95,743,705 are currently being used. The amount of available domains is virtually unlimited due to the fact that you could have 'dsdijhfjkdf.com' as a domain.
I wouldn't say completely useless (note: I'm obviously biased here) - I was making a point about the ICANN announcement and its relationship to web property in the form of available URLs.
It is a study we would like to do. The plan is to select a random sample of domains for each length and query a source, e.g., Alexa, show a confidence interval by length for domain traffic.
The stats hypothesis would be to test whether length can be used as a predictor of traffic.
I was taken aback by the 13 character length, I wonder how many of those are parked, what the average length is for the top 100,1000, 10000 sites according to Alexa/Google/Etc. I suspect there there is a nice split between the parked longer names and the shorter actually used as a website names.
I don't think they'd be worth any more or less than any given dotcom. Uniqueness is important (try searching for help on the R programming language without using 'cran' as a keyword), but links and keywords will I am sure get you further.
They want the fax likely because it's legally binding.
They also want to ensure that it's clear they are the authoritative source for those zones - so no sharing what you download.
If you want it on any regular basis.. send the fax :)
UPDATE: I downloaded the forms. Filled them out. Signed up for a HelloFax $4.99 account. Created a new fax using HelloFax. Uploaded the 2 documents. Attached my signature. And sent it. 26 minutes after making my original comment. Not too hard :). I'll update this when I hear back.
I am thoroughly unhappy about good .com domains being squatted. I can't say how many times a perfectly good domain that I would have liked to start an internet service on is being squatted with a page of "contact me if interested in domain" message -- and it's more or less useless trying to contact these persons, as they'll not reply, or demand absurd amounts for the domain.
Along with patent reform, I'm hoping there's some sort of domain squatting reform down the line. There are way too many squatters doing absolutely nothing with way too many good domains. The domain system right now seems to be working against creating value for the public and more towards creating value for the squatters. There should be some guidelines put in place to ensure domains are being purchased for the benefit of online service creation. This, however, would require a dramatic overhaul of the current domain registering process. Hopefully, this whole issue becomes less relevant as domain names become more obsolete due to web app marketplaces such as the chrome web store, but that may take some time to come to fruition.
It is a tough issue, but I think setting some clear requirements for owning a domain name could go a long way. Restricting domain owners from placing parking pages and requiring them to actively work on an online service, be that a web app, web site, blog, or other online medium which provides sincere value to users. Obviously, these guidelines will go into greater detail and be adjusted as time moves on, but it's better to try to resolve this issue than allow it to continue to deter start-ups.
That's just nonsense. You were going to fail already if you give up because you cannot find a good domain name. Domains are merely a single tool in a giant toolbox to create successful companies. Just because you don't have the absolute best one shouldn't stop you, and if it does, you're doing it wrong.
Just because you don't have the absolute best one shouldn't stop you, and if it does, you're doing it wrong.
It may not stop you, but the system right now sure doesn't help the situation. Shouldn't we work towards improving it for start-up entrepreneurs instead of just ignoring the problem altogether?
You have a very narrow lense it seems. You focus solely on one interest group and single purpose while ignoring all the others. I suspect the answer is no, we shouldn't just focus on helping startup entrepreneurs with the domain name system. There are many stakeholders from various backgrounds that all need to be considered before trying to push through one specific and narrow interest group. In theory, that's what icann and specifically the ALAC is for.
There are many stakeholders from various backgrounds that all need to be considered before trying to push through one specific and narrow interest group.
Yes, each type of "stakeholder" could be reserved a certain type of domain suffix based on their intended purpose of use. These guidelines should of actually been set in place at the onset so we wouldn't have all of the domain squatters we have today. Also, I'd much prefer to discuss potential solutions with you, but I see you've disregarded the notion completely.
Too late. Trillions of dollars have been spent by the various stakeholders branding .com into the minds of the global audience. You cannot simply undo that.
As per my other comment, you're not interested in finding a potential solution. You've got one specific interest and aren't interested in hearing why your solution isn't viable. You simply are waiting for agreement, not a discussion. Here's a solution for startups, use a less than perfect domain until they've proven their worth, got more money and buy a better name. Or, use a lesser extension/subdomain. New gTLDs are around the corner, go pay the 185k fee and get .startup or .beta and create an official startup tld and regulate how you see fit. Let it compete, like a startup should.
Go pay the 185k fee and get .startup or .beta and create an official startup tld and regulate how you see fit. Let it compete, like a startup should.
I'm sorry but most start-ups can't afford 185k for a domain. Plus, re-branding takes another major investment a start-up may not be able to afford. You say "let it compete", but you're defending domain squatters who are making it more difficult to find a good name and market new services to consumers. Hell, there are even some domainers that can't even find a single name for their customer reviews startup. ;)
You don't? By the look of your website's About Page you do:
My Current Job(s):
Working on my own startup - Still looking for a name, but I am working on a customer reviews startup.
