I think it's time for a rule to say that if a domain hasn't been substantially developed in two years then it will be deregistered and the domain awarded to the applicant with the highest merit in a usage application?
I propose this because there would be too much of an outcry if it became a criminal offence to renew a domain without the honest intention to develop it within the next six months.
Squatters have had plenty of time to make their money and anyone who has entered the game in recent years knew what they were getting involved with.
substantially developed
Unworkable concept.
Would a single page website with that person's statement of their world view relating to the domain's topic meet your standard?
Suppose I took Business.com and created a 1 page website that set forth my biased view of the globalization of commerce? Would that meet the standard?
Suppose I then added AdSense to that 1 page website?
Suppose I simply created a webpage that linked to websites related to the topic of the domain name? 1 very long webpage?
What about a 1 or 2 page microsite hawking an ebook related to the domain name? Would that qualify?
What if I did a redirect from a plural of a domain to a singular of that domain?
What if I put up a website for a month and then took it down for 2 years, during which time I redirected the domain to another website?
Domain Police? Domain Development Court? Domain Court of Appeals?
Where will Domain Development Court be located? In the U.S.? India? Russia?
Domain names are raw land. As long as you pay the fee you can do whatever you like with GTLDs. The minute anyone attempts to rewrite the rules all those pieces of real estate will put up whatever shack is required to meet the new standard and trust me, the standard will have to be "shack grade" or you will hear the screams not only from the holders of the raw land but also from all the holders of hobby sites, personal sites, small business sites, etc. as they - too - will become targets of challenges based upon allegations of insubstantial development.
If what bothers you is the domain names that are parked with PPC firms don't worry: The PPC firms are working on that issue as I type. Take a look at the new and improved BuyDomains landers and what Marchex is doing with their "better domain" landers. Soon you won't be able to tell parked domains from portals: news feeds, directories, articles, etc.
There was a time when the internet was about something other than blatent profiteering...
I've seen domains I've wanted being sold at prices I could have easily afforded and justified. I'd never buy them because I find there's something almost immoral about the squatting industry.
But you also mentioned "kiting" in your heading, without further mention. I assume by this you mean the practice of "testing" domain names with the privilege of returning them at no cost within 5 days.
IMO, this practice should be absolutely outlawed. It's an outlandish violation of the public trust that this is premitted.
I have been thinking about this a lot lately, and for the sake of playing Devil's Advocate, I would like to suggest a substantial raise in domain prices COULD be beneficial: There are of course winners and losers, and I don't want to frame this debate as a morality debate, just frame it from the point of view of who wins and who loses and what effects it has on the various constituencies of the internet. Consider three groups: domain name speculators, content developers, and hobbyists and upstarts (or junior content developers if you like).
If domain names were raised to say $50.00 a shot, it would harm domain name speculators far more than it would harm content developers. If you are a content developer, with a single site earning say $10,000, fifty dollars represents one half of one percent of your revenue. That’s chump change gladly paid. In fact, real developers often pay much more for their domains than $50.00 because they are forward looking and know the value of getting the domain name right from the beginning.
For a domain name speculator with 500 domains under your belt that were originally bought at $5.00 for $2500.00 a year (which can be made back from the sale of 1 prime or 10 mediocre domains), your cost per year suddenly becomes $25,000 a year which makes your portfolio unworkable unless you have some really prime domains. The result is that domain name speculators dump large portions of their portfolio.
With domain name speculators suddenly dumping portfolios, the market becomes flooded with domain names. Options abound for content developers. This further degrades the value of remaining portfolios of domain speculators because with so many substitutes on the market, they are getting less hits on their portfolios especially from content developers just testing the water on a concept.
Hobbyists and upstarts will be affected adversely, because while I think $50.00 is chump change, I know from anecdotal experience, this cost is high enough that it will keep them out of the market. However, there are free subdomain services out there (Once upon a time I had a homestead domain). And since hobbyists are not worried about image so much they would (and do!) go that route all the time.
Anyways, that’s just a thought.
Yeah and it's not fair that people by land and don't build anything on it. That is what you just said. A domain is just real estate.
Land is heavily taxed which prevents over speculation. The higher the tax, the more it costs not to use it and just store it. Remember, I'm just being Devil's Advocate here. Domain speculation hasn't affected me overly much.
