What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
180 Comments
- zadadka, on 10/12/2007, -11/+118Capitalism at its very worst.
ICANN is dreaming if it thinks it can hold the international business world to ransom over their domain names.
If they insist on attempting to commercially (or more accurately, excessively) exploit the position of trust they have been granted, then that trust, and that position, should, and will, be removed from them.
I suspect it would take literally weeks to read out the list of plaintiffs if this went to court in what would surely be the biggest class-action of modern times.
It's also worth noting that a body such as ICANN would never be permitted such (global) power and influence in any other land, and under any other laws, than in America.
Judging by the selection criteria of the Ombudsman, it is very doubtful the office has any teeth.
http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#V - blapierre, on 10/12/2007, -3/+52I'm not sure how you think this is "capitalism at its worst". Seeing as how ICANN has absolutely no competitors you would be hard pressed to call this captitalism at all. It's more like government backed monopoly at its worst.
- david76, on 10/12/2007, -1/+38Did anyone here actually read the article? The link in the article points to proposed changes to .INFO, .BIZ and .ORG gTLDs. It lifts price controls on these gTLDs. The price controls were already lifted on .NET and .COM in 2005. It's even amusing that the one guy who read the article and pointed this out was dugg down.
FROM ICANN:
Lifting of Price Controls on Registry Services. Following extensive consideration and discussion, each of the proposed new .BIZ, .INFO and .ORG registry agreements provide for the lifting of price controls formerly imposed on the pricing of registry services. However, in order to protect incumbent domain name registrants and allow time for planning by those in the registry and registrar communities, the form of registry-registrar agreement proposed with each of the new registry agreements requires six months advance notice by the registry operator of any price increase in registry services. This is consistent with the notice period required under the registry-registrar agreement implemented with the 2005 .NET registry agreement, and the registry-registrar agreement included with the proposed new .COM registry agreement. - wisedude, on 10/12/2007, -4/+40This is horrible, they'd be cashing in on OUR creativity. WTF?
- BennyBoy, on 10/12/2007, -9/+39it's good to see that you have absolutely know idea what it is like to be a small start-up business competing with giant corporations...
- NeutrinoQ, on 10/12/2007, -10/+39"It's also worth noting that a body such as ICANN would never be permitted such (global) power and influence in any other land, and under any other laws, than in America."
Are you kidding me?
Look around you, the world is generally controlled by organizations and corporations. OPEC, the BBC, Microsoft, Toyota, Siemens, Dupont, Verizon, T-Mobile, General Electric........ the list is very long. - Lowry, on 10/12/2007, -1/+29Seriously, the creators of the sites are the ones who make the domain worth a monetary asset.
They are the ones who can turn a worthless name into a brand empire. Companies with power and control like this should know better.
I hope their excuse for this is not "a solution to domain squatters". Their are plenty of other ways to keep track of who is using a site strictly for adsense or not using a site at all. - megaloid, on 10/12/2007, -4/+31>>Capitalism at its very worst.
AKA, "feudalism." - thejokell, on 10/12/2007, -1/+25Except you don't have to re-purchase your property every year.
- westwind429, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17Not just small start-ups, but what about nonprofits and other organizations, or personal sites?
- Mardala, on 10/12/2007, -3/+18Think so? What's $1000 when the big time spammers make millions.
- Minos, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14One possibility : If this passes, search engines will be a god send. Everyone will work off of their IP address and search engines will help guide people to main pages. Directory services and bookmarks will run the web.
- david76, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15@bokista
Did you even read information on ICANN's site? This is about eliminating price controls on .INFO, .BIZ and .ORG domains. These controls were eliminated on .COM and .NET domains in 2005. There was no huge price spike after the controls were lifted in 2005, so basically Ken McCarthy's an alarmist. - cwalk, on 10/12/2007, -6/+19Time to buy up some domains...
I hate cyber squatting, but I think this will only encourage it in the short term. - Brasscheck, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14I think some people might be missing what's at stake here.
This means someone can invest years in building up a legitimate business on a particular domain and then wake up one day to an astronomical bill for domain name nenewal.
Spammers won't be bothered at all by this. They regisiter crap names to throw away.
It's the people with real businesses who provide real services to real people that will be hurt.
Take digg.com for example.
They've created enormous value around this domain name through their ingenuity and the service they offer. Is it fair for a government-granted monopolist bureaucrat to declare that digg.com has to pay the "market value" for what THEY created for renew their name and stay in business?