Writer at MO.com - I interview entrepreneurs. I've done ~80 interviews as of February 2011 including some big names like Alexis Ohanian (Reddit), Aaron Wall (SEOBook) and David Hauser (Grasshopper.com).
Domain Investor (or Domainer) - I buy, sell, and develop domain names.
I now see why you are so adamant in your defense of domain squatters.
I know exactly what you were hinting at, it wasn't subtle. It was pure ad hominem. However, it's outdated, sorry, you're still wrong :(
My defense isn't of domain squatters, it's of a free market system that trillions of dollars have been invested in by many stakeholders around the globe. Trying to shift them in favor of one specific group (startups) is a joke. I am fairly certain you just want easier access to a better name without understanding the real impact of any proposed solution you have. I am done arguing with you, you are clearly unable to keep on topic.
The ad hominem is normally described as a logical fallacy, but it is not always fallacious; in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue.
No, we don't agree to disagree, you are wrong. You haven't made arguments with any value. You attacked character and it IS a logical fallacy in this case.
>Ad hominem circumstantial constitutes an attack on the bias of a source. This is fallacious because a disposition to make a certain argument does not make the argument false; this overlaps with the genetic fallacy (an argument that a claim is incorrect due to its source).
You aren't arguing about what is right or should be done. You are trying to imply I am wrong because of my business interests instead of any real issue. You've ignored solutions which fit within your arguments but you don't like the outcome (like a .startup TLD or using subdomains yourself). You clearly see the value in .com which everyone has recognized but want to monopolize it for yourself under the guise of the greater good.
You may be new at this, but because of my history, I've heard each argument hundreds of times, you haven't come up with anything new; thousands of people have whined about domain names and not followed through on a real, workable solution to the system that does accommodate all stakeholders.
thousands of people have whined about domain names and not followed through on a real, workable solution to the system that does accommodate all stakeholders.
I appreciate the dialogue.
I admit my proposed solution may not be the best at this moment, and does not accommodate all stakeholders, especially domain squatters. It probably is already too late to implement my proposed solution anyway. The domain system in place right now has evolved to such a state that the .com domain has a monopoly over the domain system. The .com has been ingrained in the mindset of most internet users as the end-all be-all due to the unrestriction and initial web registration mind share. This is now being taken advantage of by domainers. They purchase thousands of domains, in the hopes of profiting off of a lucky few. Who gets hurt in all of this? The others. John can't get the name for his blog, Amy sees her cake business's name is taken, Kevin has to buy ICantFindADotComDomainNameSoIBoughtThis.ly. Why? Because domainers aren't thinking of the external effects of their actions and just want to make an easy buck for themselves, manipulating the system to their sole benefit. In short, Pure Greed.
This supply shortage of decent .com names is only going to get worse as internet usage increases. My hope is, as this continues, that .com domains become of less value and internet users become more comfortable with alternative TLDs.
Summary:
Domainers are of no help to society. They must perish. =)
Yawn. There is no shortage (36^63 combos). Everyone who keeps saying this just thinks they are entitled to the best option available. Again, you ignore the proposed solution which fits your goals but don't like where the result takes you. You're just ignorant and want to complain, you don't want a solution, you want to just be better off for yourself.
No, I want a solution that deters domain squatters and is overall better for most people. Maybe, there should just be a cap on how many domains one can own at a time. But domainers would probably complain about that too and make some hypocritical remarks about how this restricts their internet rights, when what they do restricts the internet even worse.
You're just ignorant and want to complain, you don't want a solution, you want to just be better off for yourself.
I think this statement represents domainers such as you perfectly. May I ask, can you name one benefit domainers provide to people?
You don't have a better solution, plenty of companies have enormous portfolios of domains. This also wouldn't free up the better names, the best ones would simply be allocated into different management companies, only the marginally profitable ones would be let go. There is no shortage of domains and nobody is restricting anyone's right to a domain. Just because I own a name doesn't mean you've lost a right to domains, you have the exact same rights you always did, the freedom to register a domain that nobody else has purchased. The same position everyone else is in, equally. You have not proposed any objective way to measure and define better. Utility in a real market is hard if not impossible to measure. You think it's your right to have a better domain name? It's not. Welcome to capitalism, where a free market dictates how resources are used. But they are blocking valuable startups you say. If the company is actually viable and successful they can surely purchase it when their utility is greater than the current owner. That's the beauty of capitalism. When someone else's utility is greater than my own, they can purchase my asset and it becomes theirs. Simple.
May I ask why I have to use my capital for YOUR benefit? Since it's mine, I can do whatever I want with it. That's the nature of capitalism and freedom. Just because you don't like or even agree with what I do doesn't mean the system is broken. You ask for the same protections, if not more, for your own assets, but want to take others' protections away. Your arguments, if they can even be considered such, boil down to "you suck, it's unfair someone has the name I rightfully deserve for no apparent reason other than I want it, and we should change the system so I get what I want." Go try that in the nicer area of your city/state/province with a lot of vacation rentals. Tell a homeowner that you need that property more than they do because they have another home and how it's more fair that you get it.
