4 ms·

I just tried to buy some and the prices varied wildly depending on how common the words might be (from $30/year to $750/year). Is this a common thing, where re

by atonse 3y ago

I just tried to buy some and the prices varied wildly depending on how common the words might be (from $30/year to $750/year). Is this a common thing, where registrars (like Google) basically are now acting like squatters for domains that are actually open?

fckgw 3y ago
Yes, most newer TLDs have "premium domain" pricing.
- atonse 3y ago
  So why is ICANN ok with this? I suspect enough people dangled tons of money in front of them. Yes I understand that it's likely that squatters would've taken this instead. But instead of coming up with a solution for that (like, if you don't use it for X amount of time, then it's lost), they instead decided "why don't we just take that money"
  - fckgw 3y ago
    ICANN does not dictate pricing on nTLDs. ICANN gets an (very large) initial fee to approve the nTLD and gets a small cut of every domain sold, while the registry is free to set their own pricing and terms.
  - krger 3y ago
    >if you don't use it for X amount of time, then it's lost Okay, now come up with a definition of "use" that effectively eliminates squatting-for-profit that doesn't also eliminate legitimate uses for having multiple domains that don't look like they're "being used"
  - donmcronald 3y ago
    > Yes I understand that it's likely that squatters would've taken this instead. The squatters are actually better in some cases. If they're selling a non-premium domain that you can renew cheaply, the up front price can be more tolerable than the long term cost of a premium domain. It looks like the premium domains for .zip are about $550 USD on Porkbun. I'd way rather pay $5k up front for a .com compared to $5.5k over 10 years for a .zip.
meinheld111 3y ago
I thought that most new-age tld‘s are operated by scammers/squatters
adamhearn 3y ago
I was curious about this as well. It seems like arbitrary short names were “premium” without any value in their meaning.
- jve 3y ago
  Well, .dev domain has HSTS enabled to all subdomains. And there won't be even a hit to port 80 - it goes straight HTTPS by browser because of preload list. So you can't have non-HTTPS site on .dev domain visited by a browser. Thats some value.
  - toast0 3y ago
    You can serve anti-HSTS headers if you really want to serve HTTP, but you'll need to serve HTTPS for the initial page loads.
- toast0 3y ago
  I was able to pick up https://badday.mov/ https://badday.mov/ for regular price. :D
morkalork 3y ago
Who knew registrars would go full on rent-seeking like this? So unpredictable.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
thiht 3y ago
Registries, not registrars. And yes, it’s extremely common with most TLDs. They define multiple premium levels depending on the « value » of a domain. It’s a business, nothing new under the sun.
donmcronald 3y ago
> Is this a common thing, where registrars (like Google) basically are now acting like squatters for domains that are actually open? Yes, but it's kind of surprising to see Google doing it. I'm a bit shocked TBH. I always considered Charleston Road Registry (Google) to be "safe" in the context of not screwing users, but I guess that was a mistake. Most of the ngTLD registries are run by business and finance people, not product people. IMO the only thing they understand is price discrimination. They're run by the kind of people that would see a dollar bill blowing in the wind and chase it off a cliff. The biggest thing I don't want when registering a domain or managing a brand is uncertainty. However, the registries and ICANN have proven via their actions that registrants are secondary to the registries. The registries can, have, and will change pricing on existing registrants. ICANN allows it as long as it's a uniform pricing change (ie: everyone gets screwed equally). Out of the original CNOBI (com, net, org, biz, info) domains I think .com and .net are the only ones with price controls left. I'm sure there will be effort to remove those in a short sighted money grab. As-is, the only safe TLD is .com. It's the only one with enough registrants to resist getting screwed. All of the new TLDs are a huge risk because you have almost no rights as a registrant. It's sad too. I think the new TLDs could be awesome for the internet if the registries were run by product people who understood that registrants need stability and long term guarantees. If anything they should be lobbying ICANN for price controls because it makes their product better for the customer. I'm sure Ethos Capital will get right on that [1]. Lol. > In January 2021, Ethos Capital acquired Donuts after their failed bid to gain control over the .org internet domain. I think Donuts is by far the largest TLD owner, so that gives an idea of how trustworthy the whole industry is IMO.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- amscanne 3y ago
  If you sell unique, valuable items way below their value then all you’re doing is creating a secondary market for scalpers/squatters to thrive, which is terrible for everyone. Having premium domains means they can be priced correctly, killing squatting, bringing more revenue to the registrar, and actually lowering prices for users that are not using automated bots at scale. Domain squatting is rent-seeking, this reduces that activity.