This is an asset grab by a bunch of government protected crooks - and we'll all be the one's paying the bill for this in the form of a diminished Internet. - atlantisceo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12I hate domain squatters as much as the next guy, but this is not the appropriate solution. As was stated previously, small business could be severely hurt by this action.
- radu79, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12That article is kind of alarmistic, no where in the ICANN proposal they talk about such large sums of money, but small additional increases of under 1 USD.. If someone has more info about the 1K-10K prices, please post a link to the source.
- apocalizer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11"If I've registered a domain for a year, I won't have to pay $1,000 to keep it registered another year will I?"
Oh *****, that's exactly what it says... if my site is worth that much, and that depends on what price THEY think it is... - eclectro, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9spamers will just drop the old ones and keep on registering stupid domains like viagraforsalenowstupidABCD5678.com
- oddmanout, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12i disagree, i do alot of sites for non-profit organizations... alot of which are freebie sites. Its going to totally kill the opportunity for that. Also alot of start-ups... its going to be extremely difficult to start a website if a company has to pay $1000 up front just for the domain name... and again every year after that.
alot of organizations work with no budget as well. Open source projects, intrest groups, bands, and individuals will not have the means to buy a domain.
What has made the internet so successfull is the open forum for Joe Public to be put on the same level as a multi-billion dollar corporation such as walmart. (meaning each has the same opportunity to make a page and get hits) - cwalk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10While I agree with you that I probably wouldn't be able to afford to renew my squatted domain, my main point was that cyber squatters will probably try to avoid having to renew in the first place by buying extensions now. Although I am not a cyber squatter, I would imagine this is how they currently work:
1) Buy a domain for 1 year at $10
2) Seek buyers
3) If no buyers found, consider domain renewal for another year at $10
I am proposing that cyber squatters will probably adopt this new strategy:
1) Buy a domain for 10 years now at $10 x 10 = $100
2) Seek buyers
Once you pay for a 10 year subscription, ICANN can't ask for more money, you have already paid for the service. Therefore I believe this will lead to longer periods of cyber squatting. - Motocompo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10How will they know how much my domain is worth? Would it just be based on traffic flow?
- atlantisceo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Completely agree - the content is what dictates the domain's worth.
For example - 15 years ago I would have thought google.com would be a dumb domain name. Today it is worth more than most. - AhmedF, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8@david76 - evidently you did *not* read it.
This contract allows .org/.biz./info registry (not a registrar) raise prices as much as they want. And you would be absolutely powerless to stop them.
To give a real example:
You own slashdot.org. On its own, the domain was worthless. But after years of work, the domain itself is worth a lot. The .org registrar, realizing how important the domain is, says that you must pay $10,000.
It does *not* matter if you have a TM on it or not. At the most, a TM will mean no one else can buy it. But if they want, they can (and oooh .... you better believe they will) charge you as much as they can get away with. - NeutrinoQ, on 10/12/2007, -7/+14"It's also worth noting that a body such as ICANN would never be permitted such (global) power and influence in any other land, and under any other laws, than in America."
Are you kidding me?
Look around you, the world is generally controlled by organizations and corporations. OPEC, the BBC, Microsoft, Toyota, Siemens, Exxon, Dupont, Verizon, General Electric, WALMART........ All of these companies and organizations are international groups that are controlled not by the countries that they are in, but by a small governing entity (e.g. board) or CEO. Some of them may have originated in the United States, but other countries laws also allow them to exist. Just because an entity has influence elsewhere in the world does not automatically mean that the company or organization needs a "UN" like entity to run it.
Its also worth noting that America created the internet, and has done a pretty damn fine job of running it. Until they prove otherwise, I don't see your point. At all. Not even a little bit. - Bokista, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11@david76
Simple. Because many of us can't afford that much. Server space costs enough as is. I don't need a quadrupled domain name bill on top of that. - mkrygeri, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7nobody is stopping you all from starting your own DNS system, are they?
- Sirocco, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8This is inaccurate. ICANN is revision their provisions for various .extensions to allow for variable pricing. Sticking $1000 or $10,000 is implied by the blog owner.
- sbougerolle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Actually, yes, you can go ahead and set up your own registry.
DNS is a service that runs on top of the basic TCP/IP protocols. Although we do make heavy use of it, it isn't strictly necessary and if the DNS powers decided to start charging ridiculous amounts to register with it there is always the possibility of a split, with different/segmented networks of name servers appearing.