Tell a homeowner that you need that property more than they do because they have another home and how it's more fair that you get it.
Your real estate analogy is a flawed one, especially in today's domain environment. A more accurate analogy would be an overpopulation of people (financially stable mind you) forced to live in cardboard boxes due to real estate investors buying up neighborhoods of good homes, bumping up their prices, and not returning phone calls. Plus, real estate investors in the real world at least try to maintain their property and improve it through actual work. Domainers just park pages.
May I ask why I have to use my capital for YOUR benefit? Since it's mine, I can do whatever I want with it. That's the nature of capitalism and freedom. Just because you don't like or even agree with what I do doesn't mean the system is broken.
Just because something is a product of capitalism doesn't mean it can't be broken by selfish extremists. How do you think we got in this recent financial fiasco? One word, greed. Sometimes there needs to certain measures of regulation to ensure individuals are not taking advantage of the system at the expense of others. That is all I'm saying. There comes a point when a foot has to be put down after a certain threshold, especially when the majority of people in a system are being hurt by these extremists.
Except nobody is being hurt in this case. There are infinite available domains for all intents and purposes. The real estate analogy is fine, you just don't live in the really nice neighborhood. You live in a cheaper one. Or perhaps in a .info ghetto. You still have a house, it's just not a mansion on the beach. Unless you pay for it. People aren't harmed by not having a the best domain available.
What's ironic is you actually picked an example I DID answer back in 2008. But I guess you did just a quick google search instead of actually reading the messages.
These people aren't harmed by domainers owning the domain they want. They simply think they could better themselves with ownership. Those are two very different things. Just because someone thinks they come up with something clever and deserve it doesn't mean they actually do. If someone else purchased it first, they clearly didn't have some magical unique insight, upon which, they deserve some special rights. Some of these people aren't hurt at all, they are just being greedy and feel something is unfair because the outcome wasn't optimal for them. Others, made mistakes and want to blame someone (they actually failed to renew their own domain, and used a bad registration company, not domainers' fault). Others still, are simply inquiring how to get domains.
What's ironic is you actually picked an example I DID answer back in 2008. But I guess you did just a quick google search instead of actually reading the messages.
Ironic or intentional? ;)
It's quite clear you don't care about anything other than the well-being of domainers. I am done debating with you. You win pal.
I care very much about many things, especially that people get treated right. Domainer or otherwise. I think the system has to be fair. I've come out publicly against companies with bad business practices and pointed out flaws in the system. (For example http://kevinohashi.com/15/04/2011/domain-registrar-and-custo...)
I also have been freely providing tools for anyone to use to aid in their domain search since I got started (first one being published in 2004ish).
Don't pretend as if you've kept an open mind about any of this. You've tried to discredit me personally multiple times now and never once even acknowledged your own hypocrisy even when it's patently obvious and pointed out. You simply skip along to the next superfluous argument. This should have been over long ago.
Although I commend you for bringing these issues up, it's sort of hypocritical to criticize them about locking up and bumping up domain prices when domainers do the same thing to others.
>This should have been over long ago.<
Look about 12 comments up. I agreed to disagree with you, but you didn't even want to agree to that! O.o
It's not hypocritical at all, registrars/registries are service providers, like ISPs. Domainers are not.
Your 'let's agree to disagree' was combined with a personal attack of me and trying to justify it. Might as well have said 'fuck you and your mother, we'll never agree rice is white.' That's not agreeing to disagree at all.
How do you define "online service creation"? Does my personal blog qualify? What about the period of time where I didn't serve anything to the web but was using my server to run a personal email & jabber server? What about the time where I didn't even do that and was using my server as a remote shell for me and a couple friends? What about when I was running it just for me?
Should it matter that nobody else should have any interest in masterzora.net since I've (almost; there are a couple silly outliers) uniquely held that handle for over a decade?
Every "simple" solution I've heard for the squatter problem is only simple because it's focusing on a simple case.
Everything to do with http://beerhallsofmunich.com/ is squatting. It could be a case study. Incidentally, I bought that to test a system and I will happily transfer it for free to anyone willing to blog/sell teeshirts/whatever about beerhalls in Muenchen.
(oh and the ads are default provided by the registrar - please don't click on them!)
Not to mention the problem of who regulates and monitors. Conflicting interests in the same domain? It's such a complex mess, these simple solutions don't even begin to grasp at understanding the system.
It's such a complex mess, these simple solutions don't even begin to grasp at understanding the system.
Just because it's complex doesn't mean we can't work towards trying to solve or improve this issue. We can either try to improve it for entrepreneurs and users, or allow it to continue to work in the best interest of sitting squatters.
