4 ms·

Would it be an undue burden to require people like you to put up a page saying, "This is my personal domain which I use primarily for email."? Can we just agre

Would it be an undue burden to require people like you to put up a page saying, "This is my personal domain which I use primarily for email."? Can we just agree that nobody is posting the full proposed set of rules on HN, and nobody is trying to take away your domain? Every time this solution to domain squatting is proposed, someone counters with your objection as if it's a huge problem with the idea, but it just isn't. Surely you can imagine a set of rules that shuts down a large number of domain squatters but allows your use case.

ryanlol 7y ago
> Would it be an undue burden to require people like you to put up a page saying, "This is my personal domain which I use primarily for email."? Yes, this is a terrible idea. > Surely you can imagine a set of rules that shuts down a large number of domain squatters but allows your use case. Nope, how do you intend to perform these usage audits?
- namibj 7y ago
  Random, but focused on those who register many domains?
  - ryanlol 7y ago
    That doesn’t really explain the implementation. How would you know that two domains are owned by the same person without completely revamping the role of registrars?
jefftk 7y ago
How do you write rules that allow "this is my personal domain that I use for email" and not squatting? Can't the squatters just say something along those lines?
- franga2000 7y ago
  If the squatters have to do that, then their squatting has no value to them. The point of squatters is to eventually sell the domain and if all the domains look "in use" (so no parking allowed), the amount of people sending offers will fall.
  - anonsivalley652 7y ago
    The "domain squatting" meme is intellectually dishonest and based on envy. People who buy zillions of domains must be allowed if people are allowed to buy as many stamps, boxes of paper, cars, jet skis or houses as they wish. It's called freedom, property rights and being consistent. If you want one of their domains that they registered and paid for before you so badly, inquire if they will sell it; if they choose to or not is their choice, and you are not entitled to it simply because you want it.
    - ryanlol 7y ago
      > The "domain squatting" meme is intellectually dishonest and based on envy Yup. Still waiting to hear a more nuanced explanation of the supposed “problem” than this.
    - toyg 7y ago
      Domains are real estate. Periodic land reform / redistribution is a staple of human history, when things become patently unbalanced for society as a whole.
      - ryanlol 7y ago
        Is domain distribution patently unbalanced for society as a whole? What does that even mean? Should everyone be able to get a short dictionary word .com domain?
        toyg 7y ago
        > Is domain distribution patently unbalanced for society as a whole? Not entirely yet, or it would have already entered the political debate. However, in many ways the proliferation (and success) of alternative TLDs indicates that there is an issue. You shouldn't have to use an Indian Ocean domain because .com is squatted to the wazoo. We have lived through the land-grab era, sooner or later the redistribution era will come. > Should everyone be able to get a short dictionary word .com domain? Considering there are less than a million 4-ascii-letter combinations, obviously not. But there could be more stringent criteria for assignment and revocation, like limits per-company and per-individual, escalating costs in a way that hoarding becomes uneconomical, banning parking (which is absolutely doable, you just need an actual human judge), and so on.
- kerkeslager 7y ago
  Sure, they can say that. And if they are a big company that owns hundreds of thousands of unrelated domains with no apparent email traffic, it would be pretty obvious that it's untrue. So sure, a lot of small bad actors would get away with it. But it would could potentially take out the biggest bad actors.
anonsivalley652 7y ago
I hate to say it, but "domain squatters" pay for domains like everyone else. You have to take the shit with the sugar in a free society, not shit on everyone's personal liberties with Code of Conducts or "occupation" requirements. There's no perfect policy or "solution" that can fix every moral panic without causing other problems. And not every moral panic needs to be fixed either. That's life, sorry.
- bobbydroptables 7y ago
  The fact that they can pay for it doesn't mean they're entitled to it as a logical matter. I'm not saying a fix is or isn't needed, but there are all kinds of things we restrict despite ability to pay. For example, you can't buy a social security number without a person or a physical address without physical land to tie it to. Your comment doesn't prove your conclusion.
vibrafox 7y ago
The MX record should be enough.

ryanlol 7y ago

> Would it be an undue burden to require people like you to put up a page saying, "This is my personal domain which I use primarily for email."? Yes, this is a terrible idea. > Surely you can imagine a set of rules that shuts down a large number of domain squatters but allows your use case. Nope, how do you intend to perform these usage audits?

namibj 7y ago
Random, but focused on those who register many domains?
- ryanlol 7y ago
  That doesn’t really explain the implementation. How would you know that two domains are owned by the same person without completely revamping the role of registrars?

jefftk 7y ago

How do you write rules that allow "this is my personal domain that I use for email" and not squatting? Can't the squatters just say something along those lines?

franga2000 7y ago
If the squatters have to do that, then their squatting has no value to them. The point of squatters is to eventually sell the domain and if all the domains look "in use" (so no parking allowed), the amount of people sending offers will fall.
- anonsivalley652 7y ago
  The "domain squatting" meme is intellectually dishonest and based on envy. People who buy zillions of domains must be allowed if people are allowed to buy as many stamps, boxes of paper, cars, jet skis or houses as they wish. It's called freedom, property rights and being consistent. If you want one of their domains that they registered and paid for before you so badly, inquire if they will sell it; if they choose to or not is their choice, and you are not entitled to it simply because you want it.
  - ryanlol 7y ago
    > The "domain squatting" meme is intellectually dishonest and based on envy Yup. Still waiting to hear a more nuanced explanation of the supposed “problem” than this.
  - toyg 7y ago
    Domains are real estate. Periodic land reform / redistribution is a staple of human history, when things become patently unbalanced for society as a whole.
    - ryanlol 7y ago
      Is domain distribution patently unbalanced for society as a whole? What does that even mean? Should everyone be able to get a short dictionary word .com domain?
      - toyg 7y ago
        > Is domain distribution patently unbalanced for society as a whole? Not entirely yet, or it would have already entered the political debate. However, in many ways the proliferation (and success) of alternative TLDs indicates that there is an issue. You shouldn't have to use an Indian Ocean domain because .com is squatted to the wazoo. We have lived through the land-grab era, sooner or later the redistribution era will come. > Should everyone be able to get a short dictionary word .com domain? Considering there are less than a million 4-ascii-letter combinations, obviously not. But there could be more stringent criteria for assignment and revocation, like limits per-company and per-individual, escalating costs in a way that hoarding becomes uneconomical, banning parking (which is absolutely doable, you just need an actual human judge), and so on.
kerkeslager 7y ago
Sure, they can say that. And if they are a big company that owns hundreds of thousands of unrelated domains with no apparent email traffic, it would be pretty obvious that it's untrue. So sure, a lot of small bad actors would get away with it. But it would could potentially take out the biggest bad actors.

anonsivalley652 7y ago

I hate to say it, but "domain squatters" pay for domains like everyone else. You have to take the shit with the sugar in a free society, not shit on everyone's personal liberties with Code of Conducts or "occupation" requirements. There's no perfect policy or "solution" that can fix every moral panic without causing other problems. And not every moral panic needs to be fixed either. That's life, sorry.

bobbydroptables 7y ago
The fact that they can pay for it doesn't mean they're entitled to it as a logical matter. I'm not saying a fix is or isn't needed, but there are all kinds of things we restrict despite ability to pay. For example, you can't buy a social security number without a person or a physical address without physical land to tie it to. Your comment doesn't prove your conclusion.

vibrafox 7y ago

The MX record should be enough.