There's also the more interesting possibility of somebody starting a different name-address connection service entirely.
All this is probably why the DNS powers don't see variable pricing as a big problem - they expect that registries would not be stupid or greedy enough to set themselves up for this kind of disaster, and they are probably right. The more likely thing is that prices will go up just to the point where people gripe but can't be bothered to leave - dozens of dollars per year rather than 10-20. - NetJoe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6the domain squatters most often exploit the fact you can return your domain within a few days and receive a full refund. making the 25 cent portion of the fee non-refundable would go a long way toward reducing domain squatters. While I don't much like the idea of variable pricing, there is the potential issue of domain system fragmentation if registrar fees become excessive.
There isn't any technical reason keeping someone from starting up another set of root servers and making their own rules. There are at least one or two now, but they stay in sync with the ICANN controlled servers and are more useful because of it.
If conditions were to shift due to say gross overcharging they could very easily split off . It's been done in the past , but the networks were so much less useful they died.
more details at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_DNS_root
In other words this may not be such a big deal, unless they're really, really stupid. - david76, on 10/12/2007, -10/+15@Bennyboy
I'm in the process of starting a business and see no problem with increasing the cost of domain names. I'm tired of domain squatters sitting on names for no reason. Any other part of registering a business costs money, DBAs, incorporation, etc all cost money. By comparison, domain name registration is a trivial cost. If it's so valuable, then why shouldn't a more reasonable fee be charged? Thousands is extreme, but I don't see any problem with charging a couple of hundred. - afex2win, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5if you had read the article, you'd see the analgy made towards owning a home. you dont have to pay for your house again, but if you don't pay taxes they will seize your property.
- Higgins, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Oh and headline is misleading. There is no price increase, there is no mention of $1,000 or $10,000, only a renewel of the renewel fee cap.
"Following extensive consideration and discussion, each of the proposed new .BIZ, .INFO and .ORG registry agreements provide for the lifting of price controls formerly imposed on the pricing of registry services."
And no one read the proposal carefully enough to notice this:
"However, in order to protect incumbent domain name registrants and allow time for planning by those in the registry and registrar communities, the form of registry-registrar agreement proposed with each of the new registry agreements requires six months advance notice by the registry operator of any price increase in registry services."
So plenty of time to shop around, plenty of time for competitors to lure you away with better pricing.
So you Doom Monkeys should calm down and stop shaking your Angry Banana of Injustice at the market system. - benr75, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6That is ok, everyone can just hand out their ip address when domains become unaffordable. ;)
- Mejogid, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5All a domain name does is redirect queries to that name to an IP - it's not the same as owning a store front, it's the same as posting a small ad in a paper.
- nsh1988, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4The solution to this problem is not to keep price caps on domain name prices, but to end the government-enforced monopoly. For example, if there were a government-enforced monopoly in home builders, such that only one company was allowed to build houses in the US, we would all be at the mercy of that one company, and would beg for the government to impose price controls. The solution would not be price restrictions on that company, but free competition. The government must GET OUT OF THE WAY and stop supporting monopolies. Without government support, any coercive monopoly would be cut down.
- JCinDE, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4By the way, I believe the pertinent heading on the ICANN website is "Lifting of Price Controls on Registry Services." not "Fees Payable to ICANN."
- Brasscheck, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"I'm in the process of starting a business and see no problem with increasing the cost of domain names."
With all due respect, when you are done with the process of building your business, you are not going to like it if when you go to renew our name, you're given a bill that reflects the "market value" you added to that name through your sweat and blood.
A domain name with that has good quantities of qualified traffic flowing to it can easily be worth $10,000 and up. Do you really want to be hit with a bill like that for your efforts? - JCinDE, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Dugg, but the title should read "ICANN proposes ALLOWING massive increase in domain name prices" for accuracy.
- Geekkake, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5The article is incorrect in this regard. ICANN regulations apply to all - or almost all - domain name extensions (TLDs). ICANN currently charges domains registrars an additional $0.25 fee for all .COM and .NET domains. Obviously, they couldn't levy this fee if they didn't control the TLD.
While I don't support market intervention and coercion (i.e. price caps on domains), I don't see this as a huge deal. I think the immediate cries of "HOMG I WILL PAY THOUSANDS" are even remotely feasible. What we're looking at, here, is $1-2 dollars per domain in all likelihood. The "what the market will bear" comment appears more along the lines of registries slightly increasing the price of their TLD across the board, rather than singling out any particular domains for exorbitant increases.
