| | 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This discussion has been archived.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.
|
|
 |
You hit the point, I think. To avoid the hording issue, you need to add around 50 to 60 new TLDs.
There were 47 applicants in 2000. Had all been approved, the problem very well might have been resolved.
I believe there could very easily be 60+ applicants in the next open round if ICANN implements an objective process rather than an insiders-club beauty contest.
An ironic position coming from me, I think, since I want to compete with .Web - but I welcome robust competition. I'd much rather see the artificial scarcity done-away-with.
--
Ambler On The Net [ambler.net]
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
| - Re:Hoarding
by cambler
Sunday December 28 2003, @10:43AM
- 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
|
|
|
Your exchange with Chris Ambler seems to conceive that the number of new TLDs that might be added would be on the order of one hundred or less.
In reality the domain name system can easily accomodate several millions of new top level domains. (I know this from actual experiments - the largest problem that occurs is the increased risk of human errors, a problem that can be minimized through procedural overlays similar to those used by Verisign with respect to the .com zone.)
Any speculator who wants to hoard a name across millions of TLDs had better have a healthy pocketbook.
ICANN and its silent partner, the US Department of Commerce, have very clearly harmed the internet and the community of internet users by restricting new TLDs on the basis of completely irrelevant and arbitrary pseudo-criteria that serve no role except to benefit ICANN's intrenched interests.
In any event, why debate the issue, let's simply build a fire under ICANN to create, say one TLD per day - in 10 years that would only be 3,650, a paltry number but probably big enough to give some indication of what it would do to speculation.
It is very sad that ICANN's behaviour over the last 5 years has caused .com to bloat, thus creating a lock-in situation that limits the ability of those who have invested in building their brands in .com from moving those names to other TLDs.
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
| - 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
|
|
|
One way to at least reduce the wholesale hoarding of domain names is for a registry to limit registrations to maybe one per minute from any given IP address, or even one per five minutes with no bulk registrations. To take it even further, each registrant could be limited to a set maximum number of domains in a given TLD (criteria might be a combination of name, address, and/or other identifying information). For a speculator, it's a real PITA to have to go through the routine of registering each name and input all the information every time, including credit card numbers, etc.
Of course, that means the registry will not make money as fast either, so not too many would be willing to place those limitations. Just a thought. The cost of operating a decent registry with customer service can easily make restrictions like these not feasible, but they are possible.
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
| |
|
|
I don't want to try to stop hoarding by those who think domain names are good investments.
What I *do* want to do is to create a system in which ICANN's groundless limitations on the expansion on the number of TLDs are removed.
Once we begin allocating TLD operating rights to anyone who demonstrates an ability and willingness to meet *technical* DNS and protocol standards, then my belief is that there will be few who will continue to believe that domain names are a good investment.
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
| - Re:Laugher
by KarlAuerbach
Monday December 29 2003, @07:00PM
- 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
|
|
|
I'm not going to reply to every point in your post; however, notice I used "domain squatter"? People have said "cyber squatter" implies someone who buys domain names and hoards them that infringe on existing trademarks. So, I chose to use "domain squatter," which by my definition is someone who buys a domain name (usually many of them at a time), sits his or her fat ass on it, and does nothing with it except partner with an existing domain name search traffic site [domainsponsor.com] in the hopes of profiting from it before selling it to some poor soul at astronomical prices. I equate this practice, regardless if legal trademarks or otherwise are infringed, to selling a jalopy to some ignorant (as in the uninformed and gullible) bugger for several hundred thousand dollars when it's really only worth $750. It's ethically and morally wrong. Could you honestly do that? I know my conscience would not allow me to do it.
All the best,
Doug
Doug Mehus
http://doug.mehus.info/ [mehus.info]
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
| | | 4 replies beneath your current threshold. |
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
|
