11 ms·

I've never understood why some random company is allowed to arbitrate the domain registration and make $$$ out of it. Feels like it's kinda not in the spirit of

I've never understood why some random company is allowed to arbitrate the domain registration and make $$$ out of it. Feels like it's kinda not in the spirit of the internet.

kyriakos 10y ago
It's not much different from people hoarding dictionary domains and selling them for insane amounts. But I understand your point and the whole system is rotten. First come first served is no longer viable.
- prawn 10y ago
  What is viable though? First come, first served enables domainers. Jacking up annual domain prices can be harsh on businesses in poorer countries. Public auctions for each new and released domain might have merit, but will still attract domainers and preclude many fresh companies.
  - kyriakos 10y ago
    I never said I have a solution I just know that the current situation is not good either.
lmm 10y ago
Anyone can run their own DNS root, but good luck getting people to use it. And ICANN has a history of deliberately colliding with TLDs used by competing services.
- Senji 10y ago
  Browser vendors and OS makers should do an end run around ISPs and ICANN. Just agree between themselves ( what are they like 10? tops) and fork the current registries. Then issue domains themselves. What are the plebs gonna do? Go the the non existent alternative?
  - allendoerfer 10y ago
    Google already controls chunks of every platform involved, some of them are very large, (network, domain registry, OS, browser, search engine, web hosting/content delivery) and eats away the importance of domains bite by bite. Non-tech people do not type in domains anymore, they search for them. URLs are getting hidden away further and further.
  - hueving 10y ago
    The DNS resolver is configurable, not hard coded. Forcing a switch would require OS vendors to ignore the resolver issued via DHCP, which would not work on many corporate networks that block outbound DNS not via their resolver.
    - bagosm 10y ago
      Maybe then just prefer if reachable? Soon enough it's the new standard.
      - ygaels_armpit 10y ago
        Yes I think any new system would have to see the old one grandfathered (give the current incumbents time to find something useful to do instead of jetting off to conferences all year). Browsers/OS would be reasonably easy in most circumstances, but there are embedded devices, load-balancing configurations, other esoteric uses for DNS (text records, mail etc) that'd have to be considered as well.
        Senji 10y ago
        An attack surface is ISPs and Governments strongarming them to use their own DNS roots which can then be plugged into the "new" root servers conforming with the theoretical browser vendor, os vendor alliance.
      - __jal 10y ago
        Pick your favorite: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_DNS_root https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_DNS_root There are others. But no, they don't become the new standard.
jklinger410 10y ago
It is a complete state-sponsored racket. There's no way around it. You pay an upfront fee to ICANN and probably some kind of recurring tax and you get to create a TLD. You then sell this TLD for higher prices than ICANN and run a very simple service that processes the transactions. You then take anything lower than a 5 or 6 letter domain that is a word in the english language and define it as a "premium" domain and charge obscene prices for those domains. The fee you charge for the domain based on this system is recurring. So instead of buying milk.com for $10k and selling it for $12k you already own milk.blog by default and if someone wants to register it you charge $500 a year. NOT TO MENTION this whole system is like a slap in the face to a certain kind of "domainers." People who buy domains based on their perceived value, park them, and then try and resell them for more money. There are many millions of dollars wrapped up in this other, also stupid racket. These companies got so bold as to get their domains "valued" and then bet on the value of their company based on their holdings like some type of stock filled with mortgages. This new system is like cutting directly into that strategy but I guess ICANN gets some of the money this way.
- nommm-nommm 10y ago
  I have a last name that's extremely uncommon. MyLastName.com was available for many, many years. I thought about buying it a few times in the last 20 or so years but I don't have any use for it so I didn't. Two years ago it was bought by a domain squatter who was probably iterating through the white pages. Now that I can't have it I want it (I guess human nature) but they are asking like $2k for it. It seems somehow "unfair" that "my" last name is being "held hostage" by some faceless company that's just trying to make a quick buck.
  - jeremymcanally 10y ago
    Start a business with your name, trademark it in a certain domain, file a claim with ICANN. Long process, but might be cheaper. :)
    - eximius 10y ago
      This is, in general, about as sleazy as the squatter.
gambler 10y ago
DNS is a rotten system. From censorship, to ddos attacks, to squatting, to privacy issues with whois, to messed up financial incentives. It's a shame that DNS is a critical part of the internet infrastructure. We should work on getting rid of it.
- dasil003 10y ago
  what's the alternative?
  - achr2 10y ago
    A Blockchain.
    - jff 10y ago
      Poe's Law, Bitcoin sub-clause, strikes again
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
      - pessimizer 10y ago
        It is a distributed ledger; calling blockchain here is certainly not crazy-talk.
    - achr2 10y ago
      I mean, I was being a bit facetious, but there are actual proposals for blockchain backed DNS. [1] https://github.com/okTurtles/dnschain https://github.com/okTurtles/dnschain
      - __jal 10y ago
        Yes, this is an application where the blockchain wouldn't necessarily be stupid. I don't see it as necessary, to be honest, and given the frequency with which people lose access to their wallets/have them stolen, I'm not entirely sure the bulk of domain owners would want bearer instruments to be the sole way to manage (or lose) their domain.
charonn0 10y ago
Because running a global TLD is a non-trivial and costly public service to provide, so the TLD sponsor is allowed to monetize it.
- vidarh 10y ago
  It really isn't that hard (source: designed and ran the development team that built the initial .name platform, before we outsourced it to Verisign; Verisign now owns it outright), and you can contract any number of operators to do it for you. There certainly is the issue that most of these TLDs aren't very interesting to most people, though. With low demand, I certainly understand why they want to be able to milk the few names that people find attractive.
criddell 10y ago
Say you owned ensiferum.com. Should you be allowed to sell subdomains and make money out of it? That's really all they are doing.