Domain squatting is a specific term, it means someone who registers in bad faith to infringe on another company's trademark. Let's be clear about that.
Perhaps the system is already optimized for capitalism and entrepreneurship. There are plenty of domains available for next to nothing. Better ones that others have already come up with will cost more. This means that only better financed companies can afford them. Thus, better names go to better companies (in general). Bad companies fail and disappear and a less valuable domain was taken in the process and is now weeded out.
Of course, with all these 'noble' goals of helping users and entrepreneurs, drawing actual concrete lines anywhere is virtually impossible. When actually trying to tackle this problem, you realize it's at an equilibrium (albeit a low level one).
Domain squatting is a specific term, it means someone who registers in bad faith to infringe on another company's trademark. Let's be clear about that.
Yes, the bad faith intent is the major issue we are trying to deter. There are way too many domain squatters who buy domains solely with bad faith intent to profit from the goodwill of an entrepreneur looking to create a service for the public. This is the fundamental issue at hand.
This right is why I don't see a constructive solution ever coming from you. Buying something with intent to profit is bad faith. That's bullshit, plain and simple. We live in a capitalist society. We buy things with the intent to profit all the time. That's what our whole society is BUILT ON. We spend money on labor and capital in hopes of earning a greater return.
You twist this idea by saying someone has registered it with the bad faith intent to profit from the goodwill of an entrepreneur looking to create a service. Goodwill doesn't exist until it is created. It's been show time and time again that you cannot buy something in bad faith before something exists. That's just not possible. How can you simply assume it's blocking something to be created for the public as well? You make way too many broad and wrong assumptions to try and reach a conclusion you simply want for your own selfish reasons disguised as a greater good.
Don't take this the wrong way, I actually appreciate the dialogue you and I are having. I like debating with an opposing view in order to bring more issues to the surface. My argument is that domain squatters provide very little value in comparison to potential alternative users of that domain. That's the thing, a domain squatter's sole intention is to profit from buying and reselling domains, while a startup's intention is to profit by creating external value through a service utilizing that domain.
Most domainers I know also plan on creating services on their domains. Why does anyone else have a more legitimate right to want to build something on a domain name? What if I own cats.com and just want to put a picture of my cat fuzzy wuzzy? Why shouldnt I be allowed if I registered it first or paid for it? What if your startup isnt making any/much money and mine is and we're doing the same thing. Do I have more rights to that name than you?
What if I own cats.com and just want to put a picture of my cat fuzzy wuzzy?
I'm sure a .meow domain would suit your personal purposes just fine. A .com, however, would be better suited for commercial purposes if you intend to profit off of your fuzzy wuzzy photos.
You're really not worth it anymore. You're reaching for ridiculous arguments about how something was originally planned over two decades ago. Things changed, you can't realistically regress to some original purpose when it is outdated. Sorry. You're wrong.
> That's the thing, a domain squatter's sole intention is to profit from buying and reselling domains, while a startup's intention is to profit by creating external value through a service utilizing that domain.
This is my problem with your solution. It seems to think that there are only two groups registering domains: squatters and startups. Even if we expand "startups" to "companies", this is clearly bullshit.
It seems to think that there are only two groups registering domains: squatters and startups. Even if we expand "startups" to "companies", this is clearly bullshit.
When speaking of startups/companies registering domains I clearly stated that they would be reserved .coms, for commercial organizations. This was actually their original intended purpose until they were open for unrestricted registration:
The domain name com is a generic top-level domain (gTLD) in the Domain Name System of the Internet. Its name is derived from commercial,[1] indicating its original intended purpose for domains registered by commercial organizations. However eventually the distinction was lost when .com, .org and .net were opened for unrestricted registration.
Every "simple" solution I've heard for the squatter problem is only simple because it's focusing on a simple case.
Yes, but more sophisticated solutions will gradually be put in place to consider most cases. Think of it sort of like the App Store approval process but for .com domain registrations. Every domain suffix could be reserved for a particular sort of online category. Dot com domains would be reserved for businesses, while .net could be reserved for personal server projects, .me domains for blogs, etc. Obviously, there are going to be other things to consider, but with gradual adjustments, I'm sure the system would be much more suitable to entrepreneurship than it is right now.
Just a week ago, one of my co-founders accidentally leaked the domain name of the start up we were working on. It's a bit of a problem to register domain from where we are, so the time when I got to the registration, I found out that the domain name was taken by one of the local companies. We called them, and they asked us to come and negotiate. When we went to their office, the guy told us that he heard about our start up and he bought the domain for fun, he wanted to see us coming to his office and beg for the domain. Eventually we got the transfer code, but the whole experience was not pleasant.
I think domains should just be more expensive, with the money going towards something useful. Would you prefer to pay $200/year for a domain or $20000 to get it from a squatter and then $5/year to keep it?
