4 ms·

Has anybody ever come up with a domain name allocation scheme that's more advanced than first come first served? Surely there's a better way.

brownbat 14y ago
"more advanced" depends on what problem you are trying to solve. If you want something that's quick and easy to adjudicate, I don't think you'll find much of an improvement. If your goal was to reduce "producer surplus," you might use an annual auction system for each domain. The expensive domain purchasers could subsidize free domains for everyone else, with enough left over to... do... I dunno, wonderful things, I'm sure. Aside from that, it's not obvious who should own domains where there are competing reasonable claims, certainly no general solution to the problem of "subjective fairness."
benologist 14y ago
Why should domains get special treatment? Business names and trademarks are also first come first serve, and if you're too late it's time to think of a new arrangement of words or letters.
- soult 14y ago
  Starting and running a company costs significantly more money than buying a domain, and a trademark has to be used, not just registered like a domain. Squatting a domain on the other hand requires minimal effort and money, and there is no danger of losing the domain even if it is unused (or parked).
eitland 14y ago
Norid used to have a rule that any company could hold on to max 10 .no domains. Of course bigger organizations with multiple legal entities could the get more domains which felt kind of reasonable. Additionally you would need a Norwegian company to get even a single one as well as be prepared to defend your connection to the domain. (Either something related to the company name or a product you are promoting.) This has worked reasonably well so far. Of course the most interesting ones got grabbed pretty early anyway I guess. (say.no is my personal favorite) Maybe interesting: One decision that left me wondering was when Sony was given the domain playstation3.no a few years ago even if the retailer was a know Sony Playstation reseller. Then again I'm no lawyer.

brownbat 14y ago

"more advanced" depends on what problem you are trying to solve. If you want something that's quick and easy to adjudicate, I don't think you'll find much of an improvement. If your goal was to reduce "producer surplus," you might use an annual auction system for each domain. The expensive domain purchasers could subsidize free domains for everyone else, with enough left over to... do... I dunno, wonderful things, I'm sure. Aside from that, it's not obvious who should own domains where there are competing reasonable claims, certainly no general solution to the problem of "subjective fairness."

benologist 14y ago

Why should domains get special treatment? Business names and trademarks are also first come first serve, and if you're too late it's time to think of a new arrangement of words or letters.

soult 14y ago
Starting and running a company costs significantly more money than buying a domain, and a trademark has to be used, not just registered like a domain. Squatting a domain on the other hand requires minimal effort and money, and there is no danger of losing the domain even if it is unused (or parked).

eitland 14y ago

Norid used to have a rule that any company could hold on to max 10 .no domains. Of course bigger organizations with multiple legal entities could the get more domains which felt kind of reasonable. Additionally you would need a Norwegian company to get even a single one as well as be prepared to defend your connection to the domain. (Either something related to the company name or a product you are promoting.) This has worked reasonably well so far. Of course the most interesting ones got grabbed pretty early anyway I guess. (say.no is my personal favorite) Maybe interesting: One decision that left me wondering was when Sony was given the domain playstation3.no a few years ago even if the retailer was a know Sony Playstation reseller. Then again I'm no lawyer.