I've never understood why some random company is allowed to arbitrate the domain registration and make $$$ out of it. Feels like it's kinda not in the spirit of the internet.

kyriakos 10y ago

It's not much different from people hoarding dictionary domains and selling them for insane amounts. But I understand your point and the whole system is rotten. First come first served is no longer viable.

prawn 10y ago
What is viable though? First come, first served enables domainers. Jacking up annual domain prices can be harsh on businesses in poorer countries. Public auctions for each new and released domain might have merit, but will still attract domainers and preclude many fresh companies.
- kyriakos 10y ago
  I never said I have a solution I just know that the current situation is not good either.

lmm 10y ago

Anyone can run their own DNS root, but good luck getting people to use it. And ICANN has a history of deliberately colliding with TLDs used by competing services.

Senji 10y ago
Browser vendors and OS makers should do an end run around ISPs and ICANN. Just agree between themselves ( what are they like 10? tops) and fork the current registries. Then issue domains themselves. What are the plebs gonna do? Go the the non existent alternative?
- allendoerfer 10y ago
  Google already controls chunks of every platform involved, some of them are very large, (network, domain registry, OS, browser, search engine, web hosting/content delivery) and eats away the importance of domains bite by bite. Non-tech people do not type in domains anymore, they search for them. URLs are getting hidden away further and further.
- hueving 10y ago
  The DNS resolver is configurable, not hard coded. Forcing a switch would require OS vendors to ignore the resolver issued via DHCP, which would not work on many corporate networks that block outbound DNS not via their resolver.
  - bagosm 10y ago
    Maybe then just prefer if reachable? Soon enough it's the new standard.
    - ygaels_armpit 10y ago
      Yes I think any new system would have to see the old one grandfathered (give the current incumbents time to find something useful to do instead of jetting off to conferences all year). Browsers/OS would be reasonably easy in most circumstances, but there are embedded devices, load-balancing configurations, other esoteric uses for DNS (text records, mail etc) that'd have to be considered as well.
      - Senji 10y ago
        An attack surface is ISPs and Governments strongarming them to use their own DNS roots which can then be plugged into the "new" root servers conforming with the theoretical browser vendor, os vendor alliance.
    - __jal 10y ago
      Pick your favorite: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_DNS_root https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_DNS_root There are others. But no, they don't become the new standard.

jklinger410 10y ago

It is a complete state-sponsored racket. There's no way around it. You pay an upfront fee to ICANN and probably some kind of recurring tax and you get to create a TLD. You then sell this TLD for higher prices than ICANN and run a very simple service that processes the transactions. You then take anything lower than a 5 or 6 letter domain that is a word in the english language and define it as a "premium" domain and charge obscene prices for those domains. The fee you charge for the domain based on this system is recurring. So instead of buying milk.com for $10k and selling it for $12k you already own milk.blog by default and if someone wants to register it you charge $500 a year. NOT TO MENTION this whole system is like a slap in the face to a certain kind of "domainers." People who buy domains based on their perceived value, park them, and then try and resell them for more money. There are many millions of dollars wrapped up in this other, also stupid racket. These companies got so bold as to get their domains "valued" and then bet on the value of their company based on their holdings like some type of stock filled with mortgages. This new system is like cutting directly into that strategy but I guess ICANN gets some of the money this way.

nommm-nommm 10y ago
I have a last name that's extremely uncommon. MyLastName.com was available for many, many years. I thought about buying it a few times in the last 20 or so years but I don't have any use for it so I didn't. Two years ago it was bought by a domain squatter who was probably iterating through the white pages. Now that I can't have it I want it (I guess human nature) but they are asking like $2k for it. It seems somehow "unfair" that "my" last name is being "held hostage" by some faceless company that's just trying to make a quick buck.
- jeremymcanally 10y ago
  Start a business with your name, trademark it in a certain domain, file a claim with ICANN. Long process, but might be cheaper. :)
  - eximius 10y ago
    This is, in general, about as sleazy as the squatter.

gambler 10y ago

DNS is a rotten system. From censorship, to ddos attacks, to squatting, to privacy issues with whois, to messed up financial incentives. It's a shame that DNS is a critical part of the internet infrastructure. We should work on getting rid of it.

dasil003 10y ago
what's the alternative?
- achr2 10y ago
  A Blockchain.
  - jff 10y ago
    Poe's Law, Bitcoin sub-clause, strikes again
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - pessimizer 10y ago
      It is a distributed ledger; calling blockchain here is certainly not crazy-talk.
  - achr2 10y ago
    I mean, I was being a bit facetious, but there are actual proposals for blockchain backed DNS. [1] https://github.com/okTurtles/dnschain https://github.com/okTurtles/dnschain
    - __jal 10y ago
      Yes, this is an application where the blockchain wouldn't necessarily be stupid. I don't see it as necessary, to be honest, and given the frequency with which people lose access to their wallets/have them stolen, I'm not entirely sure the bulk of domain owners would want bearer instruments to be the sole way to manage (or lose) their domain.

charonn0 10y ago

Because running a global TLD is a non-trivial and costly public service to provide, so the TLD sponsor is allowed to monetize it.

vidarh 10y ago
It really isn't that hard (source: designed and ran the development team that built the initial .name platform, before we outsourced it to Verisign; Verisign now owns it outright), and you can contract any number of operators to do it for you. There certainly is the issue that most of these TLDs aren't very interesting to most people, though. With low demand, I certainly understand why they want to be able to milk the few names that people find attractive.

criddell 10y ago

Say you owned ensiferum.com. Should you be allowed to sell subdomains and make money out of it? That's really all they are doing.