4 ms·

That's incredibly fucked up. The .com contract needs to go out to tender.

by orra 5y ago

ericd 5y ago
I think the huge amount of domain camping implies that .com could stand to be a whole lot more expensive to hold and do nothing with. If you're using it for something important, $20/yr probably isn't going to break the bank. If anything, I think it should be much more.
- sfe22 5y ago
  Even if i agree with you, why should a monopoly get the money? I am sure we can figure a better way to spend it.
  - xxpor 5y ago
    How are they a monopoly? There's literally thousands of TLDs now. It's like saying Apple has a monopoly on iPhones.
    - Kye 5y ago
      They're a monopoly on .com. Reasonable or not, .com is still widely seen as more authoritative than other TLDs, even .net and .org.
      - xxpor 5y ago
        So why shouldn't Verisign be able to capture the value they're providing?
        Kye 5y ago
        What value do you imagine Verisign provides? Verisign has nothing to do with .com's reputation. Most people have never heard of it. They didn't even run it until the peak of the .com bubble when everyone had already made their associations with .com.
    - johnwheeler 5y ago
      The other top level domains aren’t as credible, and everyone knows that.
      - culpable_pickle 5y ago
        credible? Ubiquitous, sure, but credible? Who ensures that a .com is a credible website?
        johnwheeler 5y ago
        Whoever said anyone ensures a .com is credible? I don’t think anyone said a .com guarantees credibility. I said, other tlds aren’t as credible, and everyone knows that.
    - paulryanrogers 5y ago
      Few beyond .com would be recognized by non-technical people
    - orra 5y ago
      There's a cost to switching. Established links, domain reputation.
      - xxpor 5y ago
        Which should have been factored in as a risk from the beginning.
        orra 5y ago
        Oh, please. Technology is deflationary. Significant, repeated, above inflation price rises aren't the fault of users: it's the US Government enabling monopoly corruption.
    - PaywallBuster 5y ago
      They have 140M .com domains. Everyone holding a .com domain can't simply move its registration from Verisign to somewhere else. (Moving to new gtld is not equivalent at all) They're holding their customers captive and profiting from it.
  - ericd 5y ago
    You're right, they probably shouldn't, but that's a whole different discussion.
- sleavey 5y ago
  > $20/yr probably isn't going to break the bank 13 year old me would disagree. A .co.uk domain at the time was if I recall correctly about £5/year, equivalent to a week's wages from my paper round. A .com was around £12-15/year which I found too expensive. I learned a lot hacking around with DNS, subdomains, etc. and I wouldn't want to price today's kids out of doing the same. Saying that, back then there were only a few TLDs to choose from. I guess if there are still at least _some_ super cheap TLDs available then I probably wouldn't mind if .com in particular got more expensive given it seems to suffer the most from squatting.
  - Kye 5y ago
    I'm surprised no one has given Namezero's concept another try. https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/namezero https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/namezero There's probably ways to monetize now that aren't trivially bypassed with a line of JavaScript. Think CloudFlare and their app injections. New Namezero could require you to use their ad-injecting/enforcing nameserver.
  - ericd 5y ago
    Yeah, as a kid these days, I'd just go with a different TLD.
- gen3 5y ago
  It currently costs me 3x$8.18 a year to renew my personal domain, my parents, and a hobby site. It will cost me $409ea over the next 50 years. $1200 vs $3000 isn’t nothing to me.
  - rootusrootus 5y ago
    That seems like taking it to a logical absurdity. A developer making okay (non-SV) money right now with only cost-of-living adjustments for the next 50 years (assuming they'd work that long...) will make over 10 million dollars. $3000 is nothing on that scale.
    - orra 5y ago
      Despite the original intention of .com, not everybody using a .com domain is running a for profit business...
    - vecinu 5y ago
      > next 50 years (assuming they'd work that long...) I don't think this is reasonable, even if you started working at age 20 at a FAANG, you're not going to work until you're 70. Keep in mind this industry is very ageist, you'd be lucky to even get 30 years of high salary income if you're not exceptionally good. That's assuming you don't burn out. I'm surprised folks still use unrealistic examples such as these to move discussions in a certain direction.
      - rootusrootus 5y ago
        > Keep in mind this industry is very ageist, you'd be lucky to even get 30 years of high salary income In the valley maybe, at a FAANG. In the regular world, esp F500 companies, there are lots of old folks. I work with several developers in their 60s. Could they get Google to hire them? Maybe not. They're still pulling down middle 100s. > I'm surprised folks still use unrealistic examples such as these You're referring, I hope, to the original comment that $3000 over 50 years was a deal breaker. I am not the one who thought that a 50 year time horizon made any sense at all for this discussion, I'm just playing along.
- PaywallBuster 5y ago
  Think about all the small websites. At some point the extra cost is no longer worth it, and the content either vanishes or it's moved to facebook/google/medium platform. We're leaving the open internet and further into the walled garden

That's incredibly fucked up. The .com contract needs to go out to tender.

by orra 5y ago

That's incredibly fucked up. The .com contract needs to go out to tender.