Consider: VeriSign makes around, from what I understand, $4-5 for a .COM or .NET domain name, from the registrar, who, in turn, sells that domain to the consumer for whatever it is they sell for. Increasing the price of a .COM domain name registration or renewal by one dollar will increase future registration and renewal revenue by a significant amount, which costing the end consumer minimally.
This is, of course, ignoring all forms of the fallacious "slippery slope", "HOMG WHERE WILL IT END?!" type of arguments. - GalacticCmdr, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4That is funny because I do not remember anyone coming buy and telling me I had to re-purchase my home every year. Sure, my taxes go up - but that is quite different since I can put a very successful business is a very poor neighborhood to lower my taxes. Unlike this money grab where my success will follow me and keep on raising my rates.
- adougherty, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Overpriced to whom? The company that owns the domain now, or the company that would like to buy the domain?
Imagine for example if the price of mysql.com went up to $10,000 per year. It would be relatively hard to afford it, however I bet Oracle could afford it, and would be willing to pick up the tab, to redirect uses to their "fine product."
Pricing at what the market can bear, only means the big companies can snatch domain names from smaller competitors, or worse yet, from the average person. - caliform, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4At least, people, read the article and make the effort. Mailing in makes a difference, it really does.
- Brasscheck, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Yes they can aways change domains, but as a business owner I can tell you, it's possible to invest hundreds of thousands of dollars in time, effort, ingenuity and money over the years in building traffic to a web site.
Take digg.com.
How on earth can they change their domain name at this point without losing a truckload of business?
I think it'd hard to envision why this proposal is so bad unless you've worked 15 hours a day, seven days a week for years to build up a legitimate Internet-based business.
Like it or not, domains are the ground we build on. That's why letting the price of domain names "float" based on the market value of a particular name is unjust to the extreme. - MrPhelps, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Except you can't own your domain names. You're only leasing them from the registrars.
- Ikioi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Well, spammer domains have no market value. Instead, the only thing that would hurt them is to reverse this, and charge more for the very first registration, not renewals. Spammers don't even keep their domains, usually. They like setting up spam domains one day, then removing them the very next.
I say, IF ANYTHING IS CHANGED (which I really don't want to see) charge $1,000 for every domain (hear me out, hehe, I buy many domains too). If the domain is active for 180 days and has no legitimate reports of spam to an independant and industry recognized third party, the money is refunded, minus normal domain fees. That's if you want to hurt spam. The problem is that it hurts all of us still. This hurts small groups who can't even afford $1000 on the guarantee it will return.
Also, I've been a member of groups who's domains were estimated to be worth about $50,000 on the open market, because of that groups strong vocal work. But, they had no money. They could never pay $50,000 a year to keep their domain. A namebrand they built up.
So they're going to be stealing domains from non-profit groups who work hard now?
If ICANN passes this, then I will completely reverse my position ever defending them over handing domains to an international body. This is nearly as bad as the Verisign psuedomonopoly.
If you like fairness in the domain business, go read the blog and listen to the audio cast of Bob Parson's, CEO and founder of Go Daddy, over at http://www.bobparsons.com/ The guy has a lot of grit and truth in most of what he says. He's one of the industry's leading critics. - westwind429, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4No, VeriSign does. But you can bet that if this goes through they'll follow suit.
- adougherty, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Spammers don't care much about quality domain names. They'll be just as happy with a low value domain name such as dflmnf93sm.com or IP address with no associated domain name.
This won't do a thing to stop spammers. If anything, it could help curb domain squatting, but even then, it's a really lame attempt at it, as content dictates value, and so the registrar would be profiting off of my ideas. google.com with redirection to porn may be worth $200 a year, while google.com, the largest and most popular search engine may be worth $100,000 per year.
For the most part, this just hurts everyone except for big business. Fan sites, personal sites, non-profits, and open-source project sites will all lose when their popular domain names become to expensive to maintain.
I can see it now: mysql.com suddenly has a redirection to Oracle. - blapierre, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@starmanjones
I don't know what you're smoking but free market is exactly what capitalism is. Capitalism is when there are no external restrictions on mutually voluntary transactions. Which is exactly what a free market is. -
Show 51 - 100 of 181 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is