3 ms·

+ $0.18 ICANN Fee + $7.85 Registry Fee (a.k.a Verisign's Ripoff fee) + $1.97 Registrar (who you register the domain through) Fee = $10.00 Retail Price Am

+ $0.18 ICANN Fee + $7.85 Registry Fee (a.k.a Verisign's Ripoff fee) + $1.97 Registrar (who you register the domain through) Fee = $10.00 Retail Price Amazingly, Verisign aren't the worst offender. The infrastructure to support the registry MUST cost a fraction of that price - as proven by 'low-fee' registries. I don't know how Verisign can continue to justify their price hikes. So you are aware, Verisign make just shy of $1 billion a year through this fee. Thats a lot of salaries and infrastructure... The scumbags even tried to increase the cost by 7% per annum to "ensure that .com directories run smoothly amid increases in Internet traffic and heightened security threats." before they forcibly had their prices frozen by the federal government in 2012. Make no mistake, Verisign have certainly been taking advantage of their position as registry of .coms. That said, I still think the price of TLDs is too low, as proven by the proliferation of squatters. How to solve this, and where the money should go is another question though...

BorisMelnik 13y ago
exactly, not to mention a lot of registrars charge way more than $10 for a .com. last I checked Network Solutions charged $30+ for a .com! also how much do you think Verisign and other registrars contributed to OpenSSL this year?
dsl 13y ago
Increasing the price of domain names has little effect on "squatting" (a term I highly dislike). Parked domains create a large volume of available inventory in ad markets, driving down costs in SEM.
- Reedx 13y ago
  If it cost $500 to register a domain (or even $100 as they used to be), I cannot imagine that it wouldn't significantly decrease the amount of parked domains. So many are squatted because you only have to make back ~$10 in order to pay for it, right? That's a small gamble. Buy a dozen domains and only 1 needs to do decently well in order to pay for the others. Additionally, $10 is almost an impulse buy, so a lot of domains are picked up in the event that it might be useful someday (I'm guilty of this). It's so annoying when you have the perfect name for a product only to find that the domain is uselessly parked. And it seems to be 95% of the time.
  - wtetzner 13y ago
    And what if you wanted a domain name for a site that won't make money? People that aren't businesses shouldn't own domains?
    - Reedx 13y ago
      They should, but domains don't have to cost as little as $10 for that to be doable. Look at all the crap that people buy that's much more expensive and offers less utility. Though I wouldn't actually propose they cost $500, I think $100 or so is still reasonable. Myself and many others bought them in the 90s for personal non-profit use at that price. Add a $100 surcharge which goes to the EFF or some other org of choice. Maybe that doesn't even need to be yearly, but happens when a new domain is registered and each time it changes ownership.
  - bmm6o 13y ago
    It's essentially the Tragedy of the Commons. People come and claim part of the common green, which pushes newcomers out to the more undesirable real estate. I'm not convinced there is a workable market solution, though I'm also not convinced that there's a satisfactory regulatory solution.
- jacquesm 13y ago
  There is nothing wrong with the term squatting per-se, it just gets mis-applied all the time (as by gp).
marincounty 13y ago
I didn't know Verisign was the ones taking so much; I thought most of it went to ICANN. I will pass this info on--I have always thought these fees were way to high. I was just blaming the wrong company. Sorry--ICAAN. As to the cost of domain names, If they were higher--guys like that Godaddy dude and Zuckerman would just buy up larger blocks of domains. Hopefully, one day when a premium domain actually does drop--anyone with a computer will have a chance to buy it, or at least have a lottery for the best names? Right now it's a slimy game.

BorisMelnik 13y ago

exactly, not to mention a lot of registrars charge way more than $10 for a .com. last I checked Network Solutions charged $30+ for a .com! also how much do you think Verisign and other registrars contributed to OpenSSL this year?

dsl 13y ago

Increasing the price of domain names has little effect on "squatting" (a term I highly dislike). Parked domains create a large volume of available inventory in ad markets, driving down costs in SEM.

Reedx 13y ago
If it cost $500 to register a domain (or even $100 as they used to be), I cannot imagine that it wouldn't significantly decrease the amount of parked domains. So many are squatted because you only have to make back ~$10 in order to pay for it, right? That's a small gamble. Buy a dozen domains and only 1 needs to do decently well in order to pay for the others. Additionally, $10 is almost an impulse buy, so a lot of domains are picked up in the event that it might be useful someday (I'm guilty of this). It's so annoying when you have the perfect name for a product only to find that the domain is uselessly parked. And it seems to be 95% of the time.
- wtetzner 13y ago
  And what if you wanted a domain name for a site that won't make money? People that aren't businesses shouldn't own domains?
  - Reedx 13y ago
    They should, but domains don't have to cost as little as $10 for that to be doable. Look at all the crap that people buy that's much more expensive and offers less utility. Though I wouldn't actually propose they cost $500, I think $100 or so is still reasonable. Myself and many others bought them in the 90s for personal non-profit use at that price. Add a $100 surcharge which goes to the EFF or some other org of choice. Maybe that doesn't even need to be yearly, but happens when a new domain is registered and each time it changes ownership.
- bmm6o 13y ago
  It's essentially the Tragedy of the Commons. People come and claim part of the common green, which pushes newcomers out to the more undesirable real estate. I'm not convinced there is a workable market solution, though I'm also not convinced that there's a satisfactory regulatory solution.
jacquesm 13y ago
There is nothing wrong with the term squatting per-se, it just gets mis-applied all the time (as by gp).

marincounty 13y ago

I didn't know Verisign was the ones taking so much; I thought most of it went to ICANN. I will pass this info on--I have always thought these fees were way to high. I was just blaming the wrong company. Sorry--ICAAN. As to the cost of domain names, If they were higher--guys like that Godaddy dude and Zuckerman would just buy up larger blocks of domains. Hopefully, one day when a premium domain actually does drop--anyone with a computer will have a chance to buy it, or at least have a lottery for the best names? Right now it's a slimy game.