Domain squatting just isn't right
Domain "tasting" I can do without and there's a solution for the practice: Just collect a little fee for a little taste.
Otherwise, this issue was pretty fully vetted in 1999 and the arguments haven't changed much since then.
I wish I had more time, but I don't, so I own quite a few domain names that will only be developed as time allows. I, like many, took the real estate view of domains when I acquired many of them: acquire the parcel and then throw up a building either when the traffic increased or when time and cash flow allowed. Is that squatting or is that simply wise planning? I prefer to think of it as wise planning and I think time has proven me right, as 1) I'm certain that the same domains would not be available to me now for open registration, and 2) the domains would cost me quite a bit more in the aftermarket or to otherwise pry them from someone else holding them for development.
Yeah and it's not fair that people by land and don't build anything on it. That is what you just said. A domain is just real estate.
I'm afraid I can't agree with that - a domain registration is a payment to place an entry in the register of domain names to facilitate easy access to your website. The fees charged are meant to reflect the costs of maintaining the database. Domains are not bought, they are registered. If the registrant isn't using the register entry then there's no reason why they should be allowed to keep it, year after year.
creepychris - I do like your suggestion about raising the prices. I'd be happy to pay $100 a year for a .com domain. The extra income could go to good-causes such as providing internet access for poor remote communities and fighting child porn.
Let those who find that is too expensive find a cheaper TLD. The .ac domain has been kept in good condition by charging 60 pounds (around $100) and I've bought them quite happily for sites which have needed them.
Perhaps the easiest thing to do would be to cap the price of a domain at the price of a domain registration and have a fixed penalty equal to twice the profit. i.e. I buy nicename.com from you for $400 when the registration cost is only $8, I can immediately file a claim against you for ($800-$8 x 2=) $784 plus costs. It would be worth me buying it just to get the compensation! Penalty for failing to pay can include deregistration of all the seller's other domains as well as standard debt recovery.
I have two alternatives to simply raising prices:
1) limit the number of domains an entity (i.e. a person or company) can register to say ten per TLD (i.e. ten .com ten .org etc.).
2) increase the prices as an entity registers more domains: i.e. first fice .coms at $10, next five at $20 etc.
It would be possible to get around either restriction by registering holding companies but that will itself impose extra costs (registration, audit, filing fees, admin expenses..).
Of course the problems are:
1) ICANN already has a binding contract with Verisgn over dot com resistrations.
2) Both speculators and registrars make lots of money out of the existing system and will oppose change. The registrars have a lot of clout.
You may only want email.
What isn't legitimate is holding it just to sell it.
But how do you know if someone is holding to sell it, holding it for future development, or was holding it for future development but now decides to unload it? I also subscribe to the Domain as Real Estate point of view and see nothing wrong with selling domain names for profits.
But OTOH, if hording of domain names results in social ills, I think it is best corrected with the 'domain tax' (though I hesitate to use the word tax since clearly no national government would be able to collect it).
And once this happens, it might not be as easy to "undo" it.
So be careful what you wish for. You might just regret it, especially if someone uses that against you.
And once this happens, it might not be as easy to "undo" it.
There is much wisdom in that statement. With any proposed regulation, you never know what you are getting until you enact it, and then its too late when you find out it wasn't what you wished for. That is in itself a strong argument for the status quo. Better the devil you know . . .
I would hate to have anything left open to someone else's interpretation. And that is why I'm opposed to any usage restriction, but am willing to entertain an increase in base fee for domain names. Because at least that is black and white: You just pay more money.
Would it be reasonable to ask a domain name applicant to write a paragraph explaining what the domain name will be used for and enter a schedule for development? The domain name could then be granted on condition of adherence to the development schedule or rejected with a requirement of a) a more beneficial use or b) a tighter schedule.
Consider this. Every day, people buy raw land for investment purposes. If these investors don't put a building on their property within, say, 6 months, should a government have the right to steal it back?
When I buy equities in the stock market, should a government be able to force me to hand it over to them of I don't go to work at the business I bought into? Should I be required to get a job there?
If a man buys a classic 1965 Corvette and parks it in his garage, should he be made to give it to a government if he doesn't drive it at least 100 miles in a calendar year?