The economy is the system we've used to balance supply and demand for centuries. We should use it to sort the .com mess out.
Companies can afford to pay significantly more for their domains. Personal users can easily use subdomains at a lower cost if they wish, as DNS intended.
To implement, just ramp up the cost of gTLDs every year.
As someone running a personal .net, I much prefer the $10/yr I'm paying right now. I might be able to afford $200/yr now that I'm working, but I certainly would not have been able to keep that up in college. I don't think cutting students out from being able to have personal domains is at all a good solution.
You're the exception. You got there first. In a couple of decades, nobody in your situation will be able to get any name that makes sense. At this point, people will have to get subdomains anyway.
Actually, the domain market I would say is on the decline as PPC which has been fueling it for many years is spiraling down the drain. That business model will erode and become less and less profitable over time. As that happens, I suspect more domains will cross the margin of profitability and be dropped back into availability. It won't happen overnight or instantly, and the best stuff will not become available, but things at the margins will. I think some registries already manipulate renewal/registration costs to make sure there isn't a decline.
Indeed there are. How about we have a separate namespace for commercial stuff then, where these applies, and a separate namespace for non-profitable sites? We could use, say, ".com" to designate the commercial namespace, and something else for the others.
Who captures this extra money for doing nothing? VeriSign just gets this added to their bottom line with no competition in the contract. Is that fair? The fact is, the cost to provide this service is very low and going down, but prices are increasing. There will be economic surplus somewhere, the question is whether it's supply or demand side. I think demand side is far more appropriate. It also allows everyone access to the domain name system. $200 may seem like nothing to you, but in other countries that can be a lot of money. There isn't a shortage of domain names by any means, why create a higher barrier and who does it really benefit?
I certainly don't think that VeriSign should get the money for doing nothing. I think it should go towards something productive. Ending up with excess cash is hardly a problem with any proposed scheme.
> There isn't a shortage of domain names by any means
Sure there is. Just look at how difficult it is to get the domain that you want.
> It also allows everyone access to the domain name system.
Not at all. Domain names are hierarchical. Get one under your ccTLD, or pool your resources with others and use a subdomain.
In any case, I effectively don't have access to the domain name system because of all the squatters! In other words, there is a supply shortage.
The global namespace is not big enough for all of us. If you want a global brand, then you will have to pay for it. At the moment you pay squatters. I'd prefer to put this money into some kind of better cause than squatters.
Do you not see the hypocrisy in your own arguments?
You are complaining you cannot get the domain you want but telling others who might not meet your threshold to get a subdomain. Why don't you drink your own kool aid instead of drawing an arbitrary line that suits you? Stop whining and use a subdomain. If you cannot afford a domain in the secondary market that meets your needs, you probably aren't running a global brand. The average domain sale price in the aftermarket is between $2-3,000.
The argument that you don't have access to the domain name system is hilarious. There are plenty of available domains, I dug up 26,000 short, pronounceable (<5 letters) ones a couple months ago. A single namespace has ~63^37 possibilities, that's plenty big.
There are plenty of available domains, I dug up 26,000 short, pronounceable (<5 letters) ones a couple months ago. A single namespace has ~63^37 possibilities, that's plenty big.
And yet, based on your own website's About Page you yourself can't even find a name for your customer reviews start-up.
Do you not see the hypocrisy in your own arguments?
Not in his, but I sure as hell can see them in yours. Oh, the hypocrisy.
Sadly, they hold the most credibility. Everyone's heard of .com, specifically the casual web users or less tech savvy. I tried .co once, but when I passed a mention of the domain on to someone else, what did they type in? That's right, .com.
Locally (.co.uk for me) there's many more available, but that makes it harder to target a global audience, and also as above, a lot of people tend to try .com first, potentially introducing them to a competitor.
What needs to be done is something similar to the radio spectrum; require a regular bidding process on a given domain (or, more likely, the set of domains that are in-demand).
Squatting becomes a less desirable business when you've got to pay $100/year for an in-demand domain.
I was interested a while back in finding short (5 or 6 letter) .com domains still available. Wrote a little script to do a bulk check at Godaddy.
There are a few variables you can alter in my script:
- pre: any text BEFORE the consonant-vowel-consonant string
- suf: any text AFTER the string
- ext: the domain name extension (defaults to .com if left blank)
- max: the maximum number of domain name results (starting at a random character)
Since GoDaddy limits the bulk check to 500, the quickest way to do a domain check is to run the script setting the max at 500, then just copy and paste the result in the bulk domain lookup.
103 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 245 ms ] threadAlso, I will abandon this HN account in 12 hours.... again.
Edit: ICANN - see below.
user: bastiat created:28 days ago karma: -44
That should speak for itself. You don't have to respond to absolutely everyone.
The stats hypothesis would be to test whether length can be used as a predictor of traffic.
Shorter domains definitely make sense, but probably not a good predictor in itself though they have aesthetic value.
