3 ms·

Possible positive side effect is reducing profitability of Domain Squatters, leading to more names available. If you've ever tried to get a domain you know what

Possible positive side effect is reducing profitability of Domain Squatters, leading to more names available. If you've ever tried to get a domain you know what a hassle it is to find a decent .com

dsl 7y ago
As an owner of thousands of domains, I can tell you a minor price increase is not going to change the economics of the business.
- akvadrako 7y ago
  It might be a start though. If domains were taxed at say 1% of their value it would go a long way towards evicting squatters.
  - Avamander 7y ago
    And the poor or nonprofits having a valuable domain would have to give them up, terrible idea.
    - deepsun 7y ago
      I'm thinking, is that really any different from real estate property tax? Imagine there was some poor non-profit owning like 15 acres on Manhattan, would it be better to tax them the same a in the middle of Nevada?
      - dwild 7y ago
        > I'm thinking, is that really any different from real estate property tax? Property taxes goes toward the city budget which is spend for the city. Domains taxes goes toward... a bigger boat for the CEO?
  - dsl 7y ago
    Yeah, no. Selling a single domain covers my renewals for the year. Even raising prices to the point where normal users are priced out, I might have to sell two.
jolmg 7y ago
I haven't looked for a .com in a long time, but when people are looking for .com's, do they really find that their choices are mostly taken by squatters and not by other people with legitimate uses for the domains? I would think that .com's are just saturated because it's the standard TLD and also because it was only recently that new TLDs appeared.
- dpcan 7y ago
  All squatters. This price change won't affect anything in terms of squatters though, they'll keep buying even if the prices almost double over 10 years. This just means more money for ICANN / Verisign. Most squatters I know of today are holding domains simply so competitors can't have them. They don't do anything with them. They just sit there and point back to the registrar. I have many clients who own a ton of domains for just this purpose. Some think they may actually use the domain someday, some actually think if they point their domains to their website they'll get more business (nope), but still, they own a lot of domains that other people could probably use.
- yCombLinks 7y ago
  A huge percent of the ones I looked at last year were just squatters, yes.
chubs 7y ago
I thought most squatters 'kite' the domains so they don't have to pay for them? Eg they buy the domain and get a refund just before the month is up, then buy it again, ad nauseum.
- dsl 7y ago
  That only happened for a year or so. The rules were changed so you can't claim refunds for more than a single digit percentage of your registrations per month. (Which is needed because lots of domains are registered on stolen credit cards)

Possible positive side effect is reducing profitability of Domain Squatters, leading to more names available. If you've ever tried to get a domain you know what a hassle it is to find a decent .com

dsl 7y ago

As an owner of thousands of domains, I can tell you a minor price increase is not going to change the economics of the business.

akvadrako 7y ago
It might be a start though. If domains were taxed at say 1% of their value it would go a long way towards evicting squatters.
- Avamander 7y ago
  And the poor or nonprofits having a valuable domain would have to give them up, terrible idea.
  - deepsun 7y ago
    I'm thinking, is that really any different from real estate property tax? Imagine there was some poor non-profit owning like 15 acres on Manhattan, would it be better to tax them the same a in the middle of Nevada?
    - dwild 7y ago
      > I'm thinking, is that really any different from real estate property tax? Property taxes goes toward the city budget which is spend for the city. Domains taxes goes toward... a bigger boat for the CEO?
- dsl 7y ago
  Yeah, no. Selling a single domain covers my renewals for the year. Even raising prices to the point where normal users are priced out, I might have to sell two.

jolmg 7y ago

I haven't looked for a .com in a long time, but when people are looking for .com's, do they really find that their choices are mostly taken by squatters and not by other people with legitimate uses for the domains? I would think that .com's are just saturated because it's the standard TLD and also because it was only recently that new TLDs appeared.

dpcan 7y ago
All squatters. This price change won't affect anything in terms of squatters though, they'll keep buying even if the prices almost double over 10 years. This just means more money for ICANN / Verisign. Most squatters I know of today are holding domains simply so competitors can't have them. They don't do anything with them. They just sit there and point back to the registrar. I have many clients who own a ton of domains for just this purpose. Some think they may actually use the domain someday, some actually think if they point their domains to their website they'll get more business (nope), but still, they own a lot of domains that other people could probably use.
yCombLinks 7y ago
A huge percent of the ones I looked at last year were just squatters, yes.

chubs 7y ago

I thought most squatters 'kite' the domains so they don't have to pay for them? Eg they buy the domain and get a refund just before the month is up, then buy it again, ad nauseum.

dsl 7y ago
That only happened for a year or so. The rules were changed so you can't claim refunds for more than a single digit percentage of your registrations per month. (Which is needed because lots of domains are registered on stolen credit cards)