4 ms·

Don't bother asking why they're raising the prices. They'll just say "Because ICANN".

by Sohcahtoa82 1y ago

em3rgent0rdr 1y ago
Reminds me of the "WESAYSO" company in the 1990s sitcom Dinosaurs.
- ompogUe 1y ago
  Reminds me of Apple's "Sosumi" system sound.
stock_toaster 1y ago
Prices raised due to the tariff on strings. /s
bsder 1y ago
Sorry, but I want those transaction fees to go up. A LOT. Like one or two orders of magnitude. There are far too many domains that are "parked" because those transaction fees are so low. Add an extra zero and most of those domains will unlock.
- wmf 1y ago
  Yeah, but the money should go anywhere but the parasitic hive of lawyers known as ICANN.
- ok_dad 1y ago
  No thanks, I have two domains for my personal use and they shouldn’t cost me like two hundred bucks a year, that’s insane to pay a middleman for that.
  - nandomrumber 1y ago
    Yeah, like, what’s the marginal cost for, say, a thousand additional domain names? Nothing.
- TZubiri 1y ago
  In my country's TLD there were a lot of domains that were parked when it was free to register and then they became available. PoW is a great proven way to combat fraud also. Right now attackers can create a new domain and a new identity for 10USD, whether a phishing domain or a malicious brand. That said, there's a lot of TLDs nowadays, and arguably what made .com popular was this precise price combination, which should only be adjusted for inflation, and arguably to adjust for exhaustion of names. If you want to experiment with TLDs with higher cost of entry, go ahead and find another TLD, or setup an LLC with your domain and distinguish yourself from your competitors.
  - vasco 1y ago
    "Hackers" buy weird TLDs in bulk for less than $2 and you need to deal with them regardless. This is just gib money pls from ICANN.
    - TZubiri 1y ago
      You don't NEED to. If a TLD has a bad reputation, like TLDs that sell for less than .COM prices usually have, then you can just block users from those domains entirely. "Sorry, please use another address". Odds are you are not missing much from a user@cryptoaicompany.xyz if they couldn't spend 10$ in a decent domain.
      - vasco 1y ago
        Wrong, with large userbases you're going to lose business doing that, many real businesses using novelty TLDs, at least in the industry I'm working in now. Plus I think it should be illegal from an net neutrality perspective to treat different TLDs differently and to outright deny service.
        TZubiri 1y ago
        > Wrong, with large userbases you're going to lose business doing that, many real businesses using novelty TLDs Yes, a security filtering system can have false positives. Can't get them all. > "Plus I think it should be illegal from an net neutrality perspective " This is what you would say if your only conception of law comes from reading stuff on the internet about the internet. I don't think you've had much legal training.
- goku12 1y ago
  Ownership costs of the domain names is certainly NOT the correct tool control the problem of domain squatting. Some players like rich individuals or big companies will still have enough wealth to squat as many domains as they like. Meanwhile, others with legitimate needs like citizens of low-income countries and small enterprises, will be priced out of the market. Keep in mind that domain names aren't used just for naming web sites or services. It's a distributed metadata distribution system with several other uses like mail server config, numerous TXT record types, WKD etc. If you take the stance that only the affluent should be allowed to access those services, it will defeat the purpose of the entire system. The real problem with the DNS is that its design makes it amenable to economic exploitation. It's true that the system takes economic resources to maintain. I'm fine with paying that cost and don't believe that it would make domain names unaffordable. But ICANN and the others are certainly demonstrating increasingly rent seeking behavior lately.
hackernoops 1y ago
Cartel.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

Don't bother asking why they're raising the prices. They'll just say "Because ICANN".

em3rgent0rdr 1y ago

Reminds me of the "WESAYSO" company in the 1990s sitcom Dinosaurs.

ompogUe 1y ago
Reminds me of Apple's "Sosumi" system sound.

stock_toaster 1y ago

Prices raised due to the tariff on strings. /s

bsder 1y ago

Sorry, but I want those transaction fees to go up. A LOT. Like one or two orders of magnitude. There are far too many domains that are "parked" because those transaction fees are so low. Add an extra zero and most of those domains will unlock.

wmf 1y ago
Yeah, but the money should go anywhere but the parasitic hive of lawyers known as ICANN.
ok_dad 1y ago
No thanks, I have two domains for my personal use and they shouldn’t cost me like two hundred bucks a year, that’s insane to pay a middleman for that.
- nandomrumber 1y ago
  Yeah, like, what’s the marginal cost for, say, a thousand additional domain names? Nothing.
TZubiri 1y ago
In my country's TLD there were a lot of domains that were parked when it was free to register and then they became available. PoW is a great proven way to combat fraud also. Right now attackers can create a new domain and a new identity for 10USD, whether a phishing domain or a malicious brand. That said, there's a lot of TLDs nowadays, and arguably what made .com popular was this precise price combination, which should only be adjusted for inflation, and arguably to adjust for exhaustion of names. If you want to experiment with TLDs with higher cost of entry, go ahead and find another TLD, or setup an LLC with your domain and distinguish yourself from your competitors.
- vasco 1y ago
  "Hackers" buy weird TLDs in bulk for less than $2 and you need to deal with them regardless. This is just gib money pls from ICANN.
  - TZubiri 1y ago
    You don't NEED to. If a TLD has a bad reputation, like TLDs that sell for less than .COM prices usually have, then you can just block users from those domains entirely. "Sorry, please use another address". Odds are you are not missing much from a user@cryptoaicompany.xyz if they couldn't spend 10$ in a decent domain.
    - vasco 1y ago
      Wrong, with large userbases you're going to lose business doing that, many real businesses using novelty TLDs, at least in the industry I'm working in now. Plus I think it should be illegal from an net neutrality perspective to treat different TLDs differently and to outright deny service.
      - TZubiri 1y ago
        > Wrong, with large userbases you're going to lose business doing that, many real businesses using novelty TLDs Yes, a security filtering system can have false positives. Can't get them all. > "Plus I think it should be illegal from an net neutrality perspective " This is what you would say if your only conception of law comes from reading stuff on the internet about the internet. I don't think you've had much legal training.
goku12 1y ago
Ownership costs of the domain names is certainly NOT the correct tool control the problem of domain squatting. Some players like rich individuals or big companies will still have enough wealth to squat as many domains as they like. Meanwhile, others with legitimate needs like citizens of low-income countries and small enterprises, will be priced out of the market. Keep in mind that domain names aren't used just for naming web sites or services. It's a distributed metadata distribution system with several other uses like mail server config, numerous TXT record types, WKD etc. If you take the stance that only the affluent should be allowed to access those services, it will defeat the purpose of the entire system. The real problem with the DNS is that its design makes it amenable to economic exploitation. It's true that the system takes economic resources to maintain. I'm fine with paying that cost and don't believe that it would make domain names unaffordable. But ICANN and the others are certainly demonstrating increasingly rent seeking behavior lately.

hackernoops 1y ago

Cartel.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]