If you want it on any regular basis.. send the fax :)
You need to send a fax to get it from their website so I figure there's got to be a quicker way(http://www.verisigninc.com/en_US/products-and-services/domai...)
UPDATE: I downloaded the forms. Filled them out. Signed up for a HelloFax $4.99 account. Created a new fax using HelloFax. Uploaded the 2 documents. Attached my signature. And sent it. 26 minutes after making my original comment. Not too hard :). I'll update this when I hear back.
UPDATE 2: You can also pay $24.95 a month and get them here: http://www.premiumdrops.com/zones.html
It may not stop you, but the system right now sure doesn't help the situation. Shouldn't we work towards improving it for start-up entrepreneurs instead of just ignoring the problem altogether?
Yes, each type of "stakeholder" could be reserved a certain type of domain suffix based on their intended purpose of use. These guidelines should of actually been set in place at the onset so we wouldn't have all of the domain squatters we have today. Also, I'd much prefer to discuss potential solutions with you, but I see you've disregarded the notion completely.
As per my other comment, you're not interested in finding a potential solution. You've got one specific interest and aren't interested in hearing why your solution isn't viable. You simply are waiting for agreement, not a discussion. Here's a solution for startups, use a less than perfect domain until they've proven their worth, got more money and buy a better name. Or, use a lesser extension/subdomain. New gTLDs are around the corner, go pay the 185k fee and get .startup or .beta and create an official startup tld and regulate how you see fit. Let it compete, like a startup should.
I'm sorry but most start-ups can't afford 185k for a domain. Plus, re-branding takes another major investment a start-up may not be able to afford. You say "let it compete", but you're defending domain squatters who are making it more difficult to find a good name and market new services to consumers. Hell, there are even some domainers that can't even find a single name for their customer reviews startup. ;)
I don't know any domainer in that position. You've really run out of arguments.
You don't? By the look of your website's About Page you do:
My Current Job(s):
Working on my own startup - Still looking for a name, but I am working on a customer reviews startup.
Writer at MO.com - I interview entrepreneurs. I've done ~80 interviews as of February 2011 including some big names like Alexis Ohanian (Reddit), Aaron Wall (SEOBook) and David Hauser (Grasshopper.com).
Domain Investor (or Domainer) - I buy, sell, and develop domain names.
I now see why you are so adamant in your defense of domain squatters.
My defense isn't of domain squatters, it's of a free market system that trillions of dollars have been invested in by many stakeholders around the globe. Trying to shift them in favor of one specific group (startups) is a joke. I am fairly certain you just want easier access to a better name without understanding the real impact of any proposed solution you have. I am done arguing with you, you are clearly unable to keep on topic.
The ad hominem is normally described as a logical fallacy, but it is not always fallacious; in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
We obviously have opposing views on the matter. We've made our arguments, let's just agree to disagree.
>Ad hominem circumstantial constitutes an attack on the bias of a source. This is fallacious because a disposition to make a certain argument does not make the argument false; this overlaps with the genetic fallacy (an argument that a claim is incorrect due to its source).
You aren't arguing about what is right or should be done. You are trying to imply I am wrong because of my business interests instead of any real issue. You've ignored solutions which fit within your arguments but you don't like the outcome (like a .startup TLD or using subdomains yourself). You clearly see the value in .com which everyone has recognized but want to monopolize it for yourself under the guise of the greater good.
You may be new at this, but because of my history, I've heard each argument hundreds of times, you haven't come up with anything new; thousands of people have whined about domain names and not followed through on a real, workable solution to the system that does accommodate all stakeholders.
I appreciate the dialogue.
I admit my proposed solution may not be the best at this moment, and does not accommodate all stakeholders, especially domain squatters. It probably is already too late to implement my proposed solution anyway. The domain system in place right now has evolved to such a state that the .com domain has a monopoly over the domain system. The .com has been ingrained in the mindset of most internet users as the end-all be-all due to the unrestriction and initial web registration mind share. This is now being taken advantage of by domainers. They purchase thousands of domains, in the hopes of profiting off of a lucky few. Who gets hurt in all of this? The others. John can't get the name for his blog, Amy sees her cake business's name is taken, Kevin has to buy ICantFindADotComDomainNameSoIBoughtThis.ly. Why? Because domainers aren't thinking of the external effects of their actions and just want to make an easy buck for themselves, manipulating the system to their sole benefit. In short, Pure Greed.
This supply shortage of decent .com names is only going to get worse as internet usage increases. My hope is, as this continues, that .com domains become of less value and internet users become more comfortable with alternative TLDs.
Summary:
Domainers are of no help to society. They must perish. =)
You're just ignorant and want to complain, you don't want a solution, you want to just be better off for yourself.
I think this statement represents domainers such as you perfectly. May I ask, can you name one benefit domainers provide to people?
