4 ms·

Eh, I agree that this adds zero value for users (unless ICANN does something useful with the resulting cash) but I wouldn't call it extortion. I don't think t

by lsc 14y ago

Eh, I agree that this adds zero value for users (unless ICANN does something useful with the resulting cash) but I wouldn't call it extortion. I don't think typeo domains are that important (as evidenced by the fact that I haven't bought any of the typo domains close to prgmr.com) The way I see it, ICANN is selling google and amazon something that is worth about as much as a custom licence plate. (Until I sold it, the nameplate on my motorcycle read 'prgmr' - but I don't think I paid more than $40 a year for that.) I mean, if amazon and google want to pay that much for something that useless... who am I to say what they should do with their money? I mean, this is certainly better for the company than pissing the money away on corporate jets. (That said, if I were a shareholder, I'd be kinda cheesed.)

inopinatus 14y ago
The cost to Google & Amazon is irrelevant. The domain squatting and defensive registration under the resulting proliferation of gTLDs is the problem. ICANN is simultaneously conjuring an artificially scarce property and taking their cut of the proceeds of defensive registration, up front. These additional TLDs add little to zero actual value to the end-user, so any registrations therein are by definition a waste of money. Being charged by someone to protect something and receiving nothing of value in return sounds like extortion to me. Many will register their names under these gTLDs, solely out of fear of SEO issues later. It's protection money, pure and simple. Most of all this farce demonstrates that ICANN have abandoned even the pretence of good governance and conservative stewardship of a widely misunderstood technical resource.
- lsc 14y ago
  but, how does the squatting and "defensive registration" (obviously, I don't feel the difference is as clear cut as you seem to.) effect legitimate users of domains? It makes it harder for us to get meaningful names. How will increasing the namespace help? My hope is that it will divert the resources of people that buy a gazillion names into, you know, buying names in these new namespaces that nobody gives a shit about, leaving more of the dot-com for legitimate use. I mean, I could be wrong, but I don't think it will decrease the dot-com namespace available for legitimate use. Personally, I think that if they can take money away from the squatters (or the people that engage in "defensive registrations" or whatever they are calling squatting this week) without taking money from legitimate users, that is a net positive by itself. Squatters are not as bad as spammers; I'm not advocating public executions or anything, but I'm not going to cry that someone else has figured out a way to extract more money from them.
  - inopinatus 14y ago
    I'm afraid you've misconstrued the meaning of "defensive registrations" to mean holding a domain without a legitimate entity name to justify it. It isn't. It is when an existing holder, e.g. mystartup.com, additionally registers mystartup.biz and mystartup.co and other useless TLDs so that no-one else can have it, without having any intention of using it. Your "hope" that people might use these other new TLDs instead of .com et al is entirely undermined by the evidence of .biz and .info. Sorry, but fantasy land doesn't apply here, just economics. NB: if you have some peculiar impression that defensive registration is a form of squatting, then, y'know, call it whatever you like, the outcome is the same.
    - lsc 14y ago
      The whole point of having multiple namespaces is to have, well, multiple namespaces. If everyone registers their name in all namespaces, there aren't any more names to go around, just more fees for every name owner to pay. The thing is, it's completely legitimate for prgmr.com, prgmr.net, and prgmr.org to be unrelated entities. It's also legitimate for prgmr.sux or whatever (assuming that top level domain is created) to be owned by someone that wants to say bad things about me. The only illegitimate use is attempting to deceive users in to thinking that you are me. Though, I think I understand your point better now; You are saying that we really only have one namespace, and the "buy every variation of your name on all top level domains" ship has sailed. If you hold that position, (and while I disagree, I see how you could hold that position) then yes, adding another top level domain does not expand the namespace, but it does mean that all name owners need to buy another name. While I do agree that people have a strong preference for .com names, I think this means people are less likely to confuse a .com with a .biz or a .ly or what have you. In fact, almost the only uses I've seen of other than com/net/org and government sites have been for companies that integrated the top level domain into the name, like del.icio.us or what have you. I don't think the existence of prgmr.ly would cause any confusion. This got me wondering what prgmr.net was (I mean, I am kinda a network, so prgmr.net is arguably more appropriate) - it looks like a Korean programmer's blog. I approve.

by lsc 14y ago

inopinatus 14y ago

The cost to Google & Amazon is irrelevant. The domain squatting and defensive registration under the resulting proliferation of gTLDs is the problem. ICANN is simultaneously conjuring an artificially scarce property and taking their cut of the proceeds of defensive registration, up front. These additional TLDs add little to zero actual value to the end-user, so any registrations therein are by definition a waste of money. Being charged by someone to protect something and receiving nothing of value in return sounds like extortion to me. Many will register their names under these gTLDs, solely out of fear of SEO issues later. It's protection money, pure and simple. Most of all this farce demonstrates that ICANN have abandoned even the pretence of good governance and conservative stewardship of a widely misunderstood technical resource.

lsc 14y ago
but, how does the squatting and "defensive registration" (obviously, I don't feel the difference is as clear cut as you seem to.) effect legitimate users of domains? It makes it harder for us to get meaningful names. How will increasing the namespace help? My hope is that it will divert the resources of people that buy a gazillion names into, you know, buying names in these new namespaces that nobody gives a shit about, leaving more of the dot-com for legitimate use. I mean, I could be wrong, but I don't think it will decrease the dot-com namespace available for legitimate use. Personally, I think that if they can take money away from the squatters (or the people that engage in "defensive registrations" or whatever they are calling squatting this week) without taking money from legitimate users, that is a net positive by itself. Squatters are not as bad as spammers; I'm not advocating public executions or anything, but I'm not going to cry that someone else has figured out a way to extract more money from them.
- inopinatus 14y ago
  I'm afraid you've misconstrued the meaning of "defensive registrations" to mean holding a domain without a legitimate entity name to justify it. It isn't. It is when an existing holder, e.g. mystartup.com, additionally registers mystartup.biz and mystartup.co and other useless TLDs so that no-one else can have it, without having any intention of using it. Your "hope" that people might use these other new TLDs instead of .com et al is entirely undermined by the evidence of .biz and .info. Sorry, but fantasy land doesn't apply here, just economics. NB: if you have some peculiar impression that defensive registration is a form of squatting, then, y'know, call it whatever you like, the outcome is the same.
  - lsc 14y ago
    The whole point of having multiple namespaces is to have, well, multiple namespaces. If everyone registers their name in all namespaces, there aren't any more names to go around, just more fees for every name owner to pay. The thing is, it's completely legitimate for prgmr.com, prgmr.net, and prgmr.org to be unrelated entities. It's also legitimate for prgmr.sux or whatever (assuming that top level domain is created) to be owned by someone that wants to say bad things about me. The only illegitimate use is attempting to deceive users in to thinking that you are me. Though, I think I understand your point better now; You are saying that we really only have one namespace, and the "buy every variation of your name on all top level domains" ship has sailed. If you hold that position, (and while I disagree, I see how you could hold that position) then yes, adding another top level domain does not expand the namespace, but it does mean that all name owners need to buy another name. While I do agree that people have a strong preference for .com names, I think this means people are less likely to confuse a .com with a .biz or a .ly or what have you. In fact, almost the only uses I've seen of other than com/net/org and government sites have been for companies that integrated the top level domain into the name, like del.icio.us or what have you. I don't think the existence of prgmr.ly would cause any confusion. This got me wondering what prgmr.net was (I mean, I am kinda a network, so prgmr.net is arguably more appropriate) - it looks like a Korean programmer's blog. I approve.