To keep the domain, the original owner must pay x% of the top bid, otherwise the top bidder acquires the domain for his bid price, maybe add a year or two of grace period so the original owner can migrate.

deftnerd 10y ago
Interesting idea, but I think a slight modification is in order. Like you said, if someone buys and domain for $5 a year and holds it for a few years, and then someone offers $1000 for it during a renewal auction, the owner could pay $100 to keep it. If they decided that it wasn't worth $100, the new buyer would pay the $1000 to get ownership. In this situation, I think it would be fair that the old owner get $100 of the buyers $1000. The same portion would be returned to the owner as it would have cost to keep the domain. Although, this could lead to attacks if the price didn't drop back down to $5 a year. If someone owns whatever.com, and someone offers $1000 for it, the owner wouldn't just have to decide if its worth $100, but if it's worth $100 a year in perpetuity.
brianwawok 10y ago
Wait.. so I am Ford the car company and I own ford.com. A competitor (Kia?) could bid 100 million dollars for ford.com, and I would have to pay 10 million dollars to keep my own domain? Not sure this is great.. I could see non-profits losing their domains to porn sites.
- gruez 10y ago
  Obviously there would be UDRP.
inputjoker 10y ago
That is the stupidest idea ever. If i have a domain name and if somebody rich wants it, it can take over next year. It hijacking.
- brador 10y ago
  How about if that additional revenue from the sale goes to you?
  - mcbits 10y ago
    Then I will bid $100 quadrillion to keep my domain and pay myself for it out of the proceeds, minus 18 cents for ICANN. Edit: Actually I missed the part about paying a percentage of the top bid.
  - the_ancient 10y ago
    Some people own domains/websites for reasons other than Money....
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 10y ago
    What if we did the same with names in general? If someone wanted to be brador on HN, and you didn't out-bid them, they were to get your name. Oh, and your real name, too, of course. If someone pays enough, you have to get a new name. And a new telephone number. And a new house. And anything else you own, really. If someone offers more money than you have, you are forced to sell at that price whatever you have. What could possibly go wrong?
    - brador 10y ago
      So long as i get say 90% of what the final buy price is and I get to bid on my own things too? Yeah that would actually be awesome.
      - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 10y ago
        You do realize that anyone who had more money than you could take away everything you have with no recourse? One simple strategy would be to force-buy from you your bed and all your food at a price a little above the market price. Now, you can either accept the offer and thus get paid only about 90% of the market price, or you can reject and pay 10% of the market price. In the former case, you buy a new bed and new food, and the cycle repeats. In the latter case, the cycle repeats directly. In any case, after a few cycles, you won't have anything left. Also, anything that you own that is more valuable than you have money, will just be taken from you, as people will offer to pay a little more than you can pay, thus forcing you to sell, and then will resell at market value, thus earning money from the difference. So, people without money couldn't own anything anymore.
joelrunyon 10y ago
Go home gruez - you're drunk.

reycharles 10y ago

For .dk domains they simply disallowed reselling domains. I think this has mostly solved this problem. I think I remember having heard cases where companies would contact domain owners with an outrageous offer and use their acceptance to 'steal' the domain from the owner.

adrusi 10y ago
I'm having trouble fact-checking this, do you have a source?
- reycharles 10y ago
  In Danish: https://www.version2.dk/artikel/advokat-saadan-lirker-du-domaenet-ud-af-domaenehajen-gratis-18098 https://www.version2.dk/artikel/advokat-saadan-lirker-du-dom... It was passed in 2005, and in 2010 it was in effect for all domains, new and old. The article suggest there's a bigger burden of proof that a domain was registered for resale than what I suggested.