May I ask why I have to use my capital for YOUR benefit? Since it's mine, I can do whatever I want with it. That's the nature of capitalism and freedom. Just because you don't like or even agree with what I do doesn't mean the system is broken. You ask for the same protections, if not more, for your own assets, but want to take others' protections away. Your arguments, if they can even be considered such, boil down to "you suck, it's unfair someone has the name I rightfully deserve for no apparent reason other than I want it, and we should change the system so I get what I want." Go try that in the nicer area of your city/state/province with a lot of vacation rentals. Tell a homeowner that you need that property more than they do because they have another home and how it's more fair that you get it.
Your real estate analogy is a flawed one, especially in today's domain environment. A more accurate analogy would be an overpopulation of people (financially stable mind you) forced to live in cardboard boxes due to real estate investors buying up neighborhoods of good homes, bumping up their prices, and not returning phone calls. Plus, real estate investors in the real world at least try to maintain their property and improve it through actual work. Domainers just park pages.
May I ask why I have to use my capital for YOUR benefit? Since it's mine, I can do whatever I want with it. That's the nature of capitalism and freedom. Just because you don't like or even agree with what I do doesn't mean the system is broken.
Just because something is a product of capitalism doesn't mean it can't be broken by selfish extremists. How do you think we got in this recent financial fiasco? One word, greed. Sometimes there needs to certain measures of regulation to ensure individuals are not taking advantage of the system at the expense of others. That is all I'm saying. There comes a point when a foot has to be put down after a certain threshold, especially when the majority of people in a system are being hurt by these extremists.
Tell that to these people:
http://ask.metafilter.com/144210/Buying-a-domain-namefor-the...
http://www.elscottharrell.com/2008/08/domainers-suck.html
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/general-10/www-domai...
http://thomasfreudenberg.com/blog/archive/2005/12/10/cyber-s...
http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?t=719440
etc, etc, etc.
These people aren't harmed by domainers owning the domain they want. They simply think they could better themselves with ownership. Those are two very different things. Just because someone thinks they come up with something clever and deserve it doesn't mean they actually do. If someone else purchased it first, they clearly didn't have some magical unique insight, upon which, they deserve some special rights. Some of these people aren't hurt at all, they are just being greedy and feel something is unfair because the outcome wasn't optimal for them. Others, made mistakes and want to blame someone (they actually failed to renew their own domain, and used a bad registration company, not domainers' fault). Others still, are simply inquiring how to get domains.
Ironic or intentional? ;)
It's quite clear you don't care about anything other than the well-being of domainers. I am done debating with you. You win pal.
I also have been freely providing tools for anyone to use to aid in their domain search since I got started (first one being published in 2004ish).
I published 24,000 available short, pronounceable domains here for hackernews readers before sharing with any domain related sites (see http://kevinohashi.com/17/04/2011/other-24000-available-bran...).
Don't pretend as if you've kept an open mind about any of this. You've tried to discredit me personally multiple times now and never once even acknowledged your own hypocrisy even when it's patently obvious and pointed out. You simply skip along to the next superfluous argument. This should have been over long ago.
>I've come out publicly against companies with bad business practices and pointed out flaws in the system. (For example http://kevinohashi.com/15/04/2011/domain-registrar-and-custo...;
Although I commend you for bringing these issues up, it's sort of hypocritical to criticize them about locking up and bumping up domain prices when domainers do the same thing to others.
>This should have been over long ago.<
Look about 12 comments up. I agreed to disagree with you, but you didn't even want to agree to that! O.o
</done>
Your 'let's agree to disagree' was combined with a personal attack of me and trying to justify it. Might as well have said 'fuck you and your mother, we'll never agree rice is white.' That's not agreeing to disagree at all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nissan_Computer
Should it matter that nobody else should have any interest in masterzora.net since I've (almost; there are a couple silly outliers) uniquely held that handle for over a decade?
Every "simple" solution I've heard for the squatter problem is only simple because it's focusing on a simple case.
(oh and the ads are default provided by the registrar - please don't click on them!)
Just because it's complex doesn't mean we can't work towards trying to solve or improve this issue. We can either try to improve it for entrepreneurs and users, or allow it to continue to work in the best interest of sitting squatters.
Perhaps the system is already optimized for capitalism and entrepreneurship. There are plenty of domains available for next to nothing. Better ones that others have already come up with will cost more. This means that only better financed companies can afford them. Thus, better names go to better companies (in general). Bad companies fail and disappear and a less valuable domain was taken in the process and is now weeded out.
Of course, with all these 'noble' goals of helping users and entrepreneurs, drawing actual concrete lines anywhere is virtually impossible. When actually trying to tackle this problem, you realize it's at an equilibrium (albeit a low level one).
Yes, the bad faith intent is the major issue we are trying to deter. There are way too many domain squatters who buy domains solely with bad faith intent to profit from the goodwill of an entrepreneur looking to create a service for the public. This is the fundamental issue at hand.
