3 ms·

I absolutely do not think ICANN, or the registries, "need" any more money, and I don't want them to have it. At the same time, one could make a very strong cas

I absolutely do not think ICANN, or the registries, "need" any more money, and I don't want them to have it. At the same time, one could make a very strong case that .com domains should cost more to help combat squatting and speculation. They are a limited resource and too many people (me included) sit on domains "just in case I want to develop the idea" and that has a lot of other unintended consequences we don't want.

lozaning 7y ago
Someone already having bought the domain you want and now you having to pay market price for it is not reason enough to force me to pay additional money to verisign every time I reg or renew a domain. Instead of me and every other .com domain owner having to pay the verisign availability tax that only potentially benefits you, why don't you just pay fair market price to whoever owns the domain you want. If I was a verisign stock holder I'd be all about your plan.
- jjeaff 7y ago
  I'm on the fence. But I would add that the low renewal price of .com domains makes the prices asked for many domains unrealistic. Because they see an opportunity to just sit on the domain and gamble that it might become more valuable. People want a thousand dollars for long, not great domains. If the renewal was higher, I think "market price" would be a little closer to market. Perhaps a higher initial fee and then renewals would remain the same. Then at least it would discourage future squatting without putting a burden on small time users.
  - lozaning 7y ago
    Let's make every new .com cost 1 million dollars to register, so prohibitivly expensive that we can be sure that CocaCola can get newcokeflavor.com whenever they decide they want to buy it, and TacoBell can get any iteration of [dorritosflavor]tacos.com whenever they need it. Still onboard? Or, what if instead of all of us paying verisign more money for zero additional value, Coke just pays a million to whoever happens to own newcoke.com if they decide they want that domain?

lozaning 7y ago

Someone already having bought the domain you want and now you having to pay market price for it is not reason enough to force me to pay additional money to verisign every time I reg or renew a domain. Instead of me and every other .com domain owner having to pay the verisign availability tax that only potentially benefits you, why don't you just pay fair market price to whoever owns the domain you want. If I was a verisign stock holder I'd be all about your plan.

jjeaff 7y ago
I'm on the fence. But I would add that the low renewal price of .com domains makes the prices asked for many domains unrealistic. Because they see an opportunity to just sit on the domain and gamble that it might become more valuable. People want a thousand dollars for long, not great domains. If the renewal was higher, I think "market price" would be a little closer to market. Perhaps a higher initial fee and then renewals would remain the same. Then at least it would discourage future squatting without putting a burden on small time users.
- lozaning 7y ago
  Let's make every new .com cost 1 million dollars to register, so prohibitivly expensive that we can be sure that CocaCola can get newcokeflavor.com whenever they decide they want to buy it, and TacoBell can get any iteration of [dorritosflavor]tacos.com whenever they need it. Still onboard? Or, what if instead of all of us paying verisign more money for zero additional value, Coke just pays a million to whoever happens to own newcoke.com if they decide they want that domain?