Excessive regulation and strong-arming <is bad>. Inviting this sort of control over something so freedom-oriented as the Internet is antithetical. It frightens me to know there are people who would destroy the inherent beauty of the Internet as a world-wide web.
[edited by: Webwork at 11:04 pm (utc) on May 29, 2006]
[edit reason] Lightly, please, on the global politics [/edit]
the Internet is antithetical.
Wow! Even I had to check that adjective!
I agree completely with DNportfolio, in fact, I have done and still am doing the things he gives as examples.
free enterprise...concept behind the Internet
Domain names are not purchased, you pay a fee for a database entry relating to the name you intend to use. Domain names have no intrinsic value, the value of a squatted domain is based only on the fact that you are stopping someone else from registering the domain by keeping it registered under your name. I don't know about other forum readers but to me - the concept of having something just so other people can't have it - is somewhat selfish.
buy raw land for investment purposes... don't put a building on their property within.. a government have the right to steal it back?
If the government asked you 'tell me if you need some land to build your business and we'll let you have some' - you applied - and never did anything with the land - then it would be absolutely fair for the government to take it back and give it to someone who will do something with it.
When I buy equities in the stock market, should a government be able to force me to hand it over to them of I don't go to work at the business I bought into? Should I be required to get a job there?
You've again picked 'government' here. It would be more appropriate to say 'the business'. It is reasonable for a business to issue shares on the basis that all shareholders must contribute to the promotion of the business in some way. Many businesses are constructed in that exact way - as a partnership between shareholders with a requirement for work in order to justify continued shareholding.
I like the idea of making it more expensive - not because it's the 'right' or 'proper' solution - but because it seems the most easily workable solution. A squatter with 1000 domains now paying about $7000 a year could be hit with a bill of $100,000 a year and decide to drop all but the most valuable names.
Presently there are around $50 million .com domains, if three quarters of those are dropped due to price increases, and a third of those are re-registered by new owners, then that leaves 25 million .com domains. $100 per registration that's $2500m. Previous total spent on domains was 50m x $7 = $350m and we can't leave Verisign or ICANN out of pocket, so that leaves $2.15 thousand million (or $2.15 billion in U.S.) a year - enough to make a real positive difference worldwide.
Just think of the 'in-keeping' good which could be done with the extra revenue: Paying domain name registration fees for charities and needy causes; Providing internet based education and computing to poor or remote communities; Funding anti-spam measures; Research into ways of reducing online fraud; Investigation of child-pornography; Development and promotion of free software to avoid the huge burden of licensing for education and government sectors; Providing webhosting and webdevelopment for charities worldwide, etc. etc. etc. The '.com' foundation would easily be a major player on the worldwide stage that every domain registrant could be proud to contribute towards.
Side Note
Domains only have value as long as the major internet providers keep using the root servers. AOL could close their system tomorrow and charge large amounts for people to buy their domains from them. If I was the IT guy at a large company I could append my affiliate ID to all traffic to ebay or amazon or I could send all non work related traffic to my webpage.
At some point nobody owned the land. Somebody just got off a boat and said this is my land.
Yes, tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of years ago! Most land has at some point since then been seized and redistributed.
Consider the history of Britain: after each war between competing rules the losers land would have been seized to reward the winners followers. On top of that each wave on invaders (Romans, Saxons, Vikings, Normans, etc.) seized land from the previous inhabitants. Then there was the enclosure of common land - basically legal theft.
domains which are never owned by the registrant and will automatically revert to unregistered status if registration is not renewed.
Exactly. A far better analogy than investors buying existing land, is that of people claiming unowned land.
The US historically had a similar situation to this. It was handled by limiting the amount of land each household could claim, and requiring that the land was actually used for a time before permanant ownership was acquired. See [nps.gov ]
Imagine what the economic history of the US would have been like if claimants could instead have had immediate absolute ownership of as much land as they paid filing fees for!
The concept and the spirit of the internet has always been cooperation, 'playing nicely' if you want.
From Tim Berners Lee bio at w3.org:
in 1989 he invented the World Wide Web, an internet-based hypermedia initiative for global information sharing.
I don't see co-operation or playing nicely mentioned:-)