You twist this idea by saying someone has registered it with the bad faith intent to profit from the goodwill of an entrepreneur looking to create a service. Goodwill doesn't exist until it is created. It's been show time and time again that you cannot buy something in bad faith before something exists. That's just not possible. How can you simply assume it's blocking something to be created for the public as well? You make way too many broad and wrong assumptions to try and reach a conclusion you simply want for your own selfish reasons disguised as a greater good.
I'm sure a .meow domain would suit your personal purposes just fine. A .com, however, would be better suited for commercial purposes if you intend to profit off of your fuzzy wuzzy photos.
This is my problem with your solution. It seems to think that there are only two groups registering domains: squatters and startups. Even if we expand "startups" to "companies", this is clearly bullshit.
When speaking of startups/companies registering domains I clearly stated that they would be reserved .coms, for commercial organizations. This was actually their original intended purpose until they were open for unrestricted registration:
The domain name com is a generic top-level domain (gTLD) in the Domain Name System of the Internet. Its name is derived from commercial,[1] indicating its original intended purpose for domains registered by commercial organizations. However eventually the distinction was lost when .com, .org and .net were opened for unrestricted registration.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.com
Yes, but more sophisticated solutions will gradually be put in place to consider most cases. Think of it sort of like the App Store approval process but for .com domain registrations. Every domain suffix could be reserved for a particular sort of online category. Dot com domains would be reserved for businesses, while .net could be reserved for personal server projects, .me domains for blogs, etc. Obviously, there are going to be other things to consider, but with gradual adjustments, I'm sure the system would be much more suitable to entrepreneurship than it is right now.
The economy is the system we've used to balance supply and demand for centuries. We should use it to sort the .com mess out.
Companies can afford to pay significantly more for their domains. Personal users can easily use subdomains at a lower cost if they wish, as DNS intended.
To implement, just ramp up the cost of gTLDs every year.
It needs either cash or regulation, imho.
Who captures this extra money for doing nothing? VeriSign just gets this added to their bottom line with no competition in the contract. Is that fair? The fact is, the cost to provide this service is very low and going down, but prices are increasing. There will be economic surplus somewhere, the question is whether it's supply or demand side. I think demand side is far more appropriate. It also allows everyone access to the domain name system. $200 may seem like nothing to you, but in other countries that can be a lot of money. There isn't a shortage of domain names by any means, why create a higher barrier and who does it really benefit?
> There isn't a shortage of domain names by any means
Sure there is. Just look at how difficult it is to get the domain that you want.
> It also allows everyone access to the domain name system.
Not at all. Domain names are hierarchical. Get one under your ccTLD, or pool your resources with others and use a subdomain.
In any case, I effectively don't have access to the domain name system because of all the squatters! In other words, there is a supply shortage.
The global namespace is not big enough for all of us. If you want a global brand, then you will have to pay for it. At the moment you pay squatters. I'd prefer to put this money into some kind of better cause than squatters.
You are complaining you cannot get the domain you want but telling others who might not meet your threshold to get a subdomain. Why don't you drink your own kool aid instead of drawing an arbitrary line that suits you? Stop whining and use a subdomain. If you cannot afford a domain in the secondary market that meets your needs, you probably aren't running a global brand. The average domain sale price in the aftermarket is between $2-3,000.
The argument that you don't have access to the domain name system is hilarious. There are plenty of available domains, I dug up 26,000 short, pronounceable (<5 letters) ones a couple months ago. A single namespace has ~63^37 possibilities, that's plenty big.
And yet, based on your own website's About Page you yourself can't even find a name for your customer reviews start-up.
Do you not see the hypocrisy in your own arguments?
Not in his, but I sure as hell can see them in yours. Oh, the hypocrisy.
http://securityskeptic.typepad.com/the-security-skeptic/2010...
Locally (.co.uk for me) there's many more available, but that makes it harder to target a global audience, and also as above, a lot of people tend to try .com first, potentially introducing them to a competitor.
What needs to be done is something similar to the radio spectrum; require a regular bidding process on a given domain (or, more likely, the set of domains that are in-demand).
Squatting becomes a less desirable business when you've got to pay $100/year for an in-demand domain.
There are a few variables you can alter in my script:
- pre: any text BEFORE the consonant-vowel-consonant string
- suf: any text AFTER the string
- ext: the domain name extension (defaults to .com if left blank)
- max: the maximum number of domain name results (starting at a random character)
Since GoDaddy limits the bulk check to 500, the quickest way to do a domain check is to run the script setting the max at 500, then just copy and paste the result in the bulk domain lookup.
Couple different examples:
http://tonycappaert.com/projects/domaingen.php?suf=it&ma...
http://tonycappaert.com/projects/domaingen.php?pre=go&su...
Paste the result in the Godaddy bulk check at http://www.godaddy.com/domains/searchbulk.aspx