5 ms·

I understand and agree that squatting sucks. Adding new gTLDs will only increase the land to squat upon. ICANN should deal with this problem by mandating that y

I understand and agree that squatting sucks. Adding new gTLDs will only increase the land to squat upon. ICANN should deal with this problem by mandating that you have content on the site to eliminate squatting. They'd need to keep up on it and stay ahead of those gaming the system so eventually they'd get discouraged and f* right off. Domain squatting is not a legitimate business, and I hate you of you're profiting from just being a dick like that.

ohashi 14y ago
Let me begin with this, you hate me. And I think that's ok. I made a living off domains for a while and continue to make money from them. Moving on... I don't think that your solution is a real one. Getting 'discouraged and fucking right off' isn't going to happen as long as there are financial rewards. The best example is actual domain squatting (infringing on a company's TMs). The US implemented some HARSH penalties (up to 100k damages under ACPA) for it. It still exists. It still is PROFITABLE. People just setup empty corps in far away places with different laws. You want to mandate some sort of content law on 200million domains? Here's just a few problems off the top of my head: -new registrations - how long until content needs to be active? -sold/transferred/traded names - same as above -brand protection names without content? -redirects? -pages full of advertising? -autoblogs full of auto content and ads? -aggregators with ads? There are a lot of strange cases and a very slippery slope when dealing with what is and isn't content. Finding someone to enforce that on hundreds of millions of sites? That just isn't going to work. It will mess everything up. And guess what, those guys who are making all the money from domains now? We have the most to lose. We will know the rules the best and get around them. You're not going to legislate it away or enforce it away. It just won't work.
- larrys 14y ago
  "you hate me. And I think that's ok." (Thanks for stepping in here and supporting the noble fight.) The opportunity to make money in domains actually comes from the fact that not everyone thinks the same way about this. I don't think domain owners worry about this while enjoying the fruits of their business anymore than attorneys care that the much of the world thinks lawyers "suck". Or that the head of a large corporation cares that people think he is overpaid while he is living large and being waited on hand and foot and flying in private jets around the world. If you are running a popularity contest and care what people think you will have a much harder time making money in life.
larrys 14y ago
"ICANN should deal with this problem by mandating that you have content on the site to eliminate squatting." Care to give an definition of "content on the site"? "They'd need to keep up on it" So you are mandating that content needs to be fresh and change. Exactly how often?
pbz 14y ago
Not sure if possible, but they should have a rule where a single person can only own X domains. Justifying that you use the domain for content is tricky and can be easily bypassed. At least they should be trying, similar to the IPv4 shortage, but they don't seem to even acknowledge the problem.
- larrys 14y ago
  "Not sure if possible, but they should have a rule where a single person can only own X domains." Domains can be owned by companies and other entities. So there would be nothing to prevent someone from forming different entities and owning domains. And in any case you are talking about a system that is grandfathered. You're not going to re-write the rules for millions of existing domain owners at this point.
  - pbz 14y ago
    It's too late for .com but for the new batch they could've done something to at least try to address the problem.

ohashi 14y ago

Let me begin with this, you hate me. And I think that's ok. I made a living off domains for a while and continue to make money from them. Moving on... I don't think that your solution is a real one. Getting 'discouraged and fucking right off' isn't going to happen as long as there are financial rewards. The best example is actual domain squatting (infringing on a company's TMs). The US implemented some HARSH penalties (up to 100k damages under ACPA) for it. It still exists. It still is PROFITABLE. People just setup empty corps in far away places with different laws. You want to mandate some sort of content law on 200million domains? Here's just a few problems off the top of my head: -new registrations - how long until content needs to be active? -sold/transferred/traded names - same as above -brand protection names without content? -redirects? -pages full of advertising? -autoblogs full of auto content and ads? -aggregators with ads? There are a lot of strange cases and a very slippery slope when dealing with what is and isn't content. Finding someone to enforce that on hundreds of millions of sites? That just isn't going to work. It will mess everything up. And guess what, those guys who are making all the money from domains now? We have the most to lose. We will know the rules the best and get around them. You're not going to legislate it away or enforce it away. It just won't work.

larrys 14y ago
"you hate me. And I think that's ok." (Thanks for stepping in here and supporting the noble fight.) The opportunity to make money in domains actually comes from the fact that not everyone thinks the same way about this. I don't think domain owners worry about this while enjoying the fruits of their business anymore than attorneys care that the much of the world thinks lawyers "suck". Or that the head of a large corporation cares that people think he is overpaid while he is living large and being waited on hand and foot and flying in private jets around the world. If you are running a popularity contest and care what people think you will have a much harder time making money in life.

larrys 14y ago

"ICANN should deal with this problem by mandating that you have content on the site to eliminate squatting." Care to give an definition of "content on the site"? "They'd need to keep up on it" So you are mandating that content needs to be fresh and change. Exactly how often?

pbz 14y ago

Not sure if possible, but they should have a rule where a single person can only own X domains. Justifying that you use the domain for content is tricky and can be easily bypassed. At least they should be trying, similar to the IPv4 shortage, but they don't seem to even acknowledge the problem.

larrys 14y ago
"Not sure if possible, but they should have a rule where a single person can only own X domains." Domains can be owned by companies and other entities. So there would be nothing to prevent someone from forming different entities and owning domains. And in any case you are talking about a system that is grandfathered. You're not going to re-write the rules for millions of existing domain owners at this point.
- pbz 14y ago
  It's too late for .com but for the new batch they could've done something to at least try to address the problem.