by atonse 3y ago

fckgw 3y ago

Yes, most newer TLDs have "premium domain" pricing.

atonse 3y ago
So why is ICANN ok with this? I suspect enough people dangled tons of money in front of them. Yes I understand that it's likely that squatters would've taken this instead. But instead of coming up with a solution for that (like, if you don't use it for X amount of time, then it's lost), they instead decided "why don't we just take that money"
- fckgw 3y ago
  ICANN does not dictate pricing on nTLDs. ICANN gets an (very large) initial fee to approve the nTLD and gets a small cut of every domain sold, while the registry is free to set their own pricing and terms.
- krger 3y ago
  >if you don't use it for X amount of time, then it's lost Okay, now come up with a definition of "use" that effectively eliminates squatting-for-profit that doesn't also eliminate legitimate uses for having multiple domains that don't look like they're "being used"
- donmcronald 3y ago
  > Yes I understand that it's likely that squatters would've taken this instead. The squatters are actually better in some cases. If they're selling a non-premium domain that you can renew cheaply, the up front price can be more tolerable than the long term cost of a premium domain. It looks like the premium domains for .zip are about $550 USD on Porkbun. I'd way rather pay $5k up front for a .com compared to $5.5k over 10 years for a .zip.

meinheld111 3y ago

I thought that most new-age tld‘s are operated by scammers/squatters

adamhearn 3y ago

I was curious about this as well. It seems like arbitrary short names were “premium” without any value in their meaning.

jve 3y ago
Well, .dev domain has HSTS enabled to all subdomains. And there won't be even a hit to port 80 - it goes straight HTTPS by browser because of preload list. So you can't have non-HTTPS site on .dev domain visited by a browser. Thats some value.
- toast0 3y ago
  You can serve anti-HSTS headers if you really want to serve HTTP, but you'll need to serve HTTPS for the initial page loads.
toast0 3y ago
I was able to pick up https://badday.mov/ https://badday.mov/ for regular price. :D

morkalork 3y ago

Who knew registrars would go full on rent-seeking like this? So unpredictable.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

thiht 3y ago

Registries, not registrars. And yes, it’s extremely common with most TLDs. They define multiple premium levels depending on the « value » of a domain. It’s a business, nothing new under the sun.

donmcronald 3y ago

> Is this a common thing, where registrars (like Google) basically are now acting like squatters for domains that are actually open? Yes, but it's kind of surprising to see Google doing it. I'm a bit shocked TBH. I always considered Charleston Road Registry (Google) to be "safe" in the context of not screwing users, but I guess that was a mistake. Most of the ngTLD registries are run by business and finance people, not product people. IMO the only thing they understand is price discrimination. They're run by the kind of people that would see a dollar bill blowing in the wind and chase it off a cliff. The biggest thing I don't want when registering a domain or managing a brand is uncertainty. However, the registries and ICANN have proven via their actions that registrants are secondary to the registries. The registries can, have, and will change pricing on existing registrants. ICANN allows it as long as it's a uniform pricing change (ie: everyone gets screwed equally). Out of the original CNOBI (com, net, org, biz, info) domains I think .com and .net are the only ones with price controls left. I'm sure there will be effort to remove those in a short sighted money grab. As-is, the only safe TLD is .com. It's the only one with enough registrants to resist getting screwed. All of the new TLDs are a huge risk because you have almost no rights as a registrant. It's sad too. I think the new TLDs could be awesome for the internet if the registries were run by product people who understood that registrants need stability and long term guarantees. If anything they should be lobbying ICANN for price controls because it makes their product better for the customer. I'm sure Ethos Capital will get right on that [1]. Lol. > In January 2021, Ethos Capital acquired Donuts after their failed bid to gain control over the .org internet domain. I think Donuts is by far the largest TLD owner, so that gives an idea of how trustworthy the whole industry is IMO.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
amscanne 3y ago
If you sell unique, valuable items way below their value then all you’re doing is creating a secondary market for scalpers/squatters to thrive, which is terrible for everyone. Having premium domains means they can be priced correctly, killing squatting, bringing more revenue to the registrar, and actually lowering prices for users that are not using automated bots at scale. Domain squatting is rent-seeking, this reduces that activity.