| At Large Membership and Civil Society Participation in ICANN |
|
|
|
|
|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
Domain Names Once Again Fetch Top Dollar
|
Log in/Create an Account
| Top
| 46 comments
|
Search Discussion
|
|
The Fine Print:
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them.
We are not responsible for them in any way.
|
|
 |
"It also segways nicely into the point that we need new generic Top-Level Domains to avoid the kind of domain name hoarding and astronomical prices we saw in the late 1990s."
Well, new gTLDs will avoid the late 1990s style of hoarding, true. New gTLDs require a different type of hoarding, and that hoarding will be everpresent, no matter how many new TLDs you think might help.
Those who thinks that adding lots of new gTLDs will minimize hoarding are misleading themselves, or are trying to mislead the rest of us.
The additions of .info, .biz, and .us have only created additional hoarding/speculating opportunities.
But go ahead, fool yourselves, and keep adding those gTLDs thinking your diluting the market for speculators and hoarders. Actually, you create more opportunities for those of us who were too stupid, unaware, or too young to have gobbled up dot-coms in the days when you could only get a domain name from Network Solutions.
Hoarding and speculating are big business. For any particular gTLD, there are less than half-a-million or so domain names truly worth hoarding. You'd have to add hundreds of new gTLDs, simultaneously, in order to discourage hoarding and speculation. ICANN will never work that quickly.
If you want hoarding to stop, just keep adding TLDs like .name and .pro ... real losers.
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
| - Re:Hoarding
by cambler
Sunday December 28 2003, @09:37AM
- Re:Hoarding
by Anonymous
Sunday December 28 2003, @10:34AM
- Re:Hoarding
by cambler
Sunday December 28 2003, @10:43AM
- .web = subdirectory named "subdirectory"
by Anonymous
Monday December 29 2003, @02:20PM
- Re:.web = subdirectory named "subdirectory"
by Anonymous
Monday December 29 2003, @02:55PM
- icannwatch.com = icannwatch.net = icannwatch.org
by Anonymous
Monday December 29 2003, @03:37PM
- Re:icannwatch.com = icannwatch.net = icannwatch.or
by cambler
Monday December 29 2003, @07:37PM
- Good for Lottery ticket Sales and Lawyers Only
by Anonymous
Tuesday December 30 2003, @08:34PM
- Re:Good for Lottery ticket Sales and Lawyers Only
by cambler
Wednesday December 31 2003, @06:30AM
- computer stupid
by Anonymous
Tuesday January 13 2004, @05:03PM
- Re:computer stupid
by cambler
Tuesday January 13 2004, @07:10PM
- Re:computer stupid
by Anonymous
Thursday January 15 2004, @09:25PM
- Re:computer stupid
by cambler
Friday January 16 2004, @06:24AM
- Re:computer stupid
by Anonymous
Saturday January 17 2004, @12:25AM
- Re:computer stupid
by cambler
Saturday January 17 2004, @06:04AM
- Re:computer stupid
by Anonymous
Saturday January 31 2004, @08:58AM
- Re:Hoarding
by KarlAuerbach
Sunday December 28 2003, @12:31PM
|
Laugher
by
Anonymous
on Sunday December 28 2003, @04:43AM (#12777)
|
|
 |
It's a laugher to think adding new gTLDs will decrease hoarding and speculation. As a matter of fact, the hoarding for the new TLDs was/is worse, the proof of which is obvious hoarding and speculation by owners and Directors of registries and/or ICANN-accredited registrars.
Hoarding continues unabated at increased levels, by more insiders at registries and registrars. Just ask Moshe Fogel and Hal Lubsen. Just ask Govinda Leopold. .INFO .BIZ and .US are early in their evolutions, but prime domain names in those TLDs are now commanding thousands of dollars. This pace far exceeds the inflation evolution of .com.
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
| - Re:Laugher
by ldg
Sunday December 28 2003, @02:58PM
- Re:Laugher
by KarlAuerbach
Sunday December 28 2003, @08:18PM
- Re:Laugher
by Anonymous
Monday December 29 2003, @03:14PM
- Re:Laugher
by KarlAuerbach
Monday December 29 2003, @07:00PM
|
|
 |
From main post: "We need new generic Top-Level Domains to avoid the kind of domain name hoarding and astronomical prices"
The only way to avoid "astronomical prices" is to destroy the utility of DNS.
The recent valuation of the men.com domain flows from the value or utility of DNS to people in general. The domain name system remains at the forefront of the human interface to the interenet. Opening more generic TLDs may serve to avoid "astronomical prices", but such an impact will only flow from an overall destruction of the utility of DNS to people in general.
1.3 million dollars price, for this domain, is not astronomical today, just as 15k was not an astronomical price many years ago. Also, it is obvious that Rick has/had some kind of legal claim or title to the men.com domain. IMHO, Calling Rick a Squatter seems to imply otherwise.
Persons calling for new generic TLDs should do everyone a favor and stop. Somehow being sure to prevent someone from making a 'premium' is an unworthy motivating factor, in light of the desire to improve the DNS. We should concentrate on building up value in each INDIVIDUAL domain name registration, not tearing the value down. The wholesale fracture of existing identities on the internet should be avoided. There is plenty of room for the creation of new hostnames at this time, with no shortage in sight.
The persons that invented DNS and COM, NET, ORG, GOV, EDU, country codes etc. had reasons for not creating millions of generic TLDs or a TLD a day. For one, doing so undermines the ability of people to clearly remember hosts (one from the other), the primary purpose of DNS.
The system ( as a human interface ) is designed to generally populate downward, like a directory tree. Who would advocate placing a subfolder a day on the root c:\ of their own system?
From a different post:
"... there will be few who will continue to believe that domain names are a good investment"
Lets hope that day never comes, especially for everyone who has even a single domain or even uses the internet for that matter.
Zooom
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
| |
|
 |
can anyone confirm that home.info was offered for sale in USA Today classifieds within the past few weeks for a cool $1,000,000.00 us dollars?
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|

Privacy Policy: We will not knowingly give out your personal data -- other than identifying your postings in the way you direct by setting your configuration options -- without a court order. All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their
respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 by ICANNWatch.Org. This web site was made with Slashcode, a web portal system written in perl. Slashcode is Free Software released under the GNU/GPL license.
You can syndicate our headlines in .rdf, .rss, or .xml. Domain registration services donated by DomainRegistry.com
|