5 ms·

My thought is to require all domains be sold for the same set price (or at least constant for each TLD). If someone wants to register 1,000 domains let them, bu

by aimor 5y ago

My thought is to require all domains be sold for the same set price (or at least constant for each TLD). If someone wants to register 1,000 domains let them, but don't allow them to profit off that. If someone breaks the rule, revoke the domain. I'd like to hear reasons why this is a bad idea so I can stop thinking about it every time I get priced out.

jerrre 5y ago
If I understand your solution correctly this puts the risk on the buyer? ie I naively buy a domain for a too high price, and then the registrar revokes the domain? The seller ends up with the money, and I end up with nothing? A smart seller could possibly even snatch back the domain from the registrar?
jerbearito 5y ago
Ship it!
andruby 5y ago
that seems like a nightmare to check. if 100 parties want to buy a specific domain from me (say: database.io), the incentive to sugar the deal will be huge. Why wouldn't I sell it to the party that'll gift me a Tesla when I sell them the domain for the fixed price?
- pawelk 5y ago
  Or just put on the invoice: domain transfer: $49.00 totally unrelated consulting services: $49,951.00
ameliaquining 5y ago
That sounds totally unenforceable. ICANN doesn't have the resources to investigate in detail allegations that a domain was sold for more than face value. And certainly, nobody involved in such a sale will have incentives to report it, under normal circumstances. Also, most desirable names would not be put to productive use since there'd be no relationship between what you can do with a name and how likely you are to get it, though this is a handwavier point.
csomar 5y ago
What’s the next step? Communism for the Internet?
- ethbr0 5y ago
  Communism is embedded in the core Internet protocols. And "we've" been doing our best to build a capitalist system on top of it ever since. :)
  - maccolgan 5y ago
    How is state ownership of the means of production embedded in the core Internet protocols?
    - jayshua 5y ago
      Pretty sure that's socialism. Communism is envisioned as a stateless society. Which is kind of what the internet is. There's standards bodies, but they don't really have any enforcement power. And ICANN, one of the few bodies with actual power, (by controlling domain name distribution) leads to problems like in this article.
      - dgb23 5y ago
        > Pretty sure that's socialism. State socialism specifically.
    - ethbr0 5y ago
      Anarcho-communism, not Marxism–Leninism.
    - AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
      State ownership is merely one interpretation of the base communist concept of communal ownership. The internet is largely run on protocols built organically by the people using them and only later codified into standards by a committee of interested parties.
  - 5y ago
dspillett 5y ago
> I'd like to hear reasons why this is a bad idea 1. It is practically impossible to enforce. Maybe exactly the right amount of money changed hands in one transaction, but how do you know there were no other related transactions perhaps via anonymous crypto transfers or entirely off-net (the good 'ol brown envelope full of cash) or by non-monetary exchange (service rendered). 2. It punishes the final buyer, so the scalper in the middle doesn't care. It may put buyers off so reduce the competition and the prices scalpers can command, but it won't stop them completely. For every scalper that decides it isn't worth bothering because profits are down 50% (figure plucked from thin air) there will be a queue of smaller fish more than happy to take the remaining margin. Look into attempts that have been made to control big-name concert tickets and how they have all failed - the problem is essentially the same here.
- bombcar 5y ago
  Or the simple method of having a company own the domain, and you sell the company.
alexlmiller 5y ago
Other folks have already pointed out how this is unenforceable, but I'll give a very tangible example. Twitter (and Instagram) ToS prohibit selling handles and yet I've been on both sides of those transactions before. You just offer the person a "consulting" contract, part of which is delivering the handle
- trogdor 5y ago
  Why wouldn't the buyer just pay the seller and not bother with smoke and mirrors? It's not as if Twitter or Instagram know about the "consulting" contract.

by aimor 5y ago

jerrre 5y ago

If I understand your solution correctly this puts the risk on the buyer? ie I naively buy a domain for a too high price, and then the registrar revokes the domain? The seller ends up with the money, and I end up with nothing? A smart seller could possibly even snatch back the domain from the registrar?

jerbearito 5y ago

Ship it!

andruby 5y ago

that seems like a nightmare to check. if 100 parties want to buy a specific domain from me (say: database.io), the incentive to sugar the deal will be huge. Why wouldn't I sell it to the party that'll gift me a Tesla when I sell them the domain for the fixed price?

pawelk 5y ago
Or just put on the invoice: domain transfer: $49.00 totally unrelated consulting services: $49,951.00

ameliaquining 5y ago

That sounds totally unenforceable. ICANN doesn't have the resources to investigate in detail allegations that a domain was sold for more than face value. And certainly, nobody involved in such a sale will have incentives to report it, under normal circumstances. Also, most desirable names would not be put to productive use since there'd be no relationship between what you can do with a name and how likely you are to get it, though this is a handwavier point.

csomar 5y ago

What’s the next step? Communism for the Internet?

ethbr0 5y ago
Communism is embedded in the core Internet protocols. And "we've" been doing our best to build a capitalist system on top of it ever since. :)
- maccolgan 5y ago
  How is state ownership of the means of production embedded in the core Internet protocols?
  - jayshua 5y ago
    Pretty sure that's socialism. Communism is envisioned as a stateless society. Which is kind of what the internet is. There's standards bodies, but they don't really have any enforcement power. And ICANN, one of the few bodies with actual power, (by controlling domain name distribution) leads to problems like in this article.
    - dgb23 5y ago
      > Pretty sure that's socialism. State socialism specifically.
  - ethbr0 5y ago
    Anarcho-communism, not Marxism–Leninism.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
    State ownership is merely one interpretation of the base communist concept of communal ownership. The internet is largely run on protocols built organically by the people using them and only later codified into standards by a committee of interested parties.
- 5y ago

dspillett 5y ago

> I'd like to hear reasons why this is a bad idea 1. It is practically impossible to enforce. Maybe exactly the right amount of money changed hands in one transaction, but how do you know there were no other related transactions perhaps via anonymous crypto transfers or entirely off-net (the good 'ol brown envelope full of cash) or by non-monetary exchange (service rendered). 2. It punishes the final buyer, so the scalper in the middle doesn't care. It may put buyers off so reduce the competition and the prices scalpers can command, but it won't stop them completely. For every scalper that decides it isn't worth bothering because profits are down 50% (figure plucked from thin air) there will be a queue of smaller fish more than happy to take the remaining margin. Look into attempts that have been made to control big-name concert tickets and how they have all failed - the problem is essentially the same here.

bombcar 5y ago
Or the simple method of having a company own the domain, and you sell the company.

alexlmiller 5y ago

Other folks have already pointed out how this is unenforceable, but I'll give a very tangible example. Twitter (and Instagram) ToS prohibit selling handles and yet I've been on both sides of those transactions before. You just offer the person a "consulting" contract, part of which is delivering the handle

trogdor 5y ago
Why wouldn't the buyer just pay the seller and not bother with smoke and mirrors? It's not as if Twitter or Instagram know about the "consulting" contract.