I think the huge amount of domain camping implies that .com could stand to be a whole lot more expensive to hold and do nothing with. If you're using it for something important, $20/yr probably isn't going to break the bank. If anything, I think it should be much more.

sfe22 5y ago
Even if i agree with you, why should a monopoly get the money? I am sure we can figure a better way to spend it.
- xxpor 5y ago
  How are they a monopoly? There's literally thousands of TLDs now. It's like saying Apple has a monopoly on iPhones.
  - Kye 5y ago
    They're a monopoly on .com. Reasonable or not, .com is still widely seen as more authoritative than other TLDs, even .net and .org.
    - xxpor 5y ago
      So why shouldn't Verisign be able to capture the value they're providing?
      - Kye 5y ago
        What value do you imagine Verisign provides? Verisign has nothing to do with .com's reputation. Most people have never heard of it. They didn't even run it until the peak of the .com bubble when everyone had already made their associations with .com.
  - johnwheeler 5y ago
    The other top level domains aren’t as credible, and everyone knows that.
    - culpable_pickle 5y ago
      credible? Ubiquitous, sure, but credible? Who ensures that a .com is a credible website?
      - johnwheeler 5y ago
        Whoever said anyone ensures a .com is credible? I don’t think anyone said a .com guarantees credibility. I said, other tlds aren’t as credible, and everyone knows that.
  - paulryanrogers 5y ago
    Few beyond .com would be recognized by non-technical people
  - orra 5y ago
    There's a cost to switching. Established links, domain reputation.
    - xxpor 5y ago
      Which should have been factored in as a risk from the beginning.
      - orra 5y ago
        Oh, please. Technology is deflationary. Significant, repeated, above inflation price rises aren't the fault of users: it's the US Government enabling monopoly corruption.
  - PaywallBuster 5y ago
    They have 140M .com domains. Everyone holding a .com domain can't simply move its registration from Verisign to somewhere else. (Moving to new gtld is not equivalent at all) They're holding their customers captive and profiting from it.
- ericd 5y ago
  You're right, they probably shouldn't, but that's a whole different discussion.
sleavey 5y ago
> $20/yr probably isn't going to break the bank 13 year old me would disagree. A .co.uk domain at the time was if I recall correctly about £5/year, equivalent to a week's wages from my paper round. A .com was around £12-15/year which I found too expensive. I learned a lot hacking around with DNS, subdomains, etc. and I wouldn't want to price today's kids out of doing the same. Saying that, back then there were only a few TLDs to choose from. I guess if there are still at least _some_ super cheap TLDs available then I probably wouldn't mind if .com in particular got more expensive given it seems to suffer the most from squatting.
- Kye 5y ago
  I'm surprised no one has given Namezero's concept another try. https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/namezero https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/namezero There's probably ways to monetize now that aren't trivially bypassed with a line of JavaScript. Think CloudFlare and their app injections. New Namezero could require you to use their ad-injecting/enforcing nameserver.
- ericd 5y ago
  Yeah, as a kid these days, I'd just go with a different TLD.
gen3 5y ago
It currently costs me 3x$8.18 a year to renew my personal domain, my parents, and a hobby site. It will cost me $409ea over the next 50 years. $1200 vs $3000 isn’t nothing to me.
- rootusrootus 5y ago
  That seems like taking it to a logical absurdity. A developer making okay (non-SV) money right now with only cost-of-living adjustments for the next 50 years (assuming they'd work that long...) will make over 10 million dollars. $3000 is nothing on that scale.
  - orra 5y ago
    Despite the original intention of .com, not everybody using a .com domain is running a for profit business...
  - vecinu 5y ago
    > next 50 years (assuming they'd work that long...) I don't think this is reasonable, even if you started working at age 20 at a FAANG, you're not going to work until you're 70. Keep in mind this industry is very ageist, you'd be lucky to even get 30 years of high salary income if you're not exceptionally good. That's assuming you don't burn out. I'm surprised folks still use unrealistic examples such as these to move discussions in a certain direction.
    - rootusrootus 5y ago
      > Keep in mind this industry is very ageist, you'd be lucky to even get 30 years of high salary income In the valley maybe, at a FAANG. In the regular world, esp F500 companies, there are lots of old folks. I work with several developers in their 60s. Could they get Google to hire them? Maybe not. They're still pulling down middle 100s. > I'm surprised folks still use unrealistic examples such as these You're referring, I hope, to the original comment that $3000 over 50 years was a deal breaker. I am not the one who thought that a 50 year time horizon made any sense at all for this discussion, I'm just playing along.
PaywallBuster 5y ago
Think about all the small websites. At some point the extra cost is no longer worth it, and the content either vanishes or it's moved to facebook/google/medium platform. We're leaving the open internet and further into the walled garden