4 ms·

I think a vast majority of the current problems would be fixed by auto-releasing squatted domains. There are no good domains left because they've all been squat

by tdavis 17y ago

I think a vast majority of the current problems would be fixed by auto-releasing squatted domains. There are no good domains left because they've all been squatted. They're hardly all taken up by actual sites.

drewcrawford 17y ago
How do you enforce that? (serious question) Is there some automated polling method to see if a site has any activity? Are there "squatting police" that somebody pays to investigate these things? Are the people who want to use the domain required to bring some sort of action (lawsuit or arbitration proceeding)?
- tdavis 17y ago
  I wish I had some ideas, I honestly do. All I know is that [I feel] the current system is woefully broken. How to fix it can be left up to smarter men than I.
jpwagner 17y ago
Remind us what's bad about squatting? Isn't abc.com literally worth more than weqporjewroq.net ??? An apartment in times square costs more than a 5 bedroom house in Iowa.
- tdavis 17y ago
  That's a broken analogy. All domains start off costing the same. An apartment in times square always costs more than a 5-bedroom in Iowa, and for very tangible reasons. If I buy abc.com for a million dollars, it's not like that domain is intrinsically worth a million dollars more than weqporjewroq.net. If I have no ability to turn that domain into a monetized site, well, it is worth the same $9.95 the talentless schmuck domain squatter bought it for. If you buy a domain for $9.95 and sell it back to me for $15,000, there's a word for that: extortion. Maybe my argument truly is illogical and I'm missing something. I've spent my life gaining wealth by providing tangible value and I hate that people exist who profit hugely for providing none whatsoever. Maybe that bias is at play.
  - nico 17y ago
    If you truly believe in the market, then things are worth what someone's willing to pay for them. If I buy a domain for $9.95 and then try to sell it to someone for $15,000, but they won't pay, then I'm pretty sure it's not worth $15,000. The problem is when people/companies whose domains have been squatted, pay the squatters, hence making it a profitable business. In spite of the above, I believe there should be better regulation mechanisms to let people/companies protect their names/trademarks. Although probably those mechanisms/policies will be exploited in someway too.
  - jpwagner 17y ago
    I hate the idea of defending misunderstood analogies, so I'll limit myself here and simply say that a memorable domain is worth more than an obscure one because of the traffic it draws simply by being memorable. Maybe a better analogy is branding. A better brand can charge more simply because of the public perception with no change to the service value provided. If pepsi completely ceased selling all physical products and put up for sale the right to use the "pepsi" name, you better believe the bidding would be higher for that name than for "pepsa." "But," you say, "pepsi spent years building the pepsi name." True, but consider this: abc spent years being the first three letters of the alphabet and weqporjeqwroq spent forever being nothing. As an aside, please don't bring this "holier than thou" attitude around this forum. It's a leak in your character and benefits zero readers.
rosser 17y ago
Am I squatting because I've registered a few tens of domains (and paid for them, faithfully, every year), but haven't yet gotten 'round to the projects I registered them for? Are you going to take my domains away because my paying work takes up too much of my time?
- antonovka 17y ago
  Am I squatting because I've registered a few tens of domains (and paid for them, faithfully, every year), but haven't yet gotten 'round to the projects I registered them for? Yes -- just like a trademark. Are you going to take my domains away because my paying work takes up too much of my time? If they were important to you, you'd use them -- just like a trademark.
  - wlievens 17y ago
    I think that's too strict. The problem is you can't really draft any criteria to separate "this is a cool name, I'll hang on to it till I get the time to work out this idea" from "criminal" squatting.
  - jpwagner 17y ago
    who gets to define "use"? personally i am vehemently opposed to this sort of socialist way of thinking...

by tdavis 17y ago

drewcrawford 17y ago

How do you enforce that? (serious question) Is there some automated polling method to see if a site has any activity? Are there "squatting police" that somebody pays to investigate these things? Are the people who want to use the domain required to bring some sort of action (lawsuit or arbitration proceeding)?

tdavis 17y ago
I wish I had some ideas, I honestly do. All I know is that [I feel] the current system is woefully broken. How to fix it can be left up to smarter men than I.

jpwagner 17y ago

Remind us what's bad about squatting? Isn't abc.com literally worth more than weqporjewroq.net ??? An apartment in times square costs more than a 5 bedroom house in Iowa.

tdavis 17y ago
That's a broken analogy. All domains start off costing the same. An apartment in times square always costs more than a 5-bedroom in Iowa, and for very tangible reasons. If I buy abc.com for a million dollars, it's not like that domain is intrinsically worth a million dollars more than weqporjewroq.net. If I have no ability to turn that domain into a monetized site, well, it is worth the same $9.95 the talentless schmuck domain squatter bought it for. If you buy a domain for $9.95 and sell it back to me for $15,000, there's a word for that: extortion. Maybe my argument truly is illogical and I'm missing something. I've spent my life gaining wealth by providing tangible value and I hate that people exist who profit hugely for providing none whatsoever. Maybe that bias is at play.
- nico 17y ago
  If you truly believe in the market, then things are worth what someone's willing to pay for them. If I buy a domain for $9.95 and then try to sell it to someone for $15,000, but they won't pay, then I'm pretty sure it's not worth $15,000. The problem is when people/companies whose domains have been squatted, pay the squatters, hence making it a profitable business. In spite of the above, I believe there should be better regulation mechanisms to let people/companies protect their names/trademarks. Although probably those mechanisms/policies will be exploited in someway too.
- jpwagner 17y ago
  I hate the idea of defending misunderstood analogies, so I'll limit myself here and simply say that a memorable domain is worth more than an obscure one because of the traffic it draws simply by being memorable. Maybe a better analogy is branding. A better brand can charge more simply because of the public perception with no change to the service value provided. If pepsi completely ceased selling all physical products and put up for sale the right to use the "pepsi" name, you better believe the bidding would be higher for that name than for "pepsa." "But," you say, "pepsi spent years building the pepsi name." True, but consider this: abc spent years being the first three letters of the alphabet and weqporjeqwroq spent forever being nothing. As an aside, please don't bring this "holier than thou" attitude around this forum. It's a leak in your character and benefits zero readers.

rosser 17y ago

Am I squatting because I've registered a few tens of domains (and paid for them, faithfully, every year), but haven't yet gotten 'round to the projects I registered them for? Are you going to take my domains away because my paying work takes up too much of my time?

antonovka 17y ago
Am I squatting because I've registered a few tens of domains (and paid for them, faithfully, every year), but haven't yet gotten 'round to the projects I registered them for? Yes -- just like a trademark. Are you going to take my domains away because my paying work takes up too much of my time? If they were important to you, you'd use them -- just like a trademark.
- wlievens 17y ago
  I think that's too strict. The problem is you can't really draft any criteria to separate "this is a cool name, I'll hang on to it till I get the time to work out this idea" from "criminal" squatting.
- jpwagner 17y ago
  who gets to define "use"? personally i am vehemently opposed to this sort of socialist way of thinking...