4 ms·

Come on. Squatting is when you're doing som with the purpose of reselling. If you just were lucky and registered a 3 letter domain back in the 90s, why is it a

by henvic 7y ago

Come on. Squatting is when you're doing som with the purpose of reselling. If you just were lucky and registered a 3 letter domain back in the 90s, why is it anyone else business? Let it be. I have got a 5-letter domain myself that I keep a website of mine that never worked out online mostly for portfolio and because I really like the domain name. I've no plans to sell the domain or free it so others can register, even though it could indeed be more useful for some other stuff. Well, if someday I want to launch a company, I might as well brand it with this name. For the time being, it's no one's business.

GauntletWizard 7y ago
You know, I do agree and respect that, but I also see that these are a (artificial) constrained resource - There's value in them. They're a constrained public good, and prices should be charged appropriately - And yeah, I think that the really short domain names should be $XXXX per year to renew, if not more. Squatting isn't just with the purpose of reselling. It's an overloaded phrase, from "living in someone's building illegally" to "Holding onto a good with the intent of depriving others of it's use, driving the price up (particularly if you control a large portion of the limited resource)", which are, in many ways, exact opposites (The hobo sleeping in an abandoned property and the landlord underutilizing that property so they can benefit from the scarcity of land are both "squatting") I'd say that the mild foresight that 3 letter domains are useful and then holding on to one because, even though you're barely using it, you don't want to give it up - Yeah, that's squatting. It's a minor dick move, though I'd say that dumb stuff like littering newspapers or not tipping your waiter is probably the greater offense. I'm also fine with how things are now, because I don't have any illusions that ICANN as currently stands would put that additional revenue to good use, but I'd like to see this treated... well, I'd compare it to water rights, but those are broken just as badly.
- majormajor 7y ago
  > And yeah, I think that the really short domain names should be $XXXX per year to renew, if not more. There's damage to the internet from "evicting" people from these domains. Broken links, etc. Sure, that doesn't apply in this "intentionally unused" case, but... who's currently incurring what damages? Why try to squeeze more dollars out of folks with these domain names? I'm suspicious of ideas to replicate the physical real-estate model of pushing people out through raising rents that seems to just benefit landlords and the already-wealthy.
- henvic 7y ago
  Well, I'd argue your model of usefulness and the concept of a public good is broken. We are living in the Internet and names are cheap. If for some historical reasons (I'd say, maybe even related to artificial scarcity), .com|.org|.net got more popular than they probably would, this is fine. gTLDS (generic top-level domains) are here now, and if they don't suffice, something else will eventually appear.

by henvic 7y ago

GauntletWizard 7y ago

You know, I do agree and respect that, but I also see that these are a (artificial) constrained resource - There's value in them. They're a constrained public good, and prices should be charged appropriately - And yeah, I think that the really short domain names should be $XXXX per year to renew, if not more. Squatting isn't just with the purpose of reselling. It's an overloaded phrase, from "living in someone's building illegally" to "Holding onto a good with the intent of depriving others of it's use, driving the price up (particularly if you control a large portion of the limited resource)", which are, in many ways, exact opposites (The hobo sleeping in an abandoned property and the landlord underutilizing that property so they can benefit from the scarcity of land are both "squatting") I'd say that the mild foresight that 3 letter domains are useful and then holding on to one because, even though you're barely using it, you don't want to give it up - Yeah, that's squatting. It's a minor dick move, though I'd say that dumb stuff like littering newspapers or not tipping your waiter is probably the greater offense. I'm also fine with how things are now, because I don't have any illusions that ICANN as currently stands would put that additional revenue to good use, but I'd like to see this treated... well, I'd compare it to water rights, but those are broken just as badly.

majormajor 7y ago
> And yeah, I think that the really short domain names should be $XXXX per year to renew, if not more. There's damage to the internet from "evicting" people from these domains. Broken links, etc. Sure, that doesn't apply in this "intentionally unused" case, but... who's currently incurring what damages? Why try to squeeze more dollars out of folks with these domain names? I'm suspicious of ideas to replicate the physical real-estate model of pushing people out through raising rents that seems to just benefit landlords and the already-wealthy.
henvic 7y ago
Well, I'd argue your model of usefulness and the concept of a public good is broken. We are living in the Internet and names are cheap. If for some historical reasons (I'd say, maybe even related to artificial scarcity), .com|.org|.net got more popular than they probably would, this is fine. gTLDS (generic top-level domains) are here now, and if they don't suffice, something else will eventually appear.