3 ms·

Thanks for the reply, but this is quite a tangent to my point. I am not arguing that it is not legal to hold a domain indefinitely for investment purposes; I'm

Thanks for the reply, but this is quite a tangent to my point. I am not arguing that it is not legal to hold a domain indefinitely for investment purposes; I'm saying that since so many domains are being held this way, startups are being forced to sketchier ccTLDs. It also paradoxically means that .com domains are not quite what they used to be: as more cool new companies have a .ai or .co, the public has stopped thinking that "only .com matters". Like I said, the holders of the .coms are just poisoning the well for the TLD. To address your point directly, I do personally disagree with you that "squatting for speculation" or "parking" as you prefer is harmless. Since ICANN (or Verisign, I guess) controls the TLD, I do think they should disincentivize this holding behavior with some kind of property tax. It's as if vast tracts of Manhattan were just empty fields - not really in anyone's best interest, in the long run, not even the property investors, who are at risk of property developers going to more-hospitable jurisdictions.

rhizome 7y ago
Why does the sketchiness of some ccTLDs pass without comment? Shouldn't that be dealt with before casting the solution on other TLD/registrars/etc. like so much splash damage?
perl4ever 7y ago
Georgism for the Internet! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism
endorphone 7y ago
I referred purely to the incorrect use of the term squatting. They aren't squatting. Further, nowhere did I say that it was "harmless", or pass any value judgment at all on it. I just said that it's not squatting (cyber, domain, or any other prefix). Those people pay the same domain fees as anyone else. "I do think they should disincentivize this holding behavior with some kind of property tax" They are paying the same domain fees as everyone else. However let's imagine that they change it to charging some sort of "how lucrative is the domain name" property tax, like Google hilariously tried to do with some of their failed TLDs: We're currently talking about parked domains that cost an absolutely negligible amount...I imagine a lucrative fee would be a bit more disliked by these imaginary startups ready to fill all the good domains. Sidenote - there was a rush to .io, .ly and other TLDs -- against all reasonable caution -- because people thought they were cool and new, not because they were their last resort
lopmotr 7y ago
I think a few people, including myself somehow read too much into your comment. Actually, it sounds kind of positive now. If shortage of .com domains has pushed the "cool" websites to others, that naturally increases the supply of the preferred TLDs. Except of course your point about governance. There have been problems with some weird trendy TLD like .io, haven't there?

rhizome 7y ago

Why does the sketchiness of some ccTLDs pass without comment? Shouldn't that be dealt with before casting the solution on other TLD/registrars/etc. like so much splash damage?

perl4ever 7y ago

Georgism for the Internet! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism

endorphone 7y ago

I referred purely to the incorrect use of the term squatting. They aren't squatting. Further, nowhere did I say that it was "harmless", or pass any value judgment at all on it. I just said that it's not squatting (cyber, domain, or any other prefix). Those people pay the same domain fees as anyone else. "I do think they should disincentivize this holding behavior with some kind of property tax" They are paying the same domain fees as everyone else. However let's imagine that they change it to charging some sort of "how lucrative is the domain name" property tax, like Google hilariously tried to do with some of their failed TLDs: We're currently talking about parked domains that cost an absolutely negligible amount...I imagine a lucrative fee would be a bit more disliked by these imaginary startups ready to fill all the good domains. Sidenote - there was a rush to .io, .ly and other TLDs -- against all reasonable caution -- because people thought they were cool and new, not because they were their last resort

lopmotr 7y ago

I think a few people, including myself somehow read too much into your comment. Actually, it sounds kind of positive now. If shortage of .com domains has pushed the "cool" websites to others, that naturally increases the supply of the preferred TLDs. Except of course your point about governance. There have been problems with some weird trendy TLD like .io, haven't there?