4 ms·

If ICANN charged $5 a month for all domains perhaps it would not be so lucrative to sit on domains. Though it would still be profitable for some domains. The

If ICANN charged $5 a month for all domains perhaps it would not be so lucrative to sit on domains. Though it would still be profitable for some domains. The money could pay for ICANN or whatever.

joelrunyon 10y ago
Right now, a .io domain is ~$30/year which is $2.5/month. Doubling that wouldn't be that much more of a deterrent.
- jomamaxx 10y ago
  Good point. Maybe they could set a 'holding price' that is a function of the likely value of the domain name. I'll bet at $30 a month - a huge basket of names become completely untenable to 'sit on' whereas it would mean little to the business owner, possibly. This is an age old problem concerning how to deal with public goods. Real estate is the prototypical problem ... we don't consider those buying and selling land - and not using it - to be a problem to the system, whereas we could make the argument they are. In Vancouver and London, they've introduced a tax on housing spaces that are empty, i.e. if you don't live in it, you have to rent it or get hit with a tax.
pbhjpbhj 10y ago
>The money could pay for ICANN or whatever. // ICANN seemingly just keeps a very simple database of domain owners. Reportedly their revenue last year was > $200 million. I'm sure they produce lots of interesting documents too but they appear to be minting it already.
- jonknee 10y ago
  > I'm sure they produce lots of interesting documents too but they appear to be minting it already. ICANN is a non-profit organization, they are definitely not "minting it". Feel free to look at their financials and complain: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/adopted-opplan-budget-fy17-25jun16-en.pdf https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/adopted-opplan-b...
  - jomamaxx 10y ago
    Just because an organization is 'not profitable' does not mean they are not efficient, and that there aren't stake holders raking it in. 'Non profit' means that investors are not making anything (there are none). But there are other stake-holders: suppliers, customers, other kinds of financiers (debtors, other financial services), vendors, executives and employees. They could feasibly be paying themselves 'significantly above market wages', they could be over-paying suppliers and vendors, and hiring far more people than they need, or otherwise operating very inefficiently. I'm not accusing ICANN of any of this - rather - I'm making the point that their position as 'non profit' doesn't necessarily absolve the organization of 'raking in a lot more money than they need' kind of thing.
    - jonknee 10y ago
      > Just because an organization is 'not profitable' does not mean they are not efficient, and that there aren't stake holders raking it in. Hence my linking to the financials so you can see who is "raking it in".

If ICANN charged $5 a month for all domains perhaps it would not be so lucrative to sit on domains. Though it would still be profitable for some domains. The money could pay for ICANN or whatever.

joelrunyon 10y ago

Right now, a .io domain is ~$30/year which is $2.5/month. Doubling that wouldn't be that much more of a deterrent.

jomamaxx 10y ago
Good point. Maybe they could set a 'holding price' that is a function of the likely value of the domain name. I'll bet at $30 a month - a huge basket of names become completely untenable to 'sit on' whereas it would mean little to the business owner, possibly. This is an age old problem concerning how to deal with public goods. Real estate is the prototypical problem ... we don't consider those buying and selling land - and not using it - to be a problem to the system, whereas we could make the argument they are. In Vancouver and London, they've introduced a tax on housing spaces that are empty, i.e. if you don't live in it, you have to rent it or get hit with a tax.

pbhjpbhj 10y ago

>The money could pay for ICANN or whatever. // ICANN seemingly just keeps a very simple database of domain owners. Reportedly their revenue last year was > $200 million. I'm sure they produce lots of interesting documents too but they appear to be minting it already.

jonknee 10y ago
> I'm sure they produce lots of interesting documents too but they appear to be minting it already. ICANN is a non-profit organization, they are definitely not "minting it". Feel free to look at their financials and complain: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/adopted-opplan-budget-fy17-25jun16-en.pdf https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/adopted-opplan-b...
- jomamaxx 10y ago
  Just because an organization is 'not profitable' does not mean they are not efficient, and that there aren't stake holders raking it in. 'Non profit' means that investors are not making anything (there are none). But there are other stake-holders: suppliers, customers, other kinds of financiers (debtors, other financial services), vendors, executives and employees. They could feasibly be paying themselves 'significantly above market wages', they could be over-paying suppliers and vendors, and hiring far more people than they need, or otherwise operating very inefficiently. I'm not accusing ICANN of any of this - rather - I'm making the point that their position as 'non profit' doesn't necessarily absolve the organization of 'raking in a lot more money than they need' kind of thing.
  - jonknee 10y ago
    > Just because an organization is 'not profitable' does not mean they are not efficient, and that there aren't stake holders raking it in. Hence my linking to the financials so you can see